The Hockey News Top 100 Players

[Ogopogo*]

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.

I used to think you were an intelligent poster. Now I see that you are more of an ass.

Anyway, this is an "NHL's Greatest Players" list. Not a list that covers every league under the sun. Using your logic, we should also factor in the WHA, Russian league, Czech league and Swedish league. How many great players in those leagues did not come to the NHL for many years? Howe and Hull put up some pretty impressive numbers in the WHA why not include those? What about the old WHL. When the NHL was a six team league, the best players in the WHL would have been great players in a 30 team league. There are way too many leauges and way too many variables to examine or even care about when doing the ratings. Making it an NHL's greatest list means exactly that, Denneny is one of the NHL's all time greats. It is not his fault that there were other leagues at the time, he dominated his.

As well, as you may know, the bulk of the best hockey players come from Ontario and Quebec. Those are the players that made up the NHL in the early days. The West had a lot of "inferior" westerners so, it was most likely a weaker league.

It is also irrelevant how many amateur players wanted to go pro at the time. I am finding the best players in the history of the NHL. Johnny opting for med school instead of the NHL in the 20s makes no difference. He didn't have the passion for the game, he would not have been better than the greats of the 20s. Really, why not just eliminate the 20s because of the western leagues, dump the 40s because of the war, can't count the 70s because of the WHA...That must mean that anybody from the 80s to now are the best of all time. Right?

How many of Morenz's peers have you spoken with to get that assesment. You don't feel obligated to back your opinion? Perhaps because their is no foundation for it?

Numbers and eyewitnesses are what we have for evidence. Prior to all stars, we have to go with numbers. Denneny's numbers were phenomenal in the NHL's early days. Just discounting that because the NHL was a "fringe" sport is wrong. Based on that logic, today's NHL will be a "fringe" sport compared to what we will have 50 years from now.

I guess we have to admit that the Roman empire was nothing but BS. The world was pretty much a "fringe" world back then.

Denneny is one of the NHL's all time greats and should be recognized as such.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

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


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

Why does it hurt his cause if he missed 10 games? Didn't know that it's his fault if he got injured. And that year, Lafleur scored 12 goals and 7 assists in only 11 games for 19 points while Clarke only scored 4 g, 12 assists in 17 games. Guy was better. Only a case could be made of Orr but that's the best player ever so you can't blame Guy.

Lafleur had 7 goals, 10 assists for 17 points in 13 games. Clarke only had 4 goals, 12 assists for 16 points in 16 games. I dont know where you come up with Clarke being better.

In 76-77 as everyone said Guy was the best

In 77-78 as everyone again said Guy was the best.

In 78-79 Trottier was pretty darn close but who did Guy have of Bossy's goal scoring prowess? Besides who's the one who lead his team to a cup? Trottier had
2 goals and 4 assists in 10 games while Guy had 10 goals and 13 assists in 16 games not to mention scored the most famous game 7 goal ever.

In 79-80 (that was Guy's last great year) Dionne and Gretzky were catching up. Dionne and Wayne had 137 points while Guy had 125. But Guy missed 6 games. If he had played every game he would've scored as many points. But this final year it's up to you to decide who was the best because all 3 were great.

Again not trying to fight because that would be ridiculous.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Why does it hurt his cause if he missed 10 games?

Because for ten games, his value is zero.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Truer words never spoken.

I am NOT one who contends that things were necessarily "better" back in the good old days. However, it's disgraceful how some disregard the past (and that is not directed toward anyone in this thread).

I suppose it's human nature to focus on what is "here and now," the latest and greatest. But the lack of respect some on the board have for anything pre-1995 is ludicrous. As in: "I watched a 30 second clip of a game from 1975 and those guys couldn't even skate!"

Surrrrre.

Funny, I recently watched eight 1972 Summit Games on DVD, and the quality of hockey was superb...for 1972, 2005 or 2020.

Better yet, the old, "they wouldn't be able to compete with today's athlete..." Such a naive statement. Common sense 101: You can ONLY judge players by the time in which they performed.

