Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (Part 2)

[Michael Farkas]

The most technically skilled players did have a way of sticking around...

Up to 1930, it was Morenz. His legend lived on considerably.
Up to 1960, it was Richard. His legend lived on considerably.
Up til now, it's Lemieux.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Who are we talking about? The casual fan, the historian, or someone in between?

Mario Lemieux is unlikely to be pushed down for several reasons:

• 1) He has the best collection of highlights out of any player; his talent is very obvious regardless of eras or level of opposition. This is not true of everyone.
• 2) His height/weight will likely be considered huge even 100 years from now
• 3) He has a very clean resume: From prodigy to biggest prospect ever to NHL star to NHL legend, along with good narratives like the cancer year or his come back year.
• 4) The further in the future we go, the more it looks like he singlehandedly won the back-to-back Stanley Cups
• 5) Great international resume (especially 1987 playing with Gretzky and the big goal).
• 6) High total numbers always look better than small total numbers, even with Gretzky around to relativize them. (Howe suffers from this greatly)
• 7) Overwhelming testimonies of his dominance

I'm speaking much more toward the casual fan than to the dedicated historian.

 

[Vilica]

Instead of procrastinating it further (it's been nearly a week since I've had most of this written, and longer for the actual order), I'm hitting post.

I've had time recently to refine my version of the top 100 list, which isn't completely original. It's more the consensus list+my preferences rather than a wholly original list. It also only runs 16 names deep, as I'm still trying to come to grips with that secondary tier of players. I do have a bias towards modern players, and an emphasis on regular season performance over playoffs, as well as my basic statistical analysis of player performance.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Bobby Orr
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Ray Bourque
6. Jean Beliveau

My top 6 is pretty set in that order, until a couple active players retire. I'm opting not to break up the Big 4, but there are days when I'm valuing prime over peak when I swap Bourque for Orr. He was so good for so long, and Orr really only had 6 unique years. Beliveau and Bourque sometimes flip-flop too depending on if I'm valuing #1Cs or #1Ds more at that time.

7. Patrick Roy
8. Sidney Crosby
9. Dominik Hasek
10. Alex Ovechkin

The two biggest debates on here, with locked in partisans on both sides. I still can't split any differences between these four players to any meaningful degree. In my view, Ovechkin has higher upside to break into the top 6 than Crosby, because of his uniqueness. Crosby's issue with moving up is that Mario peaked higher than he did, and Beliveau probably will have aged better than he will.

11. Red Kelly
12. Jaromir Jagr
13. Nicklas Lidstrom
14. Bobby Hull
15. Doug Harvey
16. Maurice Richard

Again building off the consensus list here, though I am less certain about the order of these 6 than those higher on my list. I think I'm comfortable with my three tiers, less so with my inter-tier order. You can probably tell from my Beliveau/Harvey/M. Richard placements who I really credit for that 50s Montreal dynasty (Henri Richard too). I don't think any of the players I have ranked below Maurice Richard can jump ahead of him, but I haven't done enough analysis to properly rank my list down to 25. I do think my ordering is a bit odd due to not wanting to place same position players next to each other right now. After 16, I think Howie Morenz, Denis Potvin, Stan Mikita, Eddie Shore, and Phil Esposito would be my next 5 (though not necessarily in that order), and Martin Brodeur my next goalie.

I will say that I'm most comfortable with my forward rankings, less so with my defenseman rankings, and mainly superficially confident in my goalie rankings.

 

[BadgerBruce]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I stumbled upon Trent Frayne’s wonderful retrospective piece on Howie Morenz, published in 1953.

How they broke the Heart of Howie Morenz | Maclean's | OCTOBER 15 1953

If this has been posted before, accept my apology.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Instead of procrastinating it further (it's been nearly a week since I've had most of this written, and longer for the actual order), I'm hitting post.

I've had time recently to refine my version of the top 100 list, which isn't completely original. It's more the consensus list+my preferences rather than a wholly original list. It also only runs 16 names deep, as I'm still trying to come to grips with that secondary tier of players. I do have a bias towards modern players, and an emphasis on regular season performance over playoffs, as well as my basic statistical analysis of player performance.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Bobby Orr
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Ray Bourque
6. Jean Beliveau

My top 6 is pretty set in that order, until a couple active players retire. I'm opting not to break up the Big 4, but there are days when I'm valuing prime over peak when I swap Bourque for Orr. He was so good for so long, and Orr really only had 6 unique years. Beliveau and Bourque sometimes flip-flop too depending on if I'm valuing #1Cs or #1Ds more at that time.

