HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[MXD]

that's not the point of my post,

But that was exactly what you said.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But that was exactly what you said.

except that it isn't that's why you used the phrase "in other words" to suggest that I was saying it when I wasn't.

it's pretty clear that his 1.00 GPG is a complete outlier and that his 0.70 GPG was a war year outlier as well.

His 0.75 GPG came in a year when league per team was scrogging up still quite a bit at 190 goals per team (in the new 60 game schedule) but that average would be considerably less as the decade wore on.

Let me be clear on this the original post I was referring back to said this

When it really mattered Richard exceeded all expectations year in year out post season (and regular).

the truth of the matter is that the rocket wasn't as consistent in the regular season as that post (and many think of him as ) indicated.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

except that it isn't that's why you used the phrase "in other words" to suggest that I was saying it when I wasn't.

it's pretty clear that his 1.00 GPG is a complete outlier and that his 0.70 GPG was a war year outlier as well.

His 0.75 GPG came in a year when league per team was scrogging up still quite a bit at 190 goals per team (in the new 60 game schedule) but that average would be considerably less as the decade wore on.

Let me be clear on this the original post I was referring back to said this



the truth of the matter is that the rocket wasn't as consistent in the regular season as that post (and many think of him as ) indicated.

So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?

 

[MXD]

So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?

Nah, because, you know, that player scored 45 goals en route to a goalscoring lead, as opposed to 31.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?

14 consecutive. 2nd Team AS his rookie season, then 13 straight years when the only one who beat him was Gordie Howe

 

[Kyle McMahon]

my guess is that there is too much defining of Richard in simplistic terms ie the 50 in 50 and not looking at his resume as a whole (which is still really awesome BTW)

This is probably the case in amongst the general hockey fan population, but on this board most people are well aware of the context that his 50 in 50 season took place in and consider its merits accordingly. In fact, many people that helped create that list don't even consider it to be Richard's best season.

Nice round numbers have always fascinated people, which is why the 50 in 50 is so revered. If he only scored 49 that season would it have really been a worse season? No, but I strongly doubt it would have attained the legendary status that it did.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?

Sure he was consistency a post season all star but that says as much about the league, 6 teams, as it does about his being great.

There is no doubt that it is going to be harder and have more possibility for variance in a 30 team league than a 6 year one.

For example missing 7 GP in a 60 game season is like missing 10 games in an 82 game season. It's far more likely that a guy in a 30 team league might miss out on an all star spot missing 10 games than a guy missing 7 of 60 in a 6 team league.

Heck Richard played in 48 of 70 games and got the 2nd team nod in 52, that just wouldn't happen in a 30 team league would it?

We have other examples like Ken Reardon playing in 72,87,97 and 76% of his teams games and getting 4 straight post season all star berths right?

97% one can see that he actually had an impact on his team but those other 3 years really?

If the 06 era was really that good and that competitive one would think that missing that much time would affect a players ability to get that all star berth right?

Maybe something about the 06 era being that great and that competitive really doesn't wash? It sure looks like it sometimes.

Don't forget I have him as a solid guy in my top 5 mix, anywhere from 3rd to 10th can be made when one factors in everything, but the post about consistency came with a sentence right afterwards taking about statistics.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Nah, because, you know, that player scored 45 goals en route to a goalscoring lead, as opposed to 31.

Still riding that dead horse eh?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sure he was consistency a post season all star but that says as much about the league, 6 teams, as it does about his being great.

There is no doubt that it is going to be harder and have more possibility for variance in a 30 team league than a 6 year one.

For example missing 7 GP in a 60 game season is like missing 10 games in an 82 game season. It's far more likely that a guy in a 30 team league might miss out on an all star spot missing 10 games than a guy missing 7 of 60 in a 6 team league.

Heck Richard played in 48 of 70 games and got the 2nd team nod in 52, that just wouldn't happen in a 30 team league would it?

We have other examples like Ken Reardon playing in 72,87,97 and 76% of his teams games and getting 4 straight post season all star berths right?

97% one can see that he actually had an impact on his team but those other 3 years really?

If the 06 era was really that good and that competitive one would think that missing that much time would affect a players ability to get that all star berth right?

Maybe something about the 06 era being that great and that competitive really doesn't wash? It sure looks like it sometimes.

