The Best American Player of All-Time

[looooob]

While Lafontaine was a very very good to great player, Chelios is arguably a top 10 all-time defenseman.

Also Roenick and Modano are/were both significantly better than Joey Mullen. Mullen was never considered a great player, and shouldn't be in the HHoF.

Personally I think Joe Mullen is better than you give him credit for. arguably the Flames best player in the 85-89 era that produced a cup, 2 finals appearances, 2 president's trophies. he was a very good player, and not out of touch with other HOF inductions of recent years (although in my opinion there have been marginal inductions for years, not just recently)

anyways Mullen still isn't in the top 5...I agree with that.

I"d say the best in Chelios. despite the fact I despise Chris Chelios. hell of a player

 

[Paxon]

Funny that there is so much media coverage of the first Canadian to win the NBA MVP. It took until 1994 until a non-Canadian won a Conn Smythe.

Is hockey Canada's game or what?

It took until '94 for Olajuwon to win both playoff and regular season MVPs. I can't think of any non-American to win either award before that, but I'm by no means an expert on basketball history.

Is basketball America's game or what (please disregard recent Olympics)? Or maybe football is? Or baseball?



Or... maybe NASCAR?

Though I think the award should have either been split or given to Shaq, I'm glad to see Nash get it because he has been one of my favorite players and I sure like him more than Shaq (no disrespect to The Godfather Super Daddy Shaq-Fu Diesel or whatever his 10 nicknames are). Both make their other 4 guys on the court a lot better, but no one dominates a game before even moving like Shaq.

A race between Nash and Shaq couldn't really have a wrong outcome; both had MVP-calibre seasons.

 

[pld459666]

Can't disagree more

While Lafontaine was a very very good to great player, Chelios is arguably a top 10 all-time defenseman.

Also Roenick and Modano are/were both significantly better than Joey Mullen. Mullen was never considered a great player, and shouldn't be in the HHoF.

For an 8 year period beginning 86-87 through the 93-94 season Joe Mullen scored 304 goals.

that's 38 goals a year. That's pretty damn impressive

A player should show dominance for an extended period of time such as this to be considered HHOF material, scoring 304 goals in an 8 year period is showing dominance over an extended period of time.

 

[Ogopogo*]

For an 8 year period beginning 86-87 through the 93-94 season Joe Mullen scored 304 goals.

that's 38 goals a year. That's pretty damn impressive

A player should show dominance for an extended period of time such as this to be considered HHOF material, scoring 304 goals in an 8 year period is showing dominance over an extended period of time.

It might be impressive but, definitely not HOF type impressive.

In 1987 he had 47 goals. He tied for 7th in the league.
In 1988 he had 40 goals. 10th in the NHL was 48.
In 1989 he had 51 goals. Tied for 5th. Not too shabby.
In 1990 he had 36 goals. 10th in the league had 45.
In 1991 he had 17 goals. 10th in the league had 45
In 1992 he had 42 goals. He tied for 10th.
In 1993 he had 33 goals. 10th was 54 goals.
In 1994 he had 38 goals. 10th was 46 goals.

So, a 5th, a 7th, a 10th and 5 years out of the top 10 are not HOF worthy, IMO. Good player but, that is not what I would call dominance.

 

[JCD]

For an 8 year period beginning 86-87 through the 93-94 season Joe Mullen scored 304 goals.

that's 38 goals a year. That's pretty damn impressive

A player should show dominance for an extended period of time such as this to be considered HHOF material, scoring 304 goals in an 8 year period is showing dominance over an extended period of time.

I like Mullen, but you have to keep in mind that was the highest scoring run in NHL history. Taken in context, 38 goals is great, but not dominating. It is Mike Gartner production, but only 40% as long.

Mullen helps his cause by being an well-rounded player, but 308 goals over 8 years when teams are averaging over four goals per game isn't really that dominant. At no point in his career was Mullen ever mention as one of the top-10, likely top-20, forwards in the league. Put another way, during that 8-year stretch, he led his team in scoring only twice and was never considered the best player on his team.

 

[JCD]

It might be impressive but, definitely not HOF type impressive.

In 1987 he had 47 goals. He tied for 7th in the league.
In 1988 he had 40 goals. 10th in the NHL was 48.
In 1989 he had 51 goals. Tied for 5th. Not too shabby.
In 1990 he had 36 goals. 10th in the league had 45.
In 1991 he had 17 goals. 10th in the league had 45
In 1992 he had 42 goals. He tied for 10th.
In 1993 he had 33 goals. 10th was 54 goals.
In 1994 he had 38 goals. 10th was 46 goals.

So, a 5th, a 7th, a 10th and 5 years out of the top 10 are not HOF worthy, IMO. Good player but, that is not what I would call dominance.

Dig deeper and you will see that another player on his own team had as many goals or more for all but one of those seasons.

 

[looooob]

Dig deeper and you will see that another player on his own team had as many goals or more for all but one of those seasons.

