The Hockey News Top 100 Players

[Snap Wilson]

I use the eyes of the awards voters and the stats that they accumulated. Both excellent pieces of evidence.

Which is why you assigned your own first and second-league All-Star teams to the years prior to '31, right? And what excellent piece of evidence do you have for the arbitrary point values you assigned to each accomplishment?

The research (research, El Pogo Loco!) I've done on hockey in the 20s and 30s, I'm not convinced of the old-timers greatness. Hockey was considered a marginal sport at the time when a significant percentage of great college hockey players didn't automatically turn pro, because it didn't pay as well as having a real job. And the NHL wasn't clearly the best league around until they merged the WCHA into the fold. Yes, Cy Denneny had very impressive numbers, but the field was weak. I concede to the greatness of Howie Morenz, clearly a man well ahead of his time, but if I were putting together my own pointless and arbitrary list of greatest players, I wouldn't give anyone else, pre-Shore, the time of day.

 

[#66]

Guys like Ronick, Gartner, Gilmour, Francis and Lafontaine do not deserve their spots that high on this list. The voters gave modern day players more credibility than older players - because they have seen the modern day players in action. That is why these types of votes are trash. There is no possible way that they can be accurate.

IMO guys like Francis and Gilmour separate themselves from guys like Roenick because of all of their intangables. Faceoffs, defensive play, boardwork and leadership all have a place in hockey. Those guys brought that to to rink every night and IMO have to be judged by more than just stats. Would you judge Grant Fuhr just by his stats?

Another thing is (and I'm not looking for a fight just an explanation) that you seem pretty quick to discredit Lemieux for not having longevity but you kill others for being consistantly good over a period of time.

 

[God Bless Canada]

A few guys, like Cy Denney and Joe Malone, deserve consideration. But most of them don't. It was a completely different game back then. A lot of guys who thrived in the first 10 to 15 years of the league would not survive in today's NHL, or even the Original 6.

One of the inherent flaws in using awards and all-star teams as consideration is it doesn't take into consideratioon that talent is cyclical. The depth of elite players today, at least at forward and defence, isn't as strong as the 60s, 70s, 80s or early 90s.

I think THN is the closest I've ever seen to a legitimate top 50 or top 100 list. (Certainly more accurate than the ignorance from ESPN). It was done by knowledgable hockey fans who based their decisions on research and first-hand accounts. Never saw Rocket Richard play. But based on my research, first-hand accounts and video footage, I'm convinced he's the second-best RW ever, and the No. 5 player ever.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Which is why you assigned your own first and second-league All-Star teams to the years prior to '31, right? And what excellent piece of evidence do you have for the arbitrary point values you assigned to each accomplishment?

The research (research, El Pogo Loco!) I've done on hockey in the 20s and 30s, I'm not convinced of the old-timers greatness. Hockey was considered a marginal sport at the time when a significant percentage of great college hockey players didn't automatically turn pro, because it didn't pay as well as having a real job. And the NHL wasn't clearly the best league around until they merged the WCHA into the fold. Yes, Cy Denneny had very impressive numbers, but the field was weak. I concede to the greatness of Howie Morenz, clearly a man well ahead of his time, but if I were putting together my own pointless and arbitrary list of greatest players, I wouldn't give anyone else, pre-Shore, the time of day.

Morenz was great but the rest of the players in the 20s were crap? Interesting.

How does that make sense when Morenz finished 5th in scoring in 1926 while Denneny finished 2nd?

What you are saying is like saying all of the NLL stats should be trown out because in 20 years the league will be considered big time. Right now it is fringe.

Guess what? The best player in the NLL today is the best lacrosse player in the world. Same with the best players in the NHL in the 20s. You are mistakenly discounting history and that flaws your rankings.

Are Gretzky's accomplishments crap because the NHL will be so much more advanced in 2050?

 

[arrbez]

I'm not talking about padding stats.

Denneny won a scoring title and finished second four times. The man was a top 5 goal scorer 8 times. On my adjusted scoring list he is top 10.

It doesn't matter if he played 60 minutes a game with a stacked team, he was still one of the very best players of his era. All players of his era had to play with the same rules and Denneny came out at or near the top virtually every year he played. He was dominant. When you look at how he dominated his peers compared to the rest of NHL history, he is very deserving of a top 20 spot.

they should just start all "best of all time" lists at around 1930. it's so out of context to be comparing modern players to someone during the First World War. Denneny may very well be one of the top 5 or 10 players of all time, but the problem is that nobody (with the possible exception of yourself) really looks into this kind of thing. I know it's a big cop-out, but for better or worse I honestly just don't care. besides, how do we know this "Denneny" character even existed? cany any living person verify this?

just to point something out, he scored 36 points in his rookie year, which was comprised of 36 goals and 0 assists. did they score assists differently then, or was this just the biggest puck hog the NHL has ever seen?