Don't forget I have him as a solid guy in my top 5 mix, anywhere from 3rd to 10th can be made when one factors in everything, but the post about consistency came with a sentence right afterwards taking about statistics.

Bernie Geoffrion, Andy Bathgate. Two of the guys who couldn't beat out Richard for the AS spot, not even once

 

[MXD]

Still riding that dead horse eh?

Looking at the replies, I'm certainly not the one doing so.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

If you look at the Soviet stats from the Summit Series you will see that Alexander Yakushev led the Soviets in scoring followed by Vladimir Shadrin. Kharlamov made an instant impression in Canada in game one but then slowly came down to earth whereas Yakushev's performance grew as the series progressed.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/sovietroster.html

Also Valeri Kharlamov was the most penalized Soviet player. He gave as good as he got BUT the apologists who want to paint Bobby Clarke as a villain tend to overlook such behavior.

Aleksandr Yakushev is one of the most under-appreciated great players of all-time. He grew stronger as the series went along, as you mentioned. As the intensity ratcheted up, some great players - like Maltsev - went away. Others, like Kharlamov, slowly came down from outer orbit. But Yakushev got stronger and stronger. Clarke whacked the wrong guy's ankle (it's a joke, people).

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

This top-70 list causes me great pain.

I loathe Wayne Gretzky (he reminds me of a used car salesman who's only Canadian when he's trying to shill another product to Canadian consumers), but it's hard for me to put Orr ahead of him. I want to, I really want to, but I can't.

Gretzky was smarter, more creative, and had better hands. He was more dominant - even if his dominance was less obvious to the eye.

Maybe, had he been able to play 20 years on healthy knees, Orr would edge the top spot. He might well have won a couple more scoring titles on healthy knees. It's not inconceivable that he could have won a dozen Norris trophies if healthy (possibly more, at least until such time as voters grew sick of voting for him). But we have to judge athletes on what they accomplished, not on what they might have accomplished.

I must shed a tear and give the top spot to the fellow who used to dive even more shamelessly than Bill Barber.

On another note, Jagr, Sergei Makarov, and Viacheslav Fetisov are all way under-rated in my opinion on this list. Fetisov was the best defenseman in the world for most of the 1980s. At his best, he was better than both Bourque and Coffey and a post-1979 version of Potvin. And Makarov was the best forward (by far) on the best international side in the game for most of the same decade. From 1981 to 1987, only Gretzky was demonstrably better amongst forwards on the planet (and not by as big a margin as you may think).

Finally, I think Bourque is overrated and I'm glad to see Bobby Hull get some love.

 

[VMBM]

Aleksandr Yakushev is one of the most under-appreciated great players of all-time. He grew stronger as the series went along, as you mentioned. As the intensity ratcheted up, some great players - like Maltsev - went away. Others, like Kharlamov, slowly came down from outer orbit. But Yakushev got stronger and stronger. Clarke whacked the wrong guy's ankle (it's a joke, people).

So I guess Paul Henderson was better than Frank Mahovlich, Ratelle, Gilbert, Cournoyer etc., since he was better in that Series than them, eh? The analogy is not perfect (as Yakushev has very good merits outside the Summit Series too) but you get my drift; why should an 8-game series decide, whether a player is great or not? In many ways, IMO Yakushev is actually overrated, due to the 1972 Summit.

I don't remember Maltsev being much worse in Moscow than in Canada. I think Boris Mikhailov was the one Soviet forward whose play clearly deteriorated in the last 3 games or so. He still got many scoring chances, but he just couldn't light the lamp, even though he was arguably the best Soviet goal-scorer of the 1970s.

And are you seriously suggesting Clarke whacked Kharlamov's ankle just because he embarrassed them in the first game or something? Obviously Kharlamov was still causing the Canadians much headache even after game 1. How can you be sure that he wouldn't have been one of the best, if he had been healthy in the last 3 games?

