The Hockey News Top 100 Players

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
You're right. Similarly, it wouldn't make any difference if Denenny played a three-game season against one team, becoming the only player in history to score in every game of the year. Who could imagine such dominance?

For any NHL season to have credibility, they all must have credibility. You can't pick and choose what seasons are worth more than others. We could throw out the early 40s because some players were at war. We could throw out the 70s because a bunch of players were in the WHA. We certainly wouldn't want to count the 1967-68 season, half the teams were expansion teams. 1994-95 can't be considered, that was only half a season. We could nitpick forever trying to decide what seasons are worthy and what seasons are not.

I simply say, if the NHL puts it in their guide and record book, the season is valid. The best scorer in the NHL is the same in 1918, 1948 or 1998. If you are the best in the NHL, you are the best in the NHL.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Lard_Lad said:
But top scorer in the NHL doesn't necessarily equal best scorer in the world for large parts of the NHL's history. In 1917-18, the PCHA was pretty much the equal of the NHL, and the western leagues were competitive with the NHL through the mid-20's. In 1918 Malone didn't have to compete with Cyclone Taylor for the scoring title, he just had to beat eight other guys who weren't necessarily the #2-9 scorers in the world.

By the late 60's, significant European, and particularly Soviet, talent existed outside the NHL. Phil Esposito didn't have to compete with Yakushev or Kharlamov for the title.

But in 2003-04, the NHL was unquestionably the best league in the world, by a huge margin, and monopolized the supply of talent. Nobody could seriously suggest that there was anyone playing outside the league who could challenge for the scoring title. St. Louis had to beat the best in the world for his title, where Malone and Esposito didn't. The achievements aren't equivalent.

True but, my system is designed to measure the NHL's best players. Players outside the NHL are irrelevant to that study.

Perhaps I will also analyze other leagues and do lists for them but, for the most part, the NHL is my primary interest. So, players outside the NHL don't really matter in a study of the NHL's all time greats. Players can't be punished because others didn't play in their league.

It could be said that today's NHL is a farce because China has not taken hockey seriously. Suppose 20 years from now, China is a hockey power. We could say that Gretzky and Lemieux had it easy because the Chinese were not in the league.

You can't discount what a player has done by who isn't in the league. The league's best is the league's best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
Ogopogo said:
For any NHL season to have credibility, they all must have credibility. You can't pick and choose what seasons are worth more than others. We could throw out the early 40s because some players were at war. We could throw out the 70s because a bunch of players were in the WHA. We certainly wouldn't want to count the 1967-78 season, half the teams were expansion teams. 1994-95 can't be considered, that was only half a season. We could nitpick forever trying to decide what seasons are worthy and what seasons are not.

I simply say, if the NHL puts it in their guide and record book, the season is valid. The best scorer in the NHL is the same in 1918, 1948 or 1998. If you are the best in the NHL, you are the best in the NHL.

Oh, of course. On paper, they're all the same. No disagreement there.

You're right, we could nitpick forever based on the validity of certain eras and specific seasons. That's sort of why player rankings based wholly on tangible achievements don't hold much water.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Benton Fraser said:
Ok then there are two great players in the league, lets say Gretzky and Lemieux. They both have very high point totals, and yet your system only awards the winner of the points race with seven, ignoring the fact that it was two players who completely dominated the entire league.

The fact that you ignore is that the game has changed a great deal. Really the only NHL I count is that after forward passing was not considered an offense. Up until then the game differed way to much from the game of today. not saying I don't respect the players, but at the same time I find it dubious to believe that the players would be the same because they were playing a completely different game.

Second place gets 6, third gets 5 fourth gets 4, fifth gets 3, sixth gets 2 and seventh gets 1.

Because of the nature of my system, the rule changes have no affect on the outcome. The game might have been very different a long time ago but, there still was a leading scorer, a second leading scorer etc. Somebody was the best at what the NHL calls hockey. That is what I am measuring. The players who were the greatest at the NHL game.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
Oh, of course. On paper, they're all the same. No disagreement there.