7. Patrick Roy
8. Sidney Crosby
9. Dominik Hasek
10. Alex Ovechkin

The two biggest debates on here, with locked in partisans on both sides. I still can't split any differences between these four players to any meaningful degree. In my view, Ovechkin has higher upside to break into the top 6 than Crosby, because of his uniqueness. Crosby's issue with moving up is that Mario peaked higher than he did, and Beliveau probably will have aged better than he will.

11. Red Kelly
12. Jaromir Jagr
13. Nicklas Lidstrom
14. Bobby Hull
15. Doug Harvey
16. Maurice Richard

Again building off the consensus list here, though I am less certain about the order of these 6 than those higher on my list. I think I'm comfortable with my three tiers, less so with my inter-tier order. You can probably tell from my Beliveau/Harvey/M. Richard placements who I really credit for that 50s Montreal dynasty (Henri Richard too). I don't think any of the players I have ranked below Maurice Richard can jump ahead of him, but I haven't done enough analysis to properly rank my list down to 25. I do think my ordering is a bit odd due to not wanting to place same position players next to each other right now. After 16, I think Howie Morenz, Denis Potvin, Stan Mikita, Eddie Shore, and Phil Esposito would be my next 5 (though not necessarily in that order), and Martin Brodeur my next goalie.

I will say that I'm most comfortable with my forward rankings, less so with my defenseman rankings, and mainly superficially confident in my goalie rankings.

Having Ray Bourque at #5 (and possibly at #3) is certainly an original ranking.

Having Red Kelly at #11 stands out considering the makeup of your list. Its usually only some old timers like myself that have Kelly ranked that high.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I stumbled upon Trent Frayne’s wonderful retrospective piece on Howie Morenz, published in 1953.

How they broke the Heart of Howie Morenz | Maclean's | OCTOBER 15 1953

If this has been posted before, accept my apology.

"Even the smokefilled rinks in which they played had a warmer look and smell than the antiseptic palaces of today. "

-- Spoken in reference to Maple Leaf Gardens, the Montreal Forum, Boston Garden...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"Even the smokefilled rinks in which they played had a warmer look and smell than the antiseptic palaces of today. "

-- Spoken in reference to Maple Leaf Gardens, the Montreal Forum, Boston Garden...

Those were the three old buildings I got to see.

No places with an atmosphere like those anymore.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

That makes sense. Maybe more like a consensus "Big 3" with three distinct eras represented, and then a tier that includes Mario, Hasek, Crosby, Rocket, etc. I don't think Marek represents any kind of consensus for cutting Howe out of the picture... more just that he's the next guy on the chopping block after Mario, if we're talking about choosing between him and Gretzky and Orr. It may be that the consensus just stays at 3.

I agree Mario is quite likely to slip out of the picture in the next generation. You really had to see him to get it... otherwise the numbers don't quite make enough of a case. And based on experiences of people watching old highlight reels, they don't capture the magic at all. Between the poor quality of transfer from film to digital, people's inability to get over the way the game used to be played, and the fact that a 5-second clip doesn't translate to seeing him dominate 10 shifts in a row... people aren't going to get it.

Yeah your right. 199 points and 160 in 60 the numbers are meh. A 44 point playoff? Meh. Gordie Howe and his 103 point career high are much more magnified

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah your right. 199 points and 160 in 60 the numbers are meh. A 44 point playoff? Meh. Gordie Howe and his 103 point career high are much more magnified

If Howe's highest single-season numbers were his main argument, he wouldn't be anywhere near a Rushmore. Not really sure why you'd think people focus on that.

Lemieux's numbers are phenomenal but overshadowed by Gretzky. It's not fair, but it is what it is. And it's a problem for his Rushmore case as time passes and the context gets more and more distant, especially for mainstream fans who aren't going to spend a bunch of effort on the subject.

