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

[ted2019]

There will always be some people who rank Howe #1, #2, or #3. And if you were to poll only people aged 80+, a majority might say Howe is #1. That age group would certainly be very favourable to Gordie.

But, right now, I think a majority of the entire hockey world would have Howe at #4. And among the younger half of the hockey world, Howe is behind Lemieux by quite a significant margin.

I don't think it makes any sense that this is going to change.

-----------------------

Lemieux obviously has a lot going for him. But one of the biggest pluses for him is that he's the most recent megastar in the sport. Everybody knows how dominant he was as a scorer. And everybody knows that nobody has approached his dominance since he played.

How long will it be before another player of Lemieux's caliber comes along? Connor McDavid is 32 years younger than Lemieux, and it doesnt look like McDavid is going to do it.

The longer we go without a super-dominant player, the better Lemieux looks.

------------------

If Crosby has 5 more elite seasons, I think most people will have him ahead of Howe. But Crosby will never, for the vast majority of people, get to Lemieux.

-------------------

Mr. Hockey

Gordie might be Mr. Hockey to those of us who are really into hockey. But, to the general population, he's not. Gretzky is.

Gretzky is both Mr. Hockey and hockey's equivalent to Babe Ruth.

Gretzky is untouchable at #1, probably for a hundred years.

This hurts Howe a little bit (but not very much).

------------------

In Gretzky's shadow

Lemieux was in Gretzky's shadow in the sense that Lemieux is 4 years younger, and also because Gretzky was the biggest "star" in the history of the sport.

But this also helps Lemieux (a lot, I would say), in the minds of most people, because for the large majority of their common seasons, Lemieux was either in the same ballpark as Gretzky, or about the same in quality, or better. Really, from CC '87 onward.

I'm pretty sure a few voters in the previous top 100 player voting had Gordie at #1.

 

[tarheelhockey]

peter gzowski’s arbitrary list of hockey’s all-time greats

The whole thing’s worth a read, but you HAVE to see Foster Hewitt’s handwritten ballot at the end.

 

[seventieslord]

peter gzowski’s arbitrary list of hockey’s all-time greats

The whole thing’s worth a read, but you HAVE to see Foster Hewitt’s handwritten ballot at the end.

So many people who were already old when Gretzky started to peak, just could never come around to him. It's too bad, their loss.

 

[daver]

Interesting stuff, which goes along with what Overpass recently posted in another thread. I am completely prepared to be convinced that Hull was a flat-track bully, and in fact I want very much to find out which players have that tendency because it matters quite a bit in my personal evaluation scheme. However, I'm not entirely sure you're fairly comparing him to everybody else in this regard. This is not at all meant to be negative or dismissing your work in the least, just trying to offer some potentially constructive criticism and/or share some thoughts as someone who also loves playing around with splits and is still trying to figure out his own top 100 list (which will likely also have some major deviations from the group consensus on HOH).

First of all, I'm always at least a bit skeptical when a player shows a trend that seems to reverse or at least decrease substantially in the playoffs, which seems to be somewhat the case for Hull (particularly when it comes to his scoring against the Montreal Canadiens as well as the Bruins/Rangers). It might be a small sample size fluke, of course, but it could also indicate that there were different incentives at play, and in that case I think the playoff result is more likely to be representative (at least if we're evaluating talent). (Incidentally, Harvey's playoff scoring looked really strong to me when I analyzed it during the top 100 debates, which is why even though I think some of the critiques of his regular season performance are fair, I'm not sure they really reflect as much on him as a hockey player at his best).

I am a firm believer that playoff performances should be viewed highly in terms of career assessment and in confirming regular season performances i.e. they have a playoff resume befitting their regular season stature.

Hull's playoff resume pretty much matches his regular season one in terms of GPG and PPG domination over his peers. IMO, there is nothing to indicate a statistical anomaly in his regular season numbers that reasonably requires a closer look at competition, at least to the point where he is moved down to the level a statistically inferior player like Ovechkin.

 

[wetcoast]

So many people who were already old when Gretzky started to peak, just could never come around to him. It's too bad, their loss.

It's odd that Conn Smythe says that he didn't see gretzky play since this ballot was sent out in the summer of 1980 after Gretzky's rookie year but perhaps he wasn't that interested in the game at that time?

To be fair Gretzky should not have been on the ballot in the summer of 1980 either.

Also seeing Foster Hewitts ballot at the bottom I can;t help but wonder if DannyGallivan the poster around the top 100 HOH isn't indeed some version of Foster?

Great article.

 

[Theokritos]

It's odd that Conn Smythe says that he didn't see gretzky play since this ballot was sent out in the summer of 1980 after Gretzky's rookie year but perhaps he wasn't that interested in the game at that time?

It's in the link.

Conn Smythe 1981: (Edit: I'm wrong, it was Clarence Campbell's reply.)

"I am still in no better position to do a thorough and conscientious assessment simply because I have not seen him in action once during the season, so I have no better appreciation of his talents than I had a year ago when I declined to make an evaluation of him. The reason I did not see him is that until a month ago I could not see well enough to make it worthwhile to attend the games or to follow the games on TV. A month ago I had a cataract operation which has restored my sight in the operated eye to 20-20."

 

[wetcoast]

It's in the link.

Conn Smythe 1981:

"I am still in no better position to do a thorough and conscientious assessment simply because I have not seen him in action once during the season, so I have no better appreciation of his talents than I had a year ago when I declined to make an evaluation of him. The reason I did not see him is that until a month ago I could not see well enough to make it worthwhile to attend the games or to follow the games on TV. A month ago I had a cataract operation which has restored my sight in the operated eye to 20-20."