BTW, it's the whole Yakushev-Shadrin-Anisin line (Lyapkin & Lutchenko on defense) that played great in Moscow. I think they scored 9 goals in the last 4 games, and let in only 1 goal. Shadrin is my 'unsung hero' of the Series (for USSR).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that Europeans in general (and in particular Jagr, Fetisov, and Makarov) were underrated by this board when we made this list. Fetisov's position was corrected on the defenseman list, and I imagine Jagr and Makarov will do much better on the wingers list if we make one

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

So I guess Paul Henderson was better than Frank Mahovlich, Ratelle, Gilbert, Cournoyer etc., since he was better in that Series than them, eh? The analogy is not perfect (as Yakushev has very good merits outside the Summit Series too) but you get my drift; why should an 8-game series decide, whether a player is great or not? In many ways, IMO Yakushev is actually overrated, due to the 1972 Summit.

I don't remember Maltsev being much worse in Moscow than in Canada. I think Boris Mikhailov was the one Soviet forward whose play clearly deteriorated in the last 3 games or so. He still got many scoring chances, but he just couldn't light the lamp, even though he was arguably the best Soviet goal-scorer of the 1970s.

And are you seriously suggesting Clarke whacked Kharlamov's ankle just because he embarrassed them in the first game or something? Obviously Kharlamov was still causing the Canadians much headache even after game 1. How can you be sure that he wouldn't have been one of the best, if he had been healthy in the last 3 games?

BTW, it's the whole Yakushev-Shadrin-Anisin line (Lyapkin & Lutchenko on defense) that played great in Moscow. I think they scored 9 goals in the last 4 games, and let in only 1 goal. Shadrin is my 'unsung hero' of the Series (for USSR).

I'll simply say that Kharlamov is grotesquely over-rated, historically. He had a brief, rather brilliant, prime. But that was it. No eye-popping numbers. No breathtaking dominance relative to his peers. Before you say that sort of dominance wasn't possible in the Soviet game, consider Makarov and his 9 domestic league scoring titles. Consider his numerous scoring titles at the IIHF Worlds. Makarov was far more dominant internationally and domestically. An a-hole human being, from what I've read, but one of the 10 greatest forwards ever to play the game (and he's well inside my top 10). It still baffles me that people can honestly rank Kharlamov in the same league as Makarov. For that matter, Petrov's resume is vastly more impressive, too. Petrov is another guy who tends to be overlooked by a lot of people.

I guess European posters go in for flash over substance.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I agree that Europeans in general (and in particular Jagr, Fetisov, and Makarov) were underrated by this board when we made this list. Fetisov's position was corrected on the defenseman list, and I imagine Jagr and Makarov will do much better on the wingers list if we make one

there was probably an over correction placing fetisov as high as the project did since his NHL career was mediocre to good (even for his age) while many others aged much better.

Quite simply he would have needed a Potvin type of prime to warrant his high placing (which I don't think he really had in Russia).

It seems like Makarov won't get that type of push in the Wingers project which is weird since his NHL record was better than Fetisov's (in some ways).

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'll simply say that Kharlamov is grotesquely over-rated, historically. He had a brief, rather brilliant, prime. But that was it. No eye-popping numbers. No breathtaking dominance relative to his peers. Before you say that sort of dominance wasn't possible in the Soviet game, consider Makarov and his 9 domestic league scoring titles. Consider his numerous scoring titles at the IIHF Worlds. Makarov was far more dominant internationally and domestically. An a-hole human being, from what I've read, but one of the 10 greatest forwards ever to play the game (and he's well inside my top 10). It still baffles me that people can honestly rank Kharlamov in the same league as Makarov. For that matter, Petrov's resume is vastly more impressive, too. Petrov is another guy who tends to be overlooked by a lot of people.

I guess European posters go in for flash over substance.

Kharlamov and his legendary status is somewhat like Richard's (the status not the career, Richard obviously was better) in that their is some nationalism and God like reverence given to both players to make them out better than they actually were.

It's a human thing, some guys just spark an imagination, and the media perpetuates it and it becomes part of the culture around both players.

Other guys do statically extremely well and seem to be just there (in the collective eyes of fans, media ect...)

 

[unknown33]

there was probably an over correction placing fetisov as high as the project did since his NHL career was mediocre to good (even for his age) while many others aged much better.

You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).

It seems like Makarov won't get that type of push in the Wingers project which is weird since his NHL record was better than Fetisov's (in some ways).

It seems to me you're wrong if you believe Makarov will finish 14th among wingers again.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wingers

^^^ Totally speculative. If the project is RW distinct from LW then the results will be different if wingers combined.

 

[MXD]

Makarov will certainly do better than 14th.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This top-70 list causes me great pain.

