The Hockey News Top 100 Players

[God Bless Canada]

One thing that people forget is how close this wound up being. With all the people that THN surveyed, I think Gretzky won by about 20 votes over Orr, and another 15 over Gordie. There was then a fairly large gap to Lemieux, and then to the Rocket.

I don't think that there's really much of a discussion on this if Orr plays at least a dozen seasons. Instead, he played anywhere close to a full season eight times. Only a lack of longevity keeps him from the consensus spot as the best player ever.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

One thing that people forget is how close this wound up being. With all the people that THN surveyed, I think Gretzky won by about 20 votes over Orr, and another 15 over Gordie. There was then a fairly large gap to Lemieux, and then to the Rocket.

The more I look at the Rocket's career, the more I wonder if he belongs in the 5th spot.

I never saw him play, but one Hart Trophy and no scoring titles. 7 times during his career in Montreal he had teammates win the scoring title.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

The more I look at the Rocket's career, the more I wonder if he belongs in the 5th spot.

I never saw him play, but one Hart Trophy and no scoring titles. 7 times during his career in Montreal he had teammates win the scoring title.

Rocket lead the league in goals an incredible 5 times, is considered by many as the best goal scorer ever (Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Boom Boom, Ted Lindsay, referee Red Storey, etc) was the first player to score 50 in 50 and that was a record that stood for 35 years until another incredible goal scorer broke it (Bossy). But the time Rocket played it was a lot harder to score then in the 80-s. Not to mention his toughness, clutch plays in playoffs help his cause too.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Rocket lead the league in goals an incredible 5 times, is considered by many as the best goal scorer ever (Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Boom Boom, Ted Lindsay, referee Red Storey, etc) was the first player to score 50 in 50 and that was a record that stood for 35 years until another incredible goal scorer broke it (Bossy). But the time Rocket played it was a lot harder to score then in the 80-s. Not to mention his toughness, clutch plays in playoffs help his cause too.

I'm not disputing his greatness, just tha #5 may be a bit high.

5 time goal scoring champ is impressive, but it's not a record. Espo did it 5 times, Bobby Hull did it at least 6 times etc.

 

[PecaFan]

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.

I think the exact opposite. As I've gotten older, I've seen the players that I watched in the 60's and 70's that were amazing players get marginalised more and more with each passing year, and dismissed as not even being able to play in the current league.

The older the players, the more they get dismissed. Hell, it's even starting to happen to Gretzky, and he's only been out of the league a few years. In twenty years, he'll only be a top 10 talent. In fifty years, he'll probably make some top 25 lists (probably by guys who are currently in their teens and actually saw him play).

I have no doubt of the greatness of players in the 20's and 30's that I never saw play.

I likely won't be around to see it, but I'm going to laugh like hell in 30 years when some of the folks around here now will be arguing with kids that players like Sakic and Yzerman were actually pretty damn good, and could have played in the NHL of 2035.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I questioned the guys from the 20s and 30s, not the 60s and 70s. In face, I believe that the elite talent from the 60s and 70s was better than the elite talent today. Look at it this way: name me all the players under the age of 30 who are sure-fire Hall of Famers. Answer: none. Yeah, Gretzky and Lemieux were sure-fire HHOFers by their 30th birthday, but so were Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk, Yzerman, Bourque, Coffey, Langway, Robinson and many others. Guys from other eras were, too.

I think in 50 years, people will still view Gretzky as the greatest offensive player ever. Orr has been retired for nearly 30 years. Howe retired from the NHL for the first time more than 30 years ago, and many still call him the best ever. Richard retired 45 years ago and still cracks most top 5 lists.

The NHL hasn't produced a true, all-time great in 20 years. (I believe Roy, Hasek and Lemieux were all drafted in 1984). I don't think Crosby, Kessel or that kid in Ontario will be the answer, either. At this rate, we'll still talk about Gretzky in the same way 50 years from now.

 

[reckoning]

I don't think that there's really much of a discussion on this if Orr plays at least a dozen seasons. Instead, he played anywhere close to a full season eight times. Only a lack of longevity keeps him from the consensus spot as the best player ever.

That`s why I have to go with Gretzky. Invariably with Orr and Lemieux the argument becomes "imagine if they played a full career". With Gretzky, we don`t have imagine how great his full career could`ve been. We actually saw it.