 

[chooch*]

chooch hockey list

1. Bobby Orr, D
2. Maurice Richard, RW
3. Mario Lemieux, C
4. Gordie Howe, RW
5. Howie Morenz
6. Guy Lafleur
7. Eddie Shore
8. Bill Durnan
9. Doug Harvey, D
10. Jean Beliveau, C
11. Larry Robinson
12. Joe Malone
13. Bobby Hull, LW
14. Terry Sawchuk, G
15. Jacques Plante
16. Newsy Lalonde,
17. Phil Esposito
18. Frank Mahovlich
19. Denis Potvin
20. Mark Messier, C
21. Bobby Clarke, C
22. Bryan Trottier
23. Dave Keon
24. Ken Dryden
25.#99
25. Jaromir Jagr,
25. Ray Bourque,
26. Yvan Cournoyer
26. Mike Bossy

The hardest choice was #5 and 6; it could have been flipped but in the end Morenz was the greatest of the pre 1950 players and Guy had more competition.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Assists were scored much differently back then. If you thought it was hard to get credit for assists in international hockey (it takes a phenomenal play to get a second assist), that's nothing compared to way back when.

And chooch, the fact that you have Gretzky at 25 is bad enough. The fact that you have him one spot ahead of Jagr is enough proof for nobody to take you seriously ever again.

 

[Snap Wilson]

A. No, it wasn't absolutely clear that the best hockey player was in the NHL in the 20s. Bill Cook spent three years in the WCHL before moving on to the NHL and immediately won the scoring title. Newsy Lalonde, George Hay, Harry Oliver, Jack Adams, etc. The NHL of the early twenties was half of a professional league, drawing from a minimal talent pool.

B. It ain't a question now that the best college hockey players will wind up trying for a pro career. It was, at the time. The available talent pool was much thinner, the league wasn't as strong, and therefore all accomplishments measured against the opposition of that league should be taken into account. Sadly, The Pogomatic Jibber-Jabber Method doesn't even try. That would require thought.

C. My concession of Morenz isn't numerical. His scoring numbers aren't really all that dominant (only two scoring titles), but rather the universal perception of his peers that he was indeed something extraordinary, something well above the game of his era. Having never seen him, I don't feel obligated to expound beyond that. I don't have a clever formula to tell me otherwise. Or even a not-so-clever one.

Your turn, Pogo! Take the time to answer my questions! What excellent piece of evidence do you have that your assigned weights for each accomplishment means anything outside of your own little world?

I'm waiting, man! Justify your B.S., already.

 

[reckoning]

chooch hockey list

1. Bobby Orr, D
2. Maurice Richard, RW
3. Mario Lemieux, C
4. Gordie Howe, RW
5. Howie Morenz
6. Guy Lafleur
7. Eddie Shore
8. Bill Durnan
9. Doug Harvey, D
10. Jean Beliveau, C

reckoning hockey list

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe



4. Maurice Richard
5. Mario Lemieux
6. Eddie Shore
7. Howie Morenz
8. Doug Harvey
9. Dominik Hasek
10. Jean Beliveau
11. Patrick Roy
12. Mark Messier
13. Jacques Plante
14. Red Kelly
15. Bobby Hull
16. Ray Bourque
17. George Hainsworth
18. Guy Lafleur
19. Bobby Clarke
20. Charlie Conacher
21. Ted Lindsay
22. Joe Malone
23. Joe Sakic
24. Terry Sawchuk
25. Syl Apps

Who should I kick off to make room for Cy Denneny?

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Kovalev10 top 10 list.

1- Bobby Orr- The greatest ever no doubt.
2- Mario Lemieux- Best center ever IMO
3- Gordie Howe- Terrific all around player
4- Rocket Richard- Best goal scorer ever IMO.
5- Guy Lafleur- Best player in the world for 6 years and one of the best ever.
6- Doug Harvey- Best defensive dman ever.
7- Wayne Gretzky- 99 was great too (see I'm not like you Lafleur haters putting him 18th)
8- Dominik Hasek- Best goalie I've ever seen in my life (Maybe Tretiak but hes not in the NHL)
9- Doug Harvey- Best Dman of the first 50 years of hockey.
10- Eddie Shore- Another incredible dman.

Guys on the other half are Mark Messier, Steve Yzerman, Bryan Trottier, Jean Beliveau (11th IMO), Bobby Hull (12th) and Roy plus a couple others.