Besides, bigger and stronger athletes do not by themselves make for better players and a superior game.

Whenever it comes to rating players, I only base an opinion on those who I have seen, but there is no doubt that those before my time are worthy of all the accolades. It's called: common respect and taking the time to learn one's history.

Exactly. People can only be judged by what they have done during their time in history. The old "players of the 20s couldn't compete in today's NHL" is complete garbage. That is evolution. If the players from the 20s were alive today, they would have all of the advantages of players today.

Using that logic:

The Roman Empire could not have survived today, they didn't have nukes

Edison was a buffoon, he couldn't work a spreadsheet

J Paul Getty would never have become a billionaire today. Today's billionaires are much smarter

Doctors in the 50s were completely incompetent. They could not take care of patients today.


All stupid arguments based on that flawed logic.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Anyway, this is an "NHL's Greatest Players" list. Not a list that covers every league under the sun. Using your logic, we should also factor in the WHA, Russian league, Czech league and Swedish league.

Geez, you're cognitive skills are almost on par with your analytical skills. Pogostick, try and pay attention. I'm saying that the quality of the league as a whole needs to be taken into account. If the NHL of 1917-18 isn't of the same global quality as the NHL of 1977-78, than obviously that needs to be taken into account. Just because it has the magic words "NHL" on it doesn't mean it's always been the best league. So Cy Denneny's accomplishments in a weak league aren't the same as another player's similiar accomplishments in a stronger league, whether it's an MVP or a 1st All-Star Team or whatever.

Does that make sense, now? Is it getting through to you?

Now can you stop dancing around the question and tell us what empirical evidence you have in assigning the weights that you do? I'm still waiting!

As well, as you may know, the bulk of the best hockey players come from Ontario and Quebec. Those are the players that made up the NHL in the early days. The West had a lot of "inferior" westerners so, it was most likely a weaker league.

Hahahahahaha. This this the level of research you do in your empirical hockey ratings? Let me school you, son. Here are the WCHL scoring leaders in their inaugural season:

Art Gagne (born: Ontario)
Duke Keats (Quebec, Hall of Fame)
George Hay (Ontario, Hall of Fame)
Newsy Lalonde (Ontario, Hall of Fame)
Harry Oliver (Manitoba, Hall of Fame)
Joe Simpson (Manitoba, Hall of Fame)
Ty Arbour (Ontario)
Bill Cook (Ontario, Hall of Fame)

Wow, that's a lot of crappy westerners, eh?

It is also irrelevant how many amateur players wanted to go pro at the time. I am finding the best players in the history of the NHL.

Don't kid yourself. Your finding the most awarded players in the history of the NHL, with no distinction in regards to the difficulty of each achievement. Whether a person leads the league in scoring by one point or twenty, it's all the same to you. That's why it's a bullsh*t system.

Which is fine, you're entitled to your bullsh*t systems. Just don't pollute the board with them.

How many of Morenz's peers have you spoken with to get that assesment. You don't feel obligated to back your opinion? Perhaps because their is no foundation for it?

I've read countless stories on Morenz and guaged the opinion from the writers and players of his day. I probably have spoken to a contemporary of his a time or two, actually, although probably more shooting the sh*t than about Morenz himself. Which is a great deal more research than you've done. Awards and top ten scoring lists, right? Anything else in there? Still waiting!

 

[chooch*]

Exactly. People can only be judged by what they have done during their time in history. The old "players of the 20s couldn't compete in today's NHL" is complete garbage. That is evolution. If the players from the 20s were alive today, they would have all of the advantages of players today.

Using that logic:

The Roman Empire could not have survived today, they didn't have nukes

Edison was a buffoon, he couldn't work a spreadsheet

J Paul Getty would never have become a billionaire today. Today's billionaires are much smarter

Doctors in the 50s were completely incompetent. They could not take care of patients today.


All stupid arguments based on that flawed logic.

You shoudl try and understand that trophies are given by writers and there may be a huge bias. Especially Harts.

I mean no one has won the conn smythe 2 years in a row except for a couple of guys.