I wouldn't have picked those 8 years as Mullen's best though

the 3 years before that he had over 40 goals also and led (or co-lead with HOFer *cough,cough* Bernie Federko) his team in goal scoring, there's a 7 year stretch (bookended by 2 injury seasons) where he average 43 goals a year. I know higher scoring era and all, but 7 years of 43 goals that's good production

I would argue Mullen was at minimum a top 10 forward in 88-89. First team allstar RW, led the league's best team in scoring, and was a plus 51 (I think)

again I think he's a marginal hall of famer and you can make a case either way, but he was a very effective scorer for quite a stretch there

personally I don't think it's a coincidence that his arrival in late 86-86 coincided with the Flames taking their game to a higher level (he was by far the best forward on that team) and I think he was the best player (he or MacInnis) over the 5 year period in Calgary 85-90 over which time they were one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the NHL

 

[pld459666]

I have to say that I'm also biased

Im a Hells Kitchen native and Joey's not that much older than I am 10 years I believe

I'm pulling for the hometown kid

 

[Stephen]

I don't understand why Pat Lafontaine gets so many votes. The guy was one hell of a hockey player and definitely in the top 5 in terms of best Americans of all time, but at the end of the day, he really didn't accomplish all that much, certainly no more than guys like Leetch or Chelios. Had he stayed healthy and played another five or six more years, you could probably make the argument for him, but the way his career panned out, I'm not sure that I would put him ahead of people who won (multiple) Stanley Cups, Norris Trophies, etc.

I guess he benefits from having his career cut short and we have people remember him at his peak, but in terms of accomplishments up until his retirement, I wouldn't put him too far above a guy like Doug Gilmour.

 

[JCD]

I wouldn't have picked those 8 years as Mullen's best though

the 3 years before that he had over 40 goals also and led (or co-lead with HOFer *cough,cough* Bernie Federko) his team in goal scoring, there's a 7 year stretch (bookended by 2 injury seasons) where he average 43 goals a year. I know higher scoring era and all, but 7 years of 43 goals that's good production

I would argue Mullen was at minimum a top 10 forward in 88-89. First team allstar RW, led the league's best team in scoring, and was a plus 51 (I think)

again I think he's a marginal hall of famer and you can make a case either way, but he was a very effective scorer for quite a stretch there

personally I don't think it's a coincidence that his arrival in late 86-86 coincided with the Flames taking their game to a higher level (he was by far the best forward on that team) and I think he was the best player (he or MacInnis) over the 5 year period in Calgary 85-90 over which time they were one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the NHL

Again, I like Mullen and think if this was the AMERICAN HHoF, he is a lock. Overall, I think he falls short. 43 goals is very good production, but I still don't think that is 'dominance'. He was always very good, never called a great. 88-89 he was likely a top-10 forward, I was exaggerating. But he rarely cracked that list.

 

[mattihp]

Am i stupid to choose Rod Langway?


Also... How does Tony Amonte stand against the other forwards?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Am i stupid to choose Rod Langway?


Also... How does Tony Amonte stand against the other forwards?

Not at all. In addition to being a two time Norris trophy winner, Langway was runner up to Wayne Gretzky in the 1984 Hart Trophy voting.

He is probably the best choice.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Not at all. In addition to being a two time Norris trophy winner, Langway was runner up to Wayne Gretzky in the 1984 Hart Trophy voting.

He is probably the best choice.

Langway was very good, but he wasn't Chelios. I'd have him behind Leetch and Mark Howe as well.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Langway was very good, but he wasn't Chelios. I'd have him behind Leetch and Mark Howe as well.

Yes, I suppose that is true. I didn't look to closely when I made that comment.

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

I voted for Joey Mullen. The first American to get into the Hall-of-Fame, first American to score 500 goals.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I voted for Joey Mullen. The first American to get into the Hall-of-Fame, first American to score 500 goals.

Mullen wasn't the first into the HHoF, he was the first to 500. First certainly doesn't mean the best.

Maurice Richard was the first to 500 goals, doesn't make him better than Gretzky.

 

[c-carp]

Frankie Brimsek, Neal Broten and John Vanbiesbrouck should be on the list.

1. Chris Chelios
2. Brian Leetch
T3. Jeremy Roenick
T3. Mike Modano
5. Pat Lafontaine

Joey Mullen is the most overated of all the Americans and shouldn't be in the top 10, he'd be borderline op 15.

** My top 5 doesn't consider Brett Hull.

I also would say Chelios, I do think that Joey Mullen is easily top 10 and maybe top 5.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I also would say Chelios, I do think that Joey Mullen is easily top 10 and maybe top 5.

In no particular order give me the following over Mullen:

Howe, Langway, Chelios, Leetch, Richter, Barasso, Brimsek, Roenick, Modano, LaFontaine and Tkachuk.

Other right with Mullen: Broten, Vanbiesbrouck

 

[pei fan]

This is not complicated folks-Chelios.

 

[VanIslander]

This is not complicated folks-Chelios.

57 of 81 people disagree with you! I'm one of them.

 

[mcphee]

I'd choose Chelios in a draft of Howe, Leetch, Langway and him in that he was the best combination package of the 4. Having said that, have you ever seen a pure defense first d man as dominant as Langway was for a few years with Washington ?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'd choose Chelios in a draft of Howe, Leetch, Langway and him in that he was the best combination package of the 4. Having said that, have you ever seen a pure defense first d man as dominant as Langway was for a few years with Washington ?

As good as Langway was defensively, I'd take Howe over him for an all-around game. Howe was much closer to Langway in the defensive end, than Langway was to Howe with the puck.

 

[pei fan]

57 of 81 people disagree with you! I'm one of them.

It's not my fault they don't know.

 

[mcphee]

As good as Langway was defensively, I'd take Howe over him for an all-around game. Howe was much closer to Langway in the defensive end, than Langway was to Howe with the puck.

Howe was great at stepping in from the point. He had a wrist shot a lot like Deis Potvin's. I'd take Howe too, but for a period of time, the ice seemed to tilt when Langway was on, and he usually was. You'd consider Howe Philly's best D man ever wouldn't you ? I can't think of anyone else offhand.

 

[WC Handy*]

Brett Hull.