 

[Snap Wilson]

MoneyP's list:

Milk
Cream
Sugar
Eggs
Orange Juice
Flour
Bacon
Napkins
Toilet Paper
Cat Food
Liquid Plumber

 

[mcphee]

1 Orr
2 Gretzky
3 Lemieux
4 Howe
5 Richard
6 Beliveau
7 Shore
8 Harvey
9 Lafleur
10 Hull Sr.

Orr 'cause he just was. He transcended numbers, though his were impressive. If I picked solely on accomplishment it has to be #99, but there was nothing on the ice that Orr didn't do better than everyone else. Lemieux probably would've passed Gretzky on accomplishment but he didn't so he can't rank higher.Drafting the 2 as healthy 18 year olds, I'd take Mario, but that's not the question. After #6, the order can be flipped around and I have no real arguement. Sawchuck,Plante,Roy and maybe Hasek belong up there but I don't know how to mix the goalies in so I don't. Messier and Bourque could also be up there with no real arguement. Brian Glennie didn't get mentionned. Terry Harper too. Shame.

 

[reckoning]

6- Doug Harvey- Best defensive dman ever.
7- Wayne Gretzky- 99 was great too (see I'm not like you Lafleur haters putting him 18th)
8- Dominik Hasek- Best goalie I've ever seen in my life (Maybe Tretiak but hes not in the NHL)
9- Doug Harvey- Best Dman of the first 50 years of hockey.

I don`t think I was unfair in my ranking of Lafleur; I had him as the 9th best forward ever, 5th best forward since expansion, ahead of legends like Trottier, Yzerman, Esposito and Dionne who didn`t even make it on the list. I`m not sure which of the 17 players I have ahead of him you feel don`t belong there. Let me guess... Gretzky?

At least I didn`t put Doug Harvey down twice.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I don`t think I was unfair in my ranking of Lafleur; I had him as the 9th best forward ever, 5th best forward since expansion, ahead of legends like Trottier, Yzerman, Esposito and Dionne who didn`t even make it on the list. I`m not sure which of the 17 players I have ahead of him you feel don`t belong there. Let me guess... Gretzky?

At least I didn`t put Doug Harvey down twice.

Jacques Plante, George Hainsworth, Red Kelly, Ray Bourque and Mark Messier. I could understand with Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau. I'm pretty sure you just put PLante and Hainsworth in there just a way to try to find players better then Guy yet you havent seen a single game of either one. (Kelly too) Bourque was great but he's not the playoff performer Guy was and while both were dominant in their positions, Guy's playoff performances give him the nod. Messier and Guy are so close but Guy in his prime was better then Mess, though Mess was the dirtier, more complete player and has longevity.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bourque was great but he's not the playoff performer Guy was and while both were dominant in their positions, Guy's playoff performances give him the nod.

Not sure I agree with that. Lafleur scored 1.05 ppg in the playoffs, Bourque scored 0.84. Considering their differences in positions and the fact that LaFleur played in slightly higher-scoring years (regular season gpg averages were 7.06 for Lafleur, 6.91 for Bourque), the advantage is actually quite small. Factoring in Bourque's superior defense, penalty killing, physical play and the fact that he could play close to 30 minutes per game on average, I'd take Bourque over Lafleur for the playoffs. (Though I do concede that Lafleur has a Conn Smythe, and I'd be perfectly happy with him on my team too. He's on a very short list of top playoff performers).

 

[John Flyers Fan]

5- Guy Lafleur- Best player in the world for 6 years and one of the best ever.

Lafleur was never the best player int he league for 6 consecutive seasons, two or three at most.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Not sure I agree with that. Lafleur scored 1.05 ppg in the playoffs, Bourque scored 0.84. Considering their differences in positions and the fact that LaFleur played in slightly higher-scoring years (regular season gpg averages were 7.06 for Lafleur, 6.91 for Bourque), the advantage is actually quite small. Factoring in Bourque's superior defense, penalty killing, physical play and the fact that he could play close to 30 minutes per game on average, I'd take Bourque over Lafleur for the playoffs. (Though I do concede that Lafleur has a Conn Smythe, and I'd be perfectly happy with him on my team too).

I do respect your opinion but how many cups has Bourque lead his team to? When he won the cup in 2001 (and I was soo happy he did, I almost cried for him) but he wasnt the main reason they won the cup. Lafleur on the other hand lead his team to 4 cups (first one wasnt so much him). He was clutch too. Most clutch performer in my lifetime (though I havent seen Rocket). Reason Guy's point per game is so low is because he only scored like no more then 10 points in his final 35 playoff games. But in his prime (from 75 to 80) he was just incredible in the playoffs (statistically and clutch wise). Bourque was able to play great for a much longer period of time but in their primes theres no question Guy was the better playoff performer and Bourque was never considered the best player in the world for 6 years, Guy was. Again both were incredible but all in all I would go with Guy. But that's just my opinion.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Lafleur was never the best player int he league for 6 consecutive seasons, two or three at most.