 

[K Fleur]

At the current moment I think the average casual fan around my age(late 20’s) thinks very highly of Lemieux. I see him often brought up as the #2 player ever(He’s solidly 4th on my list). Time will tell but I find it hard to believe that my generation will just stop waxing poetics about Lemieux 30-40 years from now.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If Howe's highest single-season numbers were his main argument, he wouldn't be anywhere near a Rushmore. Not really sure why you'd think people focus on that.

Lemieux's numbers are phenomenal but overshadowed by Gretzky. It's not fair, but it is what it is. And it's a problem for his Rushmore case as time passes and the context gets more and more distant, especially for mainstream fans who aren't going to spend a bunch of effort on the subject.

Gretzky and Lemieux will forever be a package.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Gretzky and Lemieux will forever be a package.

Just like Howe and Richard.

 

[eli4spetterss0n]

At the current moment I think the average casual fan around my age(late 20’s) thinks very highly of Lemieux. I see him often brought up as the #2 player ever(He’s solidly 4th on my list). Time will tell but I find it hard to believe that my generation will just stop waxing poetics about Lemieux 30-40 years from now.

Agreed. I'm in my late 20's as well, and most of my friends (somewhat casual fans) always have Gretzky #1 and Lemieux #2. Some even make the argument that Lemieux is the best because of the numbers he put up while going through cancer. Most often it is Howe who is dropped out of the "Big 4" for a name like Jagr or Crosby.

FWIW, I have Lemieux #4, and Howe #2.

 

[Gurglesons]

I actually think among casual fans Lemieux probably will get pushed down. I remember when I was growing up and just getting into hockey (late 90s) the common thought was Gretzky vs. Orr was not too far off from a toss-up for best ever (Gretzky with the edge), but more recently you see it way more tilted towards Gretzky. As time goes by I think you really start to see people appreciate his longevity more, and the other side of that is that you'll start to see Lemieux knocked more because unlike Orr, he's competing directly with Gretzky and Howe as a forward.

With Lemieux, he just has a lot going against him for longevity, playing in Gretzky's shadow for a decent portion of his career (and in that high scoring era so some will bring up inflated stats), and now being passed in Cups by Crosby + Malkin in the same organization. I know that last one may seem trivial, but if you look at any arguments about the greatest of all time in basketball you'll see how much championships get brought up in arguments.

If anything Lemieux will supersede Howe as we continue to see players play through their 40s at a star level.

Howe doesn’t have the clips to match up with Lemieux and most of his legacy is being Mr. Hockey which will fade away not that he has passed.

Lemieux’s legacy will be forever captured in film and the cancer narrative and his connection with the Penguins will make him a legend regardless.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anything Lemieux will supersede Howe as we continue to see players play through their 40s at a star level.

Howe doesn’t have the clips to match up with Lemieux and most of his legacy is being Mr. Hockey which will fade away not that he has passed.

Lemieux’s legacy will be forever captured in film and the cancer narrative and his connection with the Penguins will make him a legend regardless.

But how many players will we see who win 6 Harts, 6 Art Rosses, lead the playoffs in scoring 6 times, and finish top 5 in scoring 20 straight seasons? (Okay, the last one was in a 6 team league, so say top 10 in scoring 20 straight seasons).

I do realize that casual fans don't know about what I just typed.

 

[Gurglesons]

But how many players will we see who win 6 Harts, 6 Art Rosses, lead the playoffs in scoring 6 times, and finish top 5 in scoring 20 straight seasons? (Okay, the last one was in a 6 team league, so say top 10 in scoring 20 straight seasons).

I do realize that casual fans don't know about what I just typed.

I don’t personally believe Lemieux is a clear cut case to be above Howe or Orr. I just think saying Lemieux of all people will be lost in the annals of time is pretty silly.

The video footage of Lemieux is still untouched to this day amongst modern players.

McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin in the cap era come close, but the overall package of size and finesse is simply something we may never see again. And the early 90s hockey at least looks like what hockey looks like now versus the Gretzky and Howe highlight packages.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

@Vilica, good on you for stepping forward with some contributions. Another even-keeled voice in the discussion is welcome.

Having said that, though, I don't know which one of these two jars me more...