Also, in 1950 Morenz was voted the best player of the half century (probably many of those voting back then had seen him).

If you read your history instead of reading stats, you;d know that the nhl was indeed a fringe league in the 20's. Morenz helped to change that.

If you read your history you;d know that cy denenny who you go on about was not considered a major star. At least read dick irvins books as his dad played in that era and coached beginiing in the 30's. And Dick himself has seen everything since the 40's.

 

[Snap Wilson]

If you read your history you;d know that cy denenny who you go on about was not considered a major star. At least read dick irvins books as his dad played in that era and coached beginiing in the 30's. And Dick himself has seen everything since the 40's.

Yeah, Irvin Sr. is another one of those "crappy Western players" (meaning western Ontario, maybe?) who did time in the WCHL. Oh, and he's in the Hall of Fame, too.

 

[salty justice]

THN easily has the better of the two lists, but Im not afraid to admit that they overrated Chelios at #40. Im just glad to see that Roy isnt in the top 3 goalies.

 

[#66]

Exactly. People can only be judged by what they have done during their time in history. The old "players of the 20s couldn't compete in today's NHL" is complete garbage. That is evolution. If the players from the 20s were alive today, they would have all of the advantages of players today.

Using that logic:

The Roman Empire could not have survived today, they didn't have nukes

Edison was a buffoon, he couldn't work a spreadsheet

J Paul Getty would never have become a billionaire today. Today's billionaires are much smarter

Doctors in the 50s were completely incompetent. They could not take care of patients today.


All stupid arguments based on that flawed logic.

Lets say that the NHL comes back with RHI rules, Lacrosse nets, ect. and Crosby wins 10 scoring championships in a row with 250 points every year. Will you say that he was better than Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr? The game has changed to much from the 11 man team era. Plus if you look at alot of the scores from that era it seemed to be very lop-sided. If you played on one of the stacked teams for 60 min. a game its bound to result some stats like Joe Malone getting 44 goals in about 20 games. By the same token, George Hainsworth led the league in wins 4 times is he better than Hasek who has only done it once.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Geez, you're cognitive skills are almost on par with your analytical skills. Pogostick, try and pay attention. I'm saying that the quality of the league as a whole needs to be taken into account. If the NHL of 1917-18 isn't of the same global quality as the NHL of 1977-78, than obviously that needs to be taken into account. Just because it has the magic words "NHL" on it doesn't mean it's always been the best league. So Cy Denneny's accomplishments in a weak league aren't the same as another player's similiar accomplishments in a stronger league, whether it's an MVP or a 1st All-Star Team or whatever.

Does that make sense, now? Is it getting through to you?

Now can you stop dancing around the question and tell us what empirical evidence you have in assigning the weights that you do? I'm still waiting!



Hahahahahaha. This this the level of research you do in your empirical hockey ratings? Let me school you, son. Here are the WCHL scoring leaders in their inaugural season:

Art Gagne (born: Ontario)
Duke Keats (Quebec, Hall of Fame)
George Hay (Ontario, Hall of Fame)
Newsy Lalonde (Ontario, Hall of Fame)
Harry Oliver (Manitoba, Hall of Fame)
Joe Simpson (Manitoba, Hall of Fame)
Ty Arbour (Ontario)
Bill Cook (Ontario, Hall of Fame)

Wow, that's a lot of crappy westerners, eh?



Don't kid yourself. Your finding the most awarded players in the history of the NHL, with no distinction in regards to the difficulty of each achievement. Whether a person leads the league in scoring by one point or twenty, it's all the same to you. That's why it's a bullsh*t system.

Which is fine, you're entitled to your bullsh*t systems. Just don't pollute the board with them.



I've read countless stories on Morenz and guaged the opinion from the writers and players of his day. I probably have spoken to a contemporary of his a time or two, actually, although probably more shooting the sh*t than about Morenz himself. Which is a great deal more research than you've done. Awards and top ten scoring lists, right? Anything else in there? Still waiting!

You're a fricking idiot. After this post, I will stop responding to your crap.