 

[PecaFan]

I questioned the guys from the 20s and 30s, not the 60s and 70s.

I didn't say you did. But most do, because they never saw them, or they've seen only recorded glimpses. It happens every day on these boards.

What I'm saying is that you're doing the same thing for the guys in the 20's.

My grandparents when they were alive swore that the players of the 70's couldn't touch the players of their youth. We all laughed, and said they were crazy. Now, I'm the crazy old geezer, defending the players of my generation.

When faced with the choice of "A: The players of the 20's were mostly useless" or "B: Time has dimmed their greatness", the choice is easy, because I've watched B happen constantly for the last 50 years.

 

[JCD]

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

You are being inconsistent here. Clarke scored only 3 fewer points, was a far more complete player, won the Hart and won the Stanley Cup.

Besides, isn't 'tough' a virtue to you?

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

No, he didn't.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/awards/awarddetail.php3?award_id=2

Clarke won the Hart, again. His third, which is one more than Lafleur has in his career. Why is it that the awards and Cup matter this year but not the year before?

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.

Debatable. Trottier did take home the Hart and Ross. If those trophies don't matter here, why did they matter for 75-76?

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.

Replace Guy with Trottier. Trottier won the Cup that year with a Conn Smyth performance. While Gretzky played the exact same number of play-off games as Guy, so that is a wash. During the regular season, that rookie did FAR more with a much less talented team, which is why he won the Hart.

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.

Point is, Guy was not head and shoulders above anybody else. During that span where you claim he 'dominated the league', he won only 2 Harts, 3 Art Ross. Clarke won MORE Harts (FIVE) than he did during that span, was a more physical and better defensive player and scored at a similar rate. It isn't as clear-cut as you make it seem. He has 3 Pearsons to Clarke's 1, but Clarke has five Harts to Guy's 2. He doesn't have more Art Ross trophies than anybody else, he has 3 to Espisito's 4. The bottom line is that you can make a case for several players being the best of that era, Guy is not so far ahead that he dwarfs the competition.

 

[chooch*]

The NHL hasn't produced a true, all-time great in 20 years. (I believe Roy, Hasek and Lemieux were all drafted in 1984). QUOTE]

If his name was Gerry Jag from Kingston, Ont he'd be considered that player. 5 Ross playing on those teams?

 

[chooch*]

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.

74-75: Lafleur is slashed by Sittler and breaks thumb - otherwise as Bowman said, Lafleur would have won the Ross. Orr and Guy were the best players in the game.

75-76: Clarke is close to Guy in scoring only because Leach is having a banner year. When a player gets as many assists as Clarke did that year there's the explanation. Bobby was a great player that year but no Lafleur; just watch the finals - you couldnt tell Clarke from Hound Dog Kelly.

76-77 my favorite Guy year

77-78 Guy again no one close (called our "Babe Ruth" by nhl commishioner)

78-79; Trottier tanked in the playoffs; Guy shined in a legendary way; I give the nod to Guy but the others are starting to catch up to him.

79-80: Guy's finest year - according to him and others who saw him; people who watched that team realize that was truly the one year Guy carried the Habs; no Lemaire, no Cournoyer, playing with One Way Larouche mostly;, Guy was a devastating 2 way player that year. The way Ruel and Geoffrion used him cost him an Art Ross, I mean teh Oilers were not exactly Cup contenders were they and 99 was used much much differently. I can tell you there was a lot of hype about the youngster 99, but no one seriously thought he was better than Guy yhat year.
Same for Dionne - a one way player playing on a great line.

don't overestimate the Hart Trophy - it was a bit of a popularity contest and still is; I mean these voters are beat writers arent they; plugging homer types. Guy had already won it so...give it to 99.

 

[kimzey59]

Can somebody please explain how Al MacInnis doesn't even MAKE the list? I know personal awards count a lot in these kinds of lists but Al is the 3d highest scoring D man of All time(behind Bourque and Coffey). I'm trying not to sound like too big a homer here, but I simply don't understand how Mac doesn't make this list.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Can somebody please explain how Al MacInnis doesn't even MAKE the list? I know personal awards count a lot in these kinds of lists but Al is the 3d highest scoring D man of All time(behind Bourque and Coffey). I'm trying not to sound like too big a homer here, but I simply don't understand how Mac doesn't make this list.