14. Bobby Hull
15. Doug Harvey

I believe that there are only two ways you get there from here. The more likely explanation is that someone who holds this position likely pretty much self-presents as a non-eyewitness to what they did on-the-ice.

 

[bobholly39]

But how many players will we see who win 6 Harts, 6 Art Rosses, lead the playoffs in scoring 6 times, and finish top 5 in scoring 20 straight seasons? (Okay, the last one was in a 6 team league, so say top 10 in scoring 20 straight seasons).

I do realize that casual fans don't know about what I just typed.

Yeah but he won those in a 6 team league where he could barely score 100 points. If he had played against Lemieux or Gretzky he wouldn't win any of those Ross/Harts. Have you seen a game in the 50s? It's so slow. Great legend - lots of respect - but Lemieux > Howe very easily.

To be clear - this isn't my opinion. But if we're talking 20-30+ years from now - you can expect such rebuttals to be much more commonplace than today.

Lemieux's legacy is likely to age better based on highlight reel and skill level (even 30 years from now I can't expect he won't look impressive), stats - and I think the 93 and 2001 comebacks are a nice touch too. "He became owner - brought Crosby into the league, saved the Pens franchise and as owner won more cups" - that might be a story too in future.

It's all a guessing game - but I think Lemieux has a lot going for him to have his legacy age very well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don’t personally believe Lemieux is a clear cut case to be above Howe or Orr. I just think saying Lemieux of all people will be lost in the annals of time is pretty silly.

The video footage of Lemieux is still untouched to this day amongst modern players.

McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin in the cap era come close, but the overall package of size and finesse is simply something we may never see again. And the early 90s hockey at least looks like what hockey looks like now versus the Gretzky and Howe highlight packages.

Have you not seen Orr video footage?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah but he won those in a 6 team league where he could barely score 100 points. If he had played against Lemieux or Gretzky he wouldn't win any of those Ross/Harts. Have you seen a game in the 50s? It's so slow. Great legend - lots of respect - but Lemieux > Howe very easily.

To be clear - this isn't my opinion. But if we're talking 20-30+ years from now - you can expect such rebuttals to be much more commonplace than today.

Lemieux's legacy is likely to age better based on highlight reel and skill level (even 30 years from now I can't expect he won't look impressive), stats - and I think the 93 and 2001 comebacks are a nice touch too. "He became owner - brought Crosby into the league, saved the Pens franchise and as owner won more cups" - that might be a story too in future.

It's all a guessing game - but I think Lemieux has a lot going for him to have his legacy age very well.

No one scored 100 points in the six team league. Including Howe.

But in the early 50s Howe was outscoring everyone by margins only Gretzky has surpassed.

 

[Trap Jesus]

If anything Lemieux will supersede Howe as we continue to see players play through their 40s at a star level.

Howe doesn’t have the clips to match up with Lemieux and most of his legacy is being Mr. Hockey which will fade away not that he has passed.

Lemieux’s legacy will be forever captured in film and the cancer narrative and his connection with the Penguins will make him a legend regardless.

I think for general perception when talking about the very best of all time, it's more about finding a lane or a niche where you can't be touched.

With Gretzky he has unparalleled offensive peak/prime/longevity.

With Orr he plays a position where there isn't nearly as much competition, which will always boost his perception, and I'd argue he has the "cut short" career argument over Lemieux given how consistent he was in those prime years.

With Howe, it's not about how many games he played but rather how consistent he was for so long. He was the hands down best player of the 50s, and then you can make a legitimate argument that he was right alongside Hull, someone a ton of people have as the 5th best player of all time, in the entire decade of the 60s after that. We've seen the longevity argument challenged with players like Jagr, Messier and Chelios since and it hasn't affected his legacy. Does Marleau potentially breaking his games record matter at all when you look at what Marleau has done in his career?

I honestly think the Crosby thing is going to be big for eating into Lemieux's legacy, even if that's an uninformed opinion. You already have Gretzky heavily eating into Lemieux's legacy given the similar times they played, at the same position, but all those arguments you see about longevity vs. dominance are just going to be amplified considering Crosby, at the same position and in the same organization, was a part of 3-2 Cup teams. I don't think it's right to think that way, but I definitely think it's going to be a thing when people reflect back.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I honestly think the Crosby thing is going to be big for eating into Lemieux's legacy, even if that's an uninformed opinion. You already have Gretzky heavily eating into Lemieux's legacy given the similar times they played, at the same position, but all those arguments you see about longevity vs. dominance are just going to be amplified considering Crosby, at the same position and in the same organization, was a part of 3-2 Cup teams. I don't think it's right to think that way, but I definitely think it's going to be a thing when people reflect back.