Yeah he was. I've heard a number of hockey people say he indeed was. (Gretzky, Lemieux, Yvon Lambert, Larry Robinson, Dick Irvin, etc) Not trying to brag but its true.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Yeah he was. I've heard a number of hockey people say he indeed was. (Gretzky, Lemieux, Yvon Lambert, Larry Robinson, Dick Irvin, etc) Not trying to brag but its true.

He was the best overall for that 6 year period, as Clarke and Orr started to tail off, and Trottier wasn't around in the early years, but he wasn't the best each individual season.

Guy's 6 big years in a row were from 1974-75 to 1979-80.

In 74-75 at best he was the 3rd best player in the NHL (Orr & Clarke). Espo also had a huge year that season. Orr won the Art Ross and Norris, and Clarke took home the Hart.

In 75-76 Lafleur won the scoring title, edging Clarke by 6 points. Clarke won the Hart Trophy. As long as Lafleur is only outscoring Clarke by 6 points, he didn't bring the rest of the game Clarke did.

In 76-77 Lafleur was the best player.

In 77-78 Lafleur gets the edge as he won the Art Ross & Hart. A good argument could be made for Trottier as well.

In 78-79 Trottier was the best player, Art Ross & Hart.

In 79-80 Gretzky was the best player.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I do respect your opinion but how many cups has Bourque lead his team to? When he won the cup in 2001 (and I was soo happy he did, I almost cried for him) but he wasnt the main reason they won the cup. Lafleur on the other hand lead his team to 4 cups (first one wasnt so much him). He was clutch too. Most clutch performer in my lifetime (though I havent seen Rocket). Reason Guy's point per game is so low is because he only scored like no more then 10 points in his final 35 playoff games. But in his prime (from 75 to 80) he was just incredible in the playoffs (statistically and clutch wise). Bourque was able to play great for a much longer period of time but in their primes theres no question Guy was the better playoff performer and Bourque was never considered the best player in the world for 6 years, Guy was. Again both were incredible but all in all I would go with Guy. But that's just my opinion.

Definitely, Lafleur in his prime was a phenomenal playoff performer. Bourque was too (he had a bunch of 20+ point playoff seasons, very rare for a defensemen) with superior defense.

I disagree with the "how many Cups did he lead his team to" argument. I think that should only be used when two players are on teams of similar quality. Lafleur's team was full of HOF'ers, Bourque was never surrounded by nearly as much talent. Not to take away anything from what Lafleur did but I'm sure Bourque would have won more Cup's if he was in the same situation.

Regardless, both are top playoff performers and I would love to have either on my team.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Guy was a great player, no doubt about that, but he was never the best for 6 years in a row.

Guy's 6 big years in a row were from 1974-75 to 1979-80.

In 74-75 at best he was the 3rd best player in the NHL (Orr & Clarke). Espo also had a huge year that season. Orr won the Art Ross and Norris, and Clarke took home the Hart.

In 75-76 Lafleur won the scoring title, edging Clarke by 6 points. Clarke won the Hart Trophy. As long as Lafleur is only outscoring Clarke by 6 points, he didn't bring the rest of the game Clarke did.

In 76-77 Lafleur was the best player.

In 77-78 Lafleur gets the edge as he won the Art Ross & Hart. A good argument could be made for Trottier as well.

In 78-79 Trottier was the best player, Art Ross & Hart.

In 79-80 Gretzky was the best player.

In 74-75 I agree Orr was better but Clarke? No way. Clarke is exteremely overrated and a dirty player.

In 75-76 Guy won the Art Ross, Lester B. Pearson, Hart and Stanley Cup and outscored Clarke. He was better that year.

In 76-77 As you said he was the best.

In 77-78 Again as you said he was the best.

In 78-79 Even though Trottier won the Hat and the Ross I feel Guy was slightly better. I love Trottier but still without Guy habs wouldn't have one the cup that year. Guy put up better playoff numbers too.

In 79-80 Wayne, Dionne and Guy were the best. I would go with Guy personally because Wayne was just a rookie and got swept in the playoffs. He might've had 5 more points that year but still.

All in all only a case could be made of him being the second best in 74-75 and 79-80. But over that 6 year span (overall he was the best. Scored more goals and points then anyone else, won more art ross tropies, pearson trophies, cups and put up better playoff numbers too.) I may be biased and no I aint trying to start an argument again but that's my opinion.