The list was done in 1997 or 98, things have changed since then.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

74-75: Lafleur is slashed by Sittler and breaks thumb - otherwise as Bowman said, Lafleur would have won the Ross. Orr and Guy were the best players in the game.

Lafleur didn't miss a game, and Clarke was the better than Guy that year without a doubt. Since you're bringing up the playoffs, Clarke and the Flyers won the Cup.

75-76: Clarke is close to Guy in scoring only because Leach is having a banner year. When a player gets as many assists as Clarke did that year there's the explanation. Bobby was a great player that year but no Lafleur; just watch the finals - you couldnt tell Clarke from Hound Dog Kelly.

Possibly your dumbest argument yet. Why the hell do you think Leach was scoring all those goals ??? Leach's two seasons prior to joining the Flyers (45 goals and -102) .. he joins the Flyers and plays on Clarke's wing (106 goals and +126)

77-78 Guy again no one close (called our "Babe Ruth" by nhl commishioner)

Guy may have been the best player, but don't give me nobody was close BS, Trottier, was rneck and neck with Lafleur

78-79; Trottier tanked in the playoffs; Guy shined in a legendary way; I give the nod to Guy but the others are starting to catch up to him.

79-80: Guy's finest year - according to him and others who saw him; people who watched that team realize that was truly the one year Guy carried the Habs; no Lemaire, no Cournoyer, playing with One Way Larouche mostly;, Guy was a devastating 2 way player that year. The way Ruel and Geoffrion used him cost him an Art Ross, I mean teh Oilers were not exactly Cup contenders were they and 99 was used much much differently. I can tell you there was a lot of hype about the youngster 99, but no one seriously thought he was better than Guy yhat year.
Same for Dionne - a one way player playing on a great line.

don't overestimate the Hart Trophy - it was a bit of a popularity contest and still is; I mean these voters are beat writers arent they; plugging homer types. Guy had already won it so...give it to 99.

blah, homer, blah, homer, blah, homer ....

 

[RorschachWJK]

Can somone get me a copy of The Hockey News Top 100 Players

I have the top 50 but i need the other 50




http://slam.canoe.ca/Gretzky/gretzky_top50.html

Lets rename this to Top 100 North American Players...

The level of ignorance there is frightening.

 

[Leaf Lander]

Lets rename this to Top 100 North American Players...

The level of ignorance there is frightening.

Can you get me a list of the top 100 european stars from current day back to the start of the last century

 

[chooch*]

Lafleur didn't miss a game, and Clarke was the better than Guy that year without a doubt. Since you're bringing up the playoffs, Clarke and the Flyers won the Cup.



Possibly your dumbest argument yet. Why the hell do you think Leach was scoring all those goals ??? Leach's two seasons prior to joining the Flyers (45 goals and -102) .. he joins the Flyers and plays on Clarke's wing (106 goals and +126)



Guy may have been the best player, but don't give me nobody was close BS, Trottier, was rneck and neck with Lafleur



blah, homer, blah, homer, blah, homer ....

I'm going on memory John, but Guy missed 10 games in 74-75 with a broken thumb on the sittler slash. But for this he would have won the ArtRoss.

And the Flyers won the Cup becoz of Bernie; 2 straight Conn Smythes. Thats 2 more then Clarksie.

Dumb argument? Leach went 19 5 24 in the playoffs, Clarkie was 2 14 16???? Clarke stunk in the playoffs that year; Guy was the best player in the world by 76.

Trottier rneck and rneck to Guy in 77 and 78??? I know you werent watching!
Bryan was 20 years old and was not yet at his prime.

nice arguments you have for the rest of the years.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm going on memory John, but Guy missed 10 games in 74-75 with a broken thumb.

Lafleur did miss 10 games, which hurts his cause as to being the best player.

Dumb argument? Leach went 19 5 24 in the playoffs, Clarkie was 2 14 16???? Clarke stunk in the playoffs that year; Guy was the best player in the world by 76.

Ahh yess Lafleur's 17 points in the playoffs were remarkable, yet Clarke's 16 points were garbage.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Can you get me a list of the top 100 european stars from current day back to the start of the last century

That would be difficult.