I wouldn't say it's an uninformed opinion, just most likely an incorrect one. Crosby is about as likely to eat into Lemeiux's legacy as someone is likely to push aside a T-bone to eat a hot dog. Sure, you can't account for everyone's taste, but only those who put disproportionate value on trophy/Cup counting might do so, and even then you have to really stretch the argument.

 

[K Fleur]

I actually think among casual fans Lemieux probably will get pushed down. I remember when I was growing up and just getting into hockey (late 90s) the common thought was Gretzky vs. Orr was not too far off from a toss-up for best ever (Gretzky with the edge), but more recently you see it way more tilted towards Gretzky. As time goes by I think you really start to see people appreciate his longevity more, and the other side of that is that you'll start to see Lemieux knocked more because unlike Orr, he's competing directly with Gretzky and Howe as a forward.

With Lemieux, he just has a lot going against him for longevity, playing in Gretzky's shadow for a decent portion of his career (and in that high scoring era so some will bring up inflated stats), and now being passed in Cups by Crosby + Malkin in the same organization. I know that last one may seem trivial, but if you look at any arguments about the greatest of all time in basketball you'll see how much championships get brought up in arguments.

I’ll say this much; Penguins fans, even the casual ones, don’t even bother listening to this argument. I think if that argument starts to creep in there will be pushback from the fans closest too it.

Lemieux’s legacy in hockey ,and especially Pittsburgh hockey, extends much larger than his two championships.

 

[wetcoast]

No one scored 100 points in the six team league. Including Howe.

But in the early 50s Howe was outscoring everyone by margins only Gretzky has surpassed.

He said it wasnt his opinion but rather how casual observers would react in the future.

Heck even here Maurice Richard has his only 50 goal season in 50 games in the war era yet it is still the golden standard among many fans....even here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don’t personally believe Lemieux is a clear cut case to be above Howe or Orr. I just think saying Lemieux of all people will be lost in the annals of time is pretty silly.

I don't think anyone's arguing he would be lost in the annals of time. We're talking about him being "downgraded" to the level of a Hull, Hasek level legend.

The video footage of Lemieux is still untouched to this day amongst modern players.

The problem here is that casual fans don't spend a bunch of time watching old highlights.

Right now we're talking about people in their late-20s as the definition of a "young fan". Those people aren't quite old enough to remember seeing Lemieux play, but they are old enough to have experienced him through his connections with Crosby. They would have seen a lot of Lemieux highlights in the wake of his retirement, and in tributes to him as a Cup-winning executive and mentor to the biggest superstar of the current generation.

Now, imagine cutting all of that out of the picture. Imagine someone who's being born right now, is that person likely to ever watch a bunch of Lemieux tribute reels? By the time this person is in their late 20s, Mario will be pushing 80 if he's still alive. By the time they know him as more than just a name on a plaque, he'll have a relationship to their generation similar to Howe's with the current generation.

Which leads us to...

McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin in the cap era come close, but the overall package of size and finesse is simply something we may never see again. And the early 90s hockey at least looks like what hockey looks like now versus the Gretzky and Howe highlight packages.

A few weeks ago I showed by 9 and 11 year old sons video of the Canes' run in 2006. Their immediate reaction was "why do all the players look so bad?".

We look at the game with old eyes. We don't see distinctions which are immediately obvious to young people.

Even today, younger fans on the main board are absolutely brutal to early 1990s hockey. They already regard that era as being full of trash defense and incompetent goaltending. Someone in the year 2040 is absolutely not going to look at a Mario Lemieux highlight reel and think "this looks like the NHL I've grown up with".

Which doesn't mean they're necessarily going to see Mario as a lesser talent. But they simply aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he receives from people who saw him play live, for the same reason that Gretzky and Orr and Howe and Morenz no longer receive that consideration either.