I loathe Wayne Gretzky (he reminds me of a used car salesman who's only Canadian when he's trying to shill another product to Canadian consumers), but it's hard for me to put Orr ahead of him. I want to, I really want to, but I can't.

Gretzky was smarter, more creative, and had better hands. He was more dominant - even if his dominance was less obvious to the eye.

Maybe, had he been able to play 20 years on healthy knees, Orr would edge the top spot. He might well have won a couple more scoring titles on healthy knees. It's not inconceivable that he could have won a dozen Norris trophies if healthy (possibly more, at least until such time as voters grew sick of voting for him). But we have to judge athletes on what they accomplished, not on what they might have accomplished.

I must shed a tear and give the top spot to the fellow who used to dive even more shamelessly than Bill Barber.

On another note, Jagr, Sergei Makarov, and Viacheslav Fetisov are all way under-rated in my opinion on this list. Fetisov was the best defenseman in the world for most of the 1980s. At his best, he was better than both Bourque and Coffey and a post-1979 version of Potvin. And Makarov was the best forward (by far) on the best international side in the game for most of the same decade. From 1981 to 1987, only Gretzky was demonstrably better amongst forwards on the planet (and not by as big a margin as you may think).

Finally, I think Bourque is overrated and I'm glad to see Bobby Hull get some love.

Wasn't Fetisov ranked ahead of Coffey here?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).

True. But it wasn't like it was a close call in the defenseman project - Fetisov finished decisively over Larry Robinson.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).

I didn't participate in the 9th place finish one but rather the last top 60 Dman project.

not sure what the 9th place reference is in reguards to h but here is my point.

8th all time is really dam high, we have his sample aged 31-39 in the NHL and it's what maybe 50th (tops and probably much lower) all time for Dmen after age 31?

He is 32nd in points for Dmen aged 31 and over for the rest of their careers but many Dmen probably have better after 31 careers.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

The thing is that if he is 8th overall then he would need to be really incredible (like top 3 to top 5 for a period of over 10 years and some Norris type seasons too).

And it would need to be definite for those 10 seasons, like beating Potvin, Bourque, Robinson, Langway out of a Norris somewhere.

I just don't see his peak that high and I used to think he was in the top 5 post expansion (1967) but that is over rating his Russian time then IMO.

It seems to me you're wrong if you believe Makarov will finish 14th among wingers again.

I think Makarov was the strongest player from that 5 man unit and had a better NHL career as well, 14th should be his floor one would think?

Maybe Makarov is a top 10ish guy to most people, IMO it's Fetisov that is ranked too high.

 

[VMBM]

I'll simply say that Kharlamov is grotesquely over-rated, historically. He had a brief, rather brilliant, prime. But that was it. No eye-popping numbers. No breathtaking dominance relative to his peers. Before you say that sort of dominance wasn't possible in the Soviet game, consider Makarov and his 9 domestic league scoring titles. Consider his numerous scoring titles at the IIHF Worlds. Makarov was far more dominant internationally and domestically. An a-hole human being, from what I've read, but one of the 10 greatest forwards ever to play the game (and he's well inside my top 10). It still baffles me that people can honestly rank Kharlamov in the same league as Makarov. For that matter, Petrov's resume is vastly more impressive, too. Petrov is another guy who tends to be overlooked by a lot of people.

In 1972-76, IMO Kharlamov was the best Soviet player, but you're right, even that is hard to prove (statistically).

I'm certainly not overlooking Petrov; in fact, I've often tried to 'promote' him here, with less than great results. After 1976 (Kharlamov's first car accident), I do think that he was better/more important player than Kharlamov, maybe 2nd only to Mikhailov among Soviet forwards, although Balderis also had some very good seasons in the late '70s.

Petrov's domestic record is much more impressive than Kharlamov's, but I think Kharlamov was somewhat better internationally (more points in big tournaments). What also hurts Petrov is his lack of individual awards/recognition; his style of play might have had something to do with that (not flashy at all), but I guess one could also say that he just wasn't quite as good as his linemates Mikhailov and Kharlamov were at their best.

I guess European posters go in for flash over substance.

Makarov had plenty of flash himself, though. But he was never nearly as popular as Kharlamov, for some reason.

 

[crobro]

Where's Ron francis