You're right, we could nitpick forever based on the validity of certain eras and specific seasons. That's sort of why player rankings based wholly on tangible achievements don't hold much water.

Depends what you are trying to measure.

If you are trying to measure who had the greatest NHL careers, all of that stuff is very valid. If you want to know who was the best pure player at the height of his career, something different is required.

I am more interested in the greatest careers and that is what my system measures.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
Denneny was the best in his world. A completely different world. If we're comparing players from different eras, it would help to handicap some of their advantages like you would for a player in the modern era.

Why would that help?
 

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
Ogopogo said:
Depends what you are trying to measure.

If you are trying to measure who had the greatest NHL careers, all of that stuff is very valid. If you want to know who was the best pure player at the height of his career, something different is required.

I am more interested in the greatest careers and that is what my system measures.

So why do you keep touting it as the Greatest Players of All Time, and not Greatest Careers of All Time?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
So why do you keep touting it as the Greatest Players of All Time, and not Greatest Careers of All Time?


Greatest players invariably have the greatest careers.

Had I done it the other way, I would have called it "Peak Performers" or something catchy like that.

Wayne would have come out on top of either list.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
Only if you'd want a balanced perspective on matters.

I think that would only help to deny evolution. Players in the 20s were smaller, slower and they weren't as athletic as todays players. Today's players are smaller, slower and not as athletic as the players of 2050. Big deal. That is evolution, that is how the world works. Nothing will change that and the only way to deny it is to throw out every past season. It makes no sense.

How you dominate your peers in your own era is the measure of your greatness. That era may be the 20s or the 90s but dominating your era is how you are measured. Not just in hockey but in life.

If the past was all crap, why would we bother to remember it?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
To say that it is much tougher to compete today or that accomplishments during the 20s are not worth as much as accomplishments today is quite arrogant and elitist. In my opinion, it is not only wrong but untrue.

Getting to the top of the heap is equally difficult no matter when you have done it. In fact, it was more difficult back then becuase they had worse technology.

Accomplishments of the past are equal to accomplishments of today.
 

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
Ogopogo said:
Greatest players invariably have the greatest careers.

Invariably? I don't believe that Lemieux was only the ninth greatest player of all time, and a lot of people would agree with me.

Wayne would have come out on top of either list.

As he should. While Lemieux sitting at #9 is a good example of the flaws in your system, I hope you don't think I'm petitioning in his interest.
 

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
Ogopogo said:
Getting to the top of the heap is equally difficult no matter when you have done it. In fact, it was more difficult back then becuase they had worse technology.

Hey, man. Whatever you say.

It's not the "when", guy. It's the "how".
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
tom_servo said:
Invariably? I don't believe that Lemieux was only the ninth greatest player of all time, and a lot of people would agree with me.



As he should. While Lemieux sitting at #9 is a good example of the flaws in your system, I hope you don't think I'm petitioning in his interest.

As a "peak performer" Mario would probably be higher on the list. When I finish adding playoff and other data I have recently collected, Mario may move up based on that info.

The 8 above Mario are phenomenal hockey players. If you reexamine the list, you will see that Mario was very close to being 4th. Had he stayed healthy, perhaps 4th would have been his. But, we cannot give him credit for goals not scored and accomplishments not realized. It only makes sense to measure what he had done and that puts him somewhere between 4 and 9 when I update my ratings.

Unless of course we do the "peak performer" thing.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
arrbez said:
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?

Assists were given very differently back then but, he did actually have 36 goals 10 assists that season. Some documents do not have the assists listed but the NHL guide and record book does.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Ogopogo said:
Winning the Stanley Cup in 1933 is worth one Cup. Winning it in 1998 is worth one cup. It is an equal accomplishment.

That is how I see it.