 

[Leaf Lander]

It is good to love a hockey player and a hockey team.

but to turn every thread into a lafleur vs every other player in the league through league history is driving me nuts. I got 2 threads here that have become about lafeur which is ridiculous.

Your arguments are waisted they are not taken seriously.

Be impartial and get with reality.

No overly biased poster will ever get into the all time draft

shape up or ship out

keep the foolishness in the lounge

 

[John Flyers Fan]

In 74-75 I agree Orr was better but Clarke? No way. Clarke is exteremely overrated and a dirty player.

Clarke was a much better all-round player than Lafleur. If Guy wasn't outscoring Clarke by a significant margin (he wasn't) then Clarke was the better player.

In 75-76 Guy won the Art Ross, Lester B. Pearson, Hart and Stanley Cup and outscored Clarke. He was better that year.

Clarke won the Hart in 75-76.

In 78-79 Even though Trottier won the Hat and the Ross I feel Guy was slightly better. I love Trottier but still without Guy habs wouldn't have one the cup that year. Guy put up better playoff numbers too.

Trottier outscored Lafleur and was a better all-around player. Similar to Clarke, Trottier was a better all-around player and if Lafleur was outscoring him by a significant amount Trots was better.

In 79-80 Wayne, Dionne and Guy were the best. I would go with Guy personally because Wayne was just a rookie and got swept in the playoffs. He might've had 5 more points that year but still.

Gretzky, Dionne and Lafleur were all offensive players, and none of the three did anything in the playoffs. Dionne and Gretzky put up better numbers, and Gretzky was the Hart winner, with Dionne grabbing the Pearson.

 

[God Bless Canada]

IMO, Lafleur from 74-80 was third-best six-year stretch of hockey in the last 30-40 years. (Behind only Orr in the early to mid 1970s and Gretzky throughout the 80s). Lafleur's place in the game was largely based on those six years. He had some other really strong seasons, but from 75-80, he was as good as anyone's ever been, with few exceptions.

Haven't been able to think through a top 25 all-time. I can say right now that a top five would be Orr, Howe, Gretz, Lemieux and Richard, in order. Orr, in his short career, redefined and revolutionalized the game more than anyone ever has. Not only was he gifted offensively, he was tough as nails, aggressive and excellent defensively. Howe was an all-round force whose longevity speaks to how truly great he was. Gretzky as stated before, is the smartest player there ever was. Defined hockey sense. Saw things nobody could, and was always two steps ahead of his opponent. Lemieux is the greatest combination of talent and physical strength ever. Richard's the best pure goal scorer ever, and was a fierce competitor.

I'd definitely have Beliveau in a top 10, then give strong consideration to guys like Esposito, Hull, Lindsay, LaFleur, Mikita, Harvey, Shore and Plante.

 

[reckoning]

Jacques Plante, George Hainsworth, Red Kelly, Ray Bourque and Mark Messier. I could understand with Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau. I'm pretty sure you just put PLante and Hainsworth in there just a way to try to find players better then Guy yet you havent seen a single game of either one. (Kelly too) Bourque was great but he's not the playoff performer Guy was and while both were dominant in their positions, Guy's playoff performances give him the nod. Messier and Guy are so close but Guy in his prime was better then Mess, though Mess was the dirtier, more complete player and has longevity.

I`m not trying to fight, I`ll actually give you credit for your last thread and apologize if I was out of line, but I`m not trying to intentionally put down Lafleur- I ranked him where I thought he should be. As far as the guys you mentioned:

Plante- 6 Stanley Cups, best regular season GAA 9 (!!) times, best playoff GAA 7 times, impressive resume if you ask me
Hainsworth- he didn`t join the NHL until his 30s but still had a career that most goalies of that era who played alot longer didn`t match
Kelly- every account I`ve read from that era implies that Kelly`s reputation has been unfairly diminished over the years, Fischler had him at #4 on his list, only non-Montreal player to win 8 Cups, it`s no coincidence that Detroit`s downslide and Toronto`s upswing in the early 60s started with his trade
Bourque- with the exception of Gordie, nobody else was as good for as long, if you cut his career in half, both haves (`80-`90 and `91-`01) would be good enough for the Hall on their own.
Messier- the quintessential leader/clutch player; purely my opinion

Yes, some players are before my time, so you have to put some reliance on past first-hand accounts, interviews with retired players, accomplishments, statistics etc. Any baseball list has Babe Ruth near the top, but nobody under 80 ever saw him play. We all had Eddie Shore on our lists, but none of us saw him.