That quote was given to Clarence Campbell who replied

that he had indeed followed accounts of Gretzky’s successes throughout season. But:

I am still in no better position to do a thorough and conscientious assessment simply because I have not seen him in action once during the season, so I have no better appreciation of his talents than I had a year ago when I declined to make an evaluation of him. The reason I did not see him is that until a month ago I could not see well enough to make it worthwhile to attend the games or to follow the games on TV. A month ago I had a cataract operation which has restored my sight in the operated eye to 20-20.​

Although the article does state that neither Smyther or Selke submitted any rankings or numbers to Gzowski and the list by Campbell wasn't complete on Wayne for the reason listed here and to be Frank (not Selke though) it was too early in his career to make a determination on him anyways I think.​

 

[Theokritos]

That quote was given to Clarence Campbell who replied

You're right, my bad.

 

[amnesiac]

@quoipourquoi

put my username down for the next lists we do, please. I was part of the older ones but had a different user so I never got the memo

 

[Say Hey Kid]

I am a firm believer that playoff performances should be viewed highly in terms of career assessment and in confirming regular season performances i.e. they have a playoff resume befitting their regular season stature. ...

Different sport, but Dick Butkus and Gale Sayers never played in a playoff game. If Jarome Iginla, Marian Hossa, and Doug Wilson never played in a playoff game, would they be in your HHoF?

 

[daver]

Different sport, but Dick Butkus and Gale Sayers never played in a playoff game. If Jarome Iginla, Marian Hossa, and Doug Wilson never played in a playoff game, would they be in your HHoF?

Different sport, different values placed on regular season performances.

To answer your question, maybe.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

...To answer your question, maybe.

When it's yes, you'll be a true hockey history fan.

 

[daver]

When it's yes, you'll be a true hockey history fan.

What does this have to do with the point I was making?

 

[HarryLime]

Sundin should be on there

 

[Michael Farkas]

Where...roughly or exactly...?

 

[wetcoast]

Where...roughly or exactly...?

One could certainly make an argument for Sundin over Keon or indeed even Firsov but even so it would be near the very bottom and he would just be a placeholder there.

 

[Thenameless]

How long will it be before another player of Lemieux's caliber comes along? Connor McDavid is 32 years younger than Lemieux, and it doesnt look like McDavid is going to do it.

It's not even really about McDavid not looking like he's going to do it, as longevity can only do so much. You can tell pretty early on how good a guy is. McDavid is approximately as good as Crosby is, which is far less than Lemieux.

Small sample size I know, but when a guy starts his career by "beating future Hall of Fame defenseman Ray Bourque, going on to score his first goal on his first shot of his first shift of his first game in the NHL" it portends greatness. Lemieux had unreal natural talent and skill. But I don't have to tell you this.

 

[wetcoast]

It's not even really about McDavid not looking like he's going to do it, as longevity can only do so much. You can tell pretty early on how good a guy is. McDavid is approximately as good as Crosby is, which is far less than Lemieux.

Small sample size I know, but when a guy starts his career by "beating future Hall of Fame defenseman Ray Bourque, going on to score his first goal on his first shot of his first shift of his first game in the NHL" it portends greatness. Lemieux had unreal natural talent and skill. But I don't have to tell you this.

To be fair though, if Mario, Wayne or Bobby came along in today's NHL we wouldn't recognize them either as the ability to dominate offensively just isn't possible in the current NHL than it was in the 60's to 80s.

That being aid I do think Mario was the most pure skilled player that I have ever seen but his 2 way play was simply dreadfull and his ESGF/ESGA and R-on R-off numbers are really meh all things considered.

 

[Thenameless]

To be fair though, if Mario, Wayne or Bobby came along in today's NHL we wouldn't recognize them either as the ability to dominate offensively just isn't possible in the current NHL than it was in the 60's to 80s.

Why? I agree that 200+ point seasons are probably beyond reach in today's game, but a guy could still separate himself from the pack with 150-170 point seasons while the rest score in the 110's to 120's at the most.

 

[Staniowski]

It's not even really about McDavid not looking like he's going to do it, as longevity can only do so much. You can tell pretty early on how good a guy is. McDavid is approximately as good as Crosby is, which is far less than Lemieux.

Small sample size I know, but when a guy starts his career by "beating future Hall of Fame defenseman Ray Bourque, going on to score his first goal on his first shot of his first shift of his first game in the NHL" it portends greatness. Lemieux had unreal natural talent and skill. But I don't have to tell you this.

Yes, I agree. We're really getting closer to 40 years, with no challengers within sight.

McDavid's next few years will probably be his most productive, so let's see what he does....but, you're right - he's not Lemieux.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sundin should be on there

In 2014, this forum voted Sundin the 54th best center of all-time: HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

 

[tarheelhockey]

Where...roughly or exactly...?

Way down there

No, lower

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's not even really about McDavid not looking like he's going to do it, as longevity can only do so much. You can tell pretty early on how good a guy is. McDavid is approximately as good as Crosby is, which is far less than Lemieux.

Small sample size I know, but when a guy starts his career by "beating future Hall of Fame defenseman Ray Bourque, going on to score his first goal on his first shot of his first shift of his first game in the NHL" it portends greatness. Lemieux had unreal natural talent and skill. But I don't have to tell you this.

I really think McDavid's skill set is higher than Crosby's.

 

[HarryLime]

In 2014, this forum voted Sundin the 54th best center of all-time: HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

That's a tough read

 

[Theokritos]

Posts limit reached, discussion continues here: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (The Third)