When Communist China takes hockey seriously in 10 years, then we can really start keeping stats. I mean, one billion people that is a huge untapped player market. How can the NHL be taken seriously when there are no Chinese in the league.

That is your argument. It is stupid. When the NHL put its name on the league in 1917, every game played and every stat kept counts. Just arbitrarily picking a year when the stats should really count is foolishness.

You shot the sh*t with a couple of old guys. Wow, that is compelling research. You have my apologies.

In case you hadn't noticed, the only time a Western team won the Stanley Cup was in 1925 so yes, the NHL was superior.

So, save your time and don't post any bashes of me based on some old book you read. Using your logic, how can that old book or old guy you talked to be credible? The world wasn't even civilized until 1990.

You are a waste of my time. Post something intelligent and I may respond. Based on your last half dozen posts, I will not bother.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Lets say that the NHL comes back with RHI rules, Lacrosse nets, ect. and Crosby wins 10 scoring championships in a row with 250 points every year. Will you say that he was better than Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr? The game has changed to much from the 11 man team era. Plus if you look at alot of the scores from that era it seemed to be very lop-sided. If you played on one of the stacked teams for 60 min. a game its bound to result some stats like Joe Malone getting 44 goals in about 20 games. By the same token, George Hainsworth led the league in wins 4 times is he better than Hasek who has only done it once.

I thought I answered this for you already.

The point total is not what matters - scoring champion is a scoring champion. They all have the same rules each individual season. If you win with "big net" rules in 2020 you still win. It is the same as winning in 1920, 1950 or 1990. You beat every other player in the league. You are the NHL's best scorer - the rules and number of points are irrelevant.

My systems are based on that premise. Goaltender wins mean nothing. Goaltender stats don't mean much of anything, really. If you are considered the best goalie in the game (post season all star or Vezina post 1981) that is what matters. Joe Malone's 44 in 20 is irrelevant. He was the scoring leader, that is the same as Martin St. Louis from last season.

Make sense?

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

I thought I answered this for you already.

The point total is not what matters - scoring champion is a scoring champion. They all have the same rules each individual season. If you win with "big net" rules in 2020 you still win. It is the same as winning in 1920, 1950 or 1990. You beat every other player in the league. You are the NHL's best scorer - the rules and number of points are irrelevant.

My systems are based on that premise. Goaltender wins mean nothing. Goaltender stats don't mean much of anything, really. If you are considered the best goalie in the game (post season all star or Vezina post 1981) that is what matters. Joe Malone's 44 in 20 is irrelevant. He was the scoring leader, that is the same as Martin St. Louis from last season.

Make sense?

Your not serious are you. So you are saying that last year Martin St. Louis was as good as Greztky in 1981-82? There is a hufge difference in terms of overall skill which is reflected in the difference in the points between the winner and the runner up. It would be insane to say that Rick Nash last year was the same as Richard in 1948? They both won a (goal) scoring championship yes, but it must be realized that one was more impressive than the other. If you are basing your entire system on your logic than it is flawed beyond belief.

 

[Snap Wilson]

You're a fricking idiot. After this post, I will stop responding to your crap.

What, because you can't answer a simple question? Justify the weights that you give to each accomplishment. Still waiting!

When Communist China takes hockey seriously in 10 years, then we can really start keeping stats. I mean, one billion people that is a huge untapped player market. How can the NHL be taken seriously when there are no Chinese in the league.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about other professional leagues which had clearly good players. Canadien players, even. Players from Ontario, even!

That is your argument. It is stupid.

That isn't my argument. Read again.

You shot the sh*t with a couple of old guys. Wow, that is compelling research. You have my apologies.

And what was your research again, aside from looking up awards and top ten scoring lists? Still waiting!

In case you hadn't noticed, the only time a Western team won the Stanley Cup was in 1925 so yes, the NHL was superior.

No, that means that the NHL team that made it through their playoffs managed to beat the WCHL team in their playoffs. The first five years, the final series was taken to the limit every year.

So, save your time and don't post any bashes of me based on some old book you read.