I understand your logic on scoring titles being the same (though I don`t agree with it), but it doesn`t apply to Stanley Cups. With more teams, your chances of playing on a Cup winner are greatly diminished. One player doesn`t win a Cup alone, the teammates he`s lucky or unlucky to end with play a huge part.

There were a lot of players before 1980 who won at least 7 Cups- Both Richards, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Provost, Kelly, Talbot etc. Since 1980 nobody`s done it. That should tell you it`s harder to do today.

Henri Richard`s 11 career Stanley Cups won`t be broken because in a 30 team league it`s practically mathematically impossible.
 

Leaf Lander

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 31, 2002
31,918
527
BWO Headquarters
tmlfanszone.blogspot.com
reckoning said:
I understand your logic on scoring titles being the same (though I don`t agree with it), but it doesn`t apply to Stanley Cups. With more teams, your chances of playing on a Cup winner are greatly diminished. One player doesn`t win a Cup alone, the teammates he`s lucky or unlucky to end with play a huge part.

There were a lot of players before 1980 who won at least 7 Cups- Both Richards, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Provost, Kelly, Talbot etc. Since 1980 nobody`s done it. That should tell you it`s harder to do today.

Henri Richard`s 11 career Stanley Cups won`t be broken because in a 30 team league it`s practically mathematically impossible.



if we could get dynasties liek we had till the 1980's I would say it is possible!

Imagine a player starting for montreal and wins 5 cups then gets traded to NYI who win 4 at then near the end of his career gets traded to edmonton for a few more cups.

odds are against it!
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
reckoning said:
I understand your logic on scoring titles being the same (though I don`t agree with it), but it doesn`t apply to Stanley Cups. With more teams, your chances of playing on a Cup winner are greatly diminished. One player doesn`t win a Cup alone, the teammates he`s lucky or unlucky to end with play a huge part.

There were a lot of players before 1980 who won at least 7 Cups- Both Richards, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Provost, Kelly, Talbot etc. Since 1980 nobody`s done it. That should tell you it`s harder to do today.

Henri Richard`s 11 career Stanley Cups won`t be broken because in a 30 team league it`s practically mathematically impossible.


Good point. I agree with that assessment.
 

Frightened Inmate #2

Registered User
Jun 26, 2003
4,385
1
Calgary
Visit site
Leaf Lander said:
if we could get dynasties liek we had till the 1980's I would say it is possible!

Imagine a player starting for montreal and wins 5 cups then gets traded to NYI who win 4 at then near the end of his career gets traded to edmonton for a few more cups.

odds are against it!

More teams and the playoff structure means that it is harder to do. In the original six as I am sure you know there were two rounds with only four teams making the playoffs. The playoffs were shorter, and well it could be argued easier as a result. There would be a reduced chance for upsets, especially when considering the fact that tallent was not evenly distributed (Chicago and New York seemed to always have some weak teams)..
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Benton Fraser said:
More teams and the playoff structure means that it is harder to do. In the original six as I am sure you know there were two rounds with only four teams making the playoffs. The playoffs were shorter, and well it could be argued easier as a result. There would be a reduced chance for upsets, especially when considering the fact that tallent was not evenly distributed (Chicago and New York seemed to always have some weak teams)..

I believe, in the days of the original six, teams were allowed territorial protection of players. Montreal and Toronto had a distinct advatntage by taking the players from the most populous area of Canada. I am not sure how the American teams territories were divided up but, Gordie Howe ended up in Detroit so, maybe the Red Wings had Saskatchewan?

Perhaps somebody familiar with that system can shed some light.
 

chooch*

Guest
Ogopogo said:
I believe, in the days of the original six, teams were allowed territorial protection of players. Montreal and Toronto had a distinct advatntage by taking the players from the most populous area of Canada. I am not sure how the American teams territories were divided up but, Gordie Howe ended up in Detroit so, maybe the Red Wings had Saskatchewan?

Perhaps somebody familiar with that system can shed some light.

I'm surprised you think you know who the top 100 players in history are but you are wrong about this crucial fact.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->