All I'm saying here is that the list should not be named that way when there are glaring omissions and people ranked well below their level (Tretyak, Kharlamov, Ruzicka, Larionov, Krutov, Makarov, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Petrov, Ruotsalainen). Maybe Top 100 NHL Players would be more appropriate.

 

[Leaf Lander]

That would be difficult.

All I'm saying here is that the list should not be named that way when there are glaring omissions and people ranked well below their level (Tretyak, Kharlamov, Ruzicka, Larionov, Krutov, Makarov, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Petrov, Ruotsalainen). Maybe Top 100 NHL Players would be more appropriate.

our draft has many of them

i think were at least as good as the hockey news

 

[BM67]

The THN list was NHL only, so it's not even a North American list. It doesn't consider the NHA, PCHA, WCHL/WHL, or WHA careers of the players, or include non NHL players like Cyclone Taylor. Even just including them would change the list a lot.

 

[reckoning]

That would be difficult.

All I'm saying here is that the list should not be named that way when there are glaring omissions and people ranked well below their level (Tretyak, Kharlamov, Ruzicka, Larionov, Krutov, Makarov, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Petrov, Ruotsalainen). Maybe Top 100 NHL Players would be more appropriate.

You had me until you mentioned Ruotsalainen. One of the laziest floaters in history. All the "talent" someone may have is useless if they only show it occasionally.

 

[reckoning]

The Hockey News list is inherently flawed. It was based on votes by many hockey people but, did they actually see every player play from 1917 to the present? How could they possibly vote for players they have never seen in action?

A list like this without Cy Denneny in the top 15 is a complete travesty.

I explained this once before, but I`ll detail it this time. In the 1910s and 1920s there were two pro hockey leagues- the NHA/NHL and the PCHA (later joining the WHL). The PCHA`s portion of top talent was much higher than the WHA`s in the 70s. They had several top players including the guy generally regarded at the time as the best player in the world- Cyclone Taylor. The WHL went out of business and all those players joined the NHL for the `26-`27 season. That year Cy Denneny was 11th in scoring, but 6 of the top 10 (including the top two) were WHL players the previous year. Which means that had the WHL players not joined, Cy Denneny would have finished 5th; even though in reality he was 11th. Which means that all those years he was 2nd or 3rd he may have actually been 5th or 6th, which would decrease his rating in your system greatly.

You could argue that also means NHL accomplishments before Europeans came over aren`t worth as much are they are now, but the turnover of top players was very minor compared with the `26-`27 situation. North Americans have continued to dominate the game in the NHL over Europeans.

Nobody is saying that Denneny doesn`t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, or in the top 100. But top 15? Please.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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.

You owe me for another dry cleaning bill. If I keep reading your posts, I won't have any pants left.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I explained this once before, but I`ll detail it this time. In the 1910s and 1920s there were two pro hockey leagues- the NHA/NHL and the PCHA (later joining the WHL). The PCHA`s portion of top talent was much higher than the WHA`s in the 70s. They had several top players including the guy generally regarded at the time as the best player in the world- Cyclone Taylor. The WHL went out of business and all those players joined the NHL for the `26-`27 season. That year Cy Denneny was 11th in scoring, but 6 of the top 10 (including the top two) were WHL players the previous year. Which means that had the WHL players not joined, Cy Denneny would have finished 5th; even though in reality he was 11th. Which means that all those years he was 2nd or 3rd he may have actually been 5th or 6th, which would decrease his rating in your system greatly.

You could argue that also means NHL accomplishments before Europeans came over aren`t worth as much are they are now, but the turnover of top players was very minor compared with the `26-`27 situation. North Americans have continued to dominate the game in the NHL over Europeans.

Nobody is saying that Denneny doesn`t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, or in the top 100. But top 15? Please.

Since these are "NHL's greatest players" lists, the WHA or PCHA or WHL do not factor in to the equation. We art trying to determine the best NHL players not the best non-NHL players.

But, I will take a look at the 1917-1926 period and consider the stats of non-NHL leagues. It might be worth factoring in but, I think it would make much more sense to do a separate rating for each league. As the WHL, OHL and QMJHL have very different talent levels, the regional leagues of the 20s did as well.