So "some old book I read" which may actually talks about players, has opinions of contemporaries of the players, etc. isn't worth talking about, but your number munching is?

And as long as you keep on bringing up your B.S. lists, I'll keep talking. Justify it, or jump thread.

Using your logic, how can that old book or old guy you talked to be credible? The world wasn't even civilized until 1990.

Where did I say that?

You are a waste of my time. Post something intelligent and I may respond.

Okay, how about this? Explain to everyone here how Cy Denneny (top fifteen *or else it's a joke* according to you) is better than Steve Yzerman ranked somewhere in the 90s by your system. Make a solid argument.

Anxious,
MoneyP

 

[Ogopogo*]

Your not serious are you. So you are saying that last year Martin St. Louis was as good as Greztky in 1981-82? There is a hufge difference in terms of overall skill which is reflected in the difference in the points between the winner and the runner up. It would be insane to say that Rick Nash last year was the same as Richard in 1948? They both won a (goal) scoring championship yes, but it must be realized that one was more impressive than the other. If you are basing your entire system on your logic than it is flawed beyond belief.

That is why I made allowances for large domination by a player. No, St. Louis' scoring title of last year was not worth the same as Gretzky's 81-82 title. Wayne was so far ahead of the rest of the league he deserved more credit than a regular scoring title winner. I factored that into my system.

There is no flawed logic, you just missed the post with the full explanation.

 

[Ogopogo*]

What, because you can't answer a simple question? Justify the weights that you give to each accomplishment. Still waiting!



What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about other professional leagues which had clearly good players. Canadien players, even. Players from Ontario, even!



That isn't my argument. Read again.



And what was your research again, aside from looking up awards and top ten scoring lists? Still waiting!



No, that means that the NHL team that made it through their playoffs managed to beat the WCHL team in their playoffs. The first five years, the final series was taken to the limit every year.



So "some old book I read" which may actually talks about players, has opinions of contemporaries of the players, etc. isn't worth talking about, but your number munching is?

And as long as you keep on bringing up your B.S. lists, I'll keep talking. Justify it, or jump thread.



Where did I say that?



Okay, how about this? Explain to everyone here how Cy Denneny (top fifteen *or else it's a joke* according to you) is better than Steve Yzerman ranked somewhere in the 90s by your system. Make a solid argument.

Anxious,
MoneyP

Cy Denneny:

1 Scoring Title
5 second place finishes in scoring
1 third place finish
1 fourth place finish
5 Stanley Cups

If you analyze the numbers from Denneny's career, you could make a strong case for him being a 1st team all star 7 times and a second team all star once. For arguments sake, let's be conservative and say 3 first teams and 2 second teams.


Steve Yzerman:

0 Scoring Titles
0 second place finishes
3 third place finishes
1 fourth place finish
3 Stanley Cups
1 First team all star selection


Cy Denneny was clearly a more dominant NHLer than Yzerman. Simple enough for you?

 

[God Bless Canada]

Actually, I though Chelios at No. 40 was about right. I think he's the best American-born player of the past 50 years. I think he's one of the top 10 or 12 defencemen ever. The guy could control the game in any facet: with a big goalie, a smart play to set up a goal, a big hit or a timely defensive play. He could quarterback a power play or anchor a penalty kill. He was useful either in an offensive or defensive situation late in a game. He won two Norris trophies and was a nominee several other times, despite facing the deepest glut of competition ever for the award. (HHOFers or future HHOFers like Langway, Bourque, Coffey, Murphy, MacInnis, Stevens, etc).

Yeah, he can be a jerk sometimes, and he can be tough to love, but as far as an all-round defender, he's one of the best in the history of the game, and a gimmie for the HHOF.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Steve Yzerman's prime was spent against two of the consensus top five players ever (Gretzky and Lemieux), and HHOF-calibre guys like Savard, Hawerchuk, Statsny, LaFontaine, Francis, etc. The offensive talent displayed in the 1980s is unmatched in the league's history (one of the big reasons for the big point totals in the 80s was the calibre of players), and the depth at centre was certainly unmatched. Who was Denney's competition?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Steve Yzerman's prime was spent against two of the consensus top five players ever (Gretzky and Lemieux), and HHOF-calibre guys like Savard, Hawerchuk, Statsny, LaFontaine, Francis, etc. The offensive talent displayed in the 1980s is unmatched in the league's history (one of the big reasons for the big point totals in the 80s was the calibre of players), and the depth at centre was certainly unmatched. Who was Denney's competition?

Just because you haven't heard of them, that does not mean they were not dominant NHLers:

Joe Malone HOF
Reg Noble HOF
Newsy Lalonde HOF
Frank Nighbor HOF
Babe Dye HOF
Punch Broadbent HOF
Jack Adams HOF
Billy Boucher
Aurel Joliat HOF
Nels Stewart HOF
Bill Cook HOF
Dick Irvin HOF

and, of course, Denneny is a HOFer too. Funny the Hall of Fame didn't say that none of these guys deserve to be in. After all the NHL was a "fringe" league back then. I guess the Hall is forever tainted with these guys.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm well aware of some of the top players from the first decade in NHL history. My question at the end of my last post was rhetorical. I'm well aware of the scoring prowess of guys like Joe Malone. I'm well aware of the talent of some non-NHL players at the time, like the legendary Cyclone Taylor. I'm just saying that the depth of talent in the 1980s, which Yzerman had to go against, is the best in the history of the game. I don't think Denney would have done what Yzerman did. (IE: turn Gerard Gallant into a post-season all-star).

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm well aware of some of the top players from the first decade in NHL history. My question at the end of my last post was rhetorical. I'm well aware of the scoring prowess of guys like Joe Malone. I'm well aware of the talent of some non-NHL players at the time, like the legendary Cyclone Taylor. I'm just saying that the depth of talent in the 1980s, which Yzerman had to go against, is the best in the history of the game. I don't think Denney would have done what Yzerman did. (IE: turn Gerard Gallant into a post-season all-star).

To me it sounds like you don't have a healthy respect for history. Denney did far more than Yzerman in his day. If Denneny was playing in the 80s, he would have been a far greater player than Yzerman. Evolution of humanity automatically makes today's athlete better than yesterday's. That is life. A player can only be judged on how he dominates his peers. He cannot be punished for being born when he was. We must see what he did in his context and if he dominated his time more than a player in the 90s dominated his time, he is the greater player.

As I posted earlier, Denneny dominated the 20s far more than Yzerman dominated the 80s and 90s.

Denneny was the greater NHLer. Saying Yzerman was greater than Denneny is like saying that Korea is greater than the Roman empire was. Korea has nukes the Roman empire never did.

Historical context is very important in a discussion like this.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There's a world of difference between players and countries. There's a world of difference in comparing a country that exists now and an empire that existed 2,000 years ago, and comparing players with 60 years difference. Your comparisons are irrelevant and aren't pertinent to a HOCKEY discussion.

I am well aware of the history of the game. Your accusations are laughable. If you haven't noticed, three of my top six all-time players played in the Original Six (Howe, Richard, Beliveau). My top two LWs (Lindsey and Hull) played in the Original Six. Guys who would be on my top 50 (Morenz, Shore, Denney and Malone) played prior to WWII.

In my opinion, Yzerman was the better player. He had the better career. He accomplished more. He was a dominant offensive force in the 80s and early 90s, and became a dominant all-round player in the late 90s/early 00s. (Six straight 100-point seasons, a couple others at a 100-point pace and a point-per-game scorer in his late 30s). At age 35, he was a post-season all-star, beating guys 5 to 10 years younger. He turned a second-line calibre winger (Gerard Gallant) into a 50-goal scorer and second-team all-star. We're talking about one of the 10 or 15 all-time greatest all-round centres.

The fact is, outside of the elite players in Denneny's era, the others wouldn't have cut it in today's NHL, or the NHL from the Original 6. It's a completely different game, a much more physical game. (Although King Clancy was tough enough to make it at any time). I think it says how great Denneny was that even though he played in a different era, he is still viewed as a consensus top 50 player in NHL history.

 

[Ogopogo*]

There's a world of difference between players and countries. There's a world of difference in comparing a country that exists now and an empire that existed 2,000 years ago, and comparing players with 60 years difference. Your comparisons are irrelevant and aren't pertinent to a HOCKEY discussion.

I am well aware of the history of the game. Your accusations are laughable. If you haven't noticed, three of my top six all-time players played in the Original Six (Howe, Richard, Beliveau). My top two LWs (Lindsey and Hull) played in the Original Six. Guys who would be on my top 50 (Morenz, Shore, Denney and Malone) played prior to WWII.

In my opinion, Yzerman was the better player. He had the better career. He accomplished more. He was a dominant offensive force in the 80s and early 90s, and became a dominant all-round player in the late 90s/early 00s. (Six straight 100-point seasons, a couple others at a 100-point pace and a point-per-game scorer in his late 30s). At age 35, he was a post-season all-star, beating guys 5 to 10 years younger. He turned a second-line calibre winger (Gerard Gallant) into a 50-goal scorer and second-team all-star. We're talking about one of the 10 or 15 all-time greatest all-round centres.

The fact is, outside of the elite players in Denneny's era, the others wouldn't have cut it in today's NHL, or the NHL from the Original 6. It's a completely different game, a much more physical game. (Although King Clancy was tough enough to make it at any time). I think it says how great Denneny was that even though he played in a different era, he is still viewed as a consensus top 50 player in NHL history.

I think we are speaking two different languages. You don't seem to get my point.

Denneny scored over 100 points 8 times in his career (if you equalize it for games played, era etc). He won 5 Stanley Cups. Had they given post season all-stars in the 20s, he would have been named a 1st team all star 7 times and a 2nd team all star once. As well, Denneny won a scoring title and finished second 5 times.

Again, evolution is why a player from the 20s could not compete today. If Denneny was alive today, he would have the size, strenght and speed of today's athletes. Evolution would not leave him behind and advance everyone else. That is why your argument that players from the 20s couldn't compete today is false. It is a completely unrealistic argument. It is like saying that Yzerman could never compete with the 6'8" 275 lb players of 2050 so, he is not that great. It makes no sense. Nobody is advanced as humans will be 100 years from now. YOU CAN ONLY COMPARE HOW SOMEONE DOMINATES THEIR PEERS IN THEIR TIME. Denneny domianated the 20s far more than Yzerman dominated the 80s and 90s.

Maybe Denneny was the big reason that Punch Broadbent and Frank Nighbor were elected to the Hall of Fame? Perhaps he helped to make them great?

Denneny is the greater NHLer.

 

[KH1]

I think that I must have glossed over him by accident, but is Bryan Trottier not in the NHL Tonight's list? It must be an oversight, because there's no way that they think that somebody like Adam Oates or Joe Mullen had a better career than Trots.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You can't make players taller. Denneny would be 5'7" in today's NHL, just like he was 5'7" in the 1920s. And he would have thrived in today's NHL, likely would have been top 5 or 10 in today's NHL. (Remember, I'm basing that on an overall lack of elite talent in today's NHL, one of the main reasons for the steep decline in goal scoring).. Maybe Denneny would have weighed more than he did than in the 1920s, but his height would be the same.

In the same breath, Yzerman in his prime would be one of the top five or 10 players in the league in the 1920s, the WWII era, the Original Six, the prime 1980s, the 2020s or the 2050s. (Speculating on those last two points). Yzerman in his prime would be better than any player in todays NHL. The players aren't going to get much bigger, the average heigh (6' to 6'1") has remained static for well over a decade. Size has reached its maximum. In fact, small players are given a better chance of making it now than they were five years ago. (Example: Danny Briere was a consensus late first round/second round pick in the atrocious year of 1996. Teams are now more willing to take chances on guys like Briere).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Trots, one of the best all-round centres of all-time, was omitted from NHL2Tonight's "We love the 1990s" list. There is more in-depth discussion in the thread on that topic.