Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Citizens on Patrol)

[MXD]

Price is well behind the likes of Luongo and Lundquist in the post-lockout world for me. I have him edging Bob (because Bob is particularly awful in the playoffs), but the legend of Price got out of hand due to that one season + an Olympics where he faced like 10 shots a game.

I hope the bolded really didn't have to be said -- it's very obvious. Price is pretty much in Kiprusoff's territory, and that's nowhere close to making this list.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Esposito was a rare trailing center with Boston, strength was a factor but playing with Orr he was able to benefit from the space created by defensive players overskating him. Overskating does not have a boxing equivalent.

Colour me skeptical. I think a good skater could cover anybody. A poor skater would be limited.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I kind of surprised myself on the McDavid front honestly. I was pretty adament about not ranking him initially but in the end hes better than a lot of players. Hes still not worth spending too much time discussing as its mostly moot.

He deserves an asterix. He is currently (IMO) better than any of his contemporaries... and is on the road to being the best since Mario. I saw him in person the other night in Winnipeg and was amazed at just how much better he was than anybody else on either team. His numbers would be sooooooooooo much higher if he had anybody to play with.

Even if Edmonton doesn't make the playoffs, he should easily deserve the Hart. If this list of ours truly ranked the "best", then he definitely should be there. I, however, avoided the confusion and bought in to the fact that he is simply too "new" to crack the list... this time.

 

[ImporterExporter]

ImporterExporter : Everyone is raving about Nighbor!
Also ImporterExporter : There's some serious hyperbole in Montreal newspaper.

There is a difference between newpaper writers raving about a player, comparing him to Babe Ruth for example (which is f***ing idiotic considering Babe Ruth actually owned his sport by massive margins) and players and coaches heaping praises on a player (Morenz himself called Nighbor the greatest player on earth).

Frank Nighbor was a better all around hockey player then Morenz. And he sure as shit was a much better big game player.

But keep up with the passive aggressive nonsense. I'll eviscerate it all day long bub.

 

[The Macho King]

He deserves an asterix. He is currently (IMO) better than any of his contemporaries... and is on the road to being the best since Mario. I saw him in person the other night in Winnipeg and was amazed at just how much better he was than anybody else on either team. His numbers would be sooooooooooo much higher if he had anybody to play with.

Even if Edmonton doesn't make the playoffs, he should easily deserve the Hart. If this list of ours truly ranked the "best", then he definitely should be there. I, however, avoided the confusion and bought in to the fact that he is simply too "new" to crack the list... this time.

I come down on the whole - putting him on the list is absolutely defensible. Leaving him off (at this time) is also defensible. We all know that he's going to be on this list eventually - and likely very high, so whether he's on right now or not is kind of academic.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I won't be reading any posts containing the words "Frank Nighbor" until common sense is back, and I really don't care if you're offended.

The writing of a person who's offended because other people simply disagree with his evaluation of a player.

Comical.

 

[MXD]

I come down on the whole - putting him on the list is absolutely defensible. Leaving him off (at this time) is also defensible. We all know that he's going to be on this list eventually - and likely very high, so whether he's on right now or not is kind of academic.

It's very defensible. I just don't know if you can put him on list while leaving out, you know... Carey Price.

 

[bobholly39]

Price has one season of amazing play. Theodore has one season of amazing play. Price probably has better seasons 2-5, but even then they're well within what you would consider normal bounds for a great but not that great goaltender.

Price is well behind the likes of Luongo and Lundquist in the post-lockout world for me. I have him edging Bob (because Bob is particularly awful in the playoffs), but the legend of Price got out of hand due to that one season + an Olympics where he faced like 10 shots a game.

Edit: I realize we probably don't need to go into detail here because I imagine he won't be on more than a handful of lists. So I can withdraw the more inflammatory statements w/r/t Price if that helps keep the discussion on track.

They all 3 made my list, for what it's worth

Also - he didnt face 10 shots a game. He had back to back shutouts in the semi final and finals - where he faced 31 and 24 shots. To me it's one of the best performances ever on the international stage by a goalie, which factored in a lot in my ranking.

But - mostly - I fully agree with your last paragraph. If he somehow comes up (and he won't) in discussions - we can get more into it then.

 

[bobholly39]

It's very defensible. I just don't know if you can put him on list while leaving out, you know... Carey Price.

Luckily I have them both!

 

[DannyGallivan]

Top10 : 1
11-20 : 2
21-30 : 0
31-40 : 1
41-50 : 0
51-60 : 4
61-70 : 2
71-80 : 2
81-90 : 3
91-100 : 1

101-110 : 1
111-120 : 0

Dang! I've only four (4) in the top 50 !
17 on my list in all.

I have read a lot of hockey history books about pre-O6 eras, and love learning about early Stanley Cup challenges, early pro leagues like the mining leagues, the NHA and PCHA. I'm surprised I've only four in the top half of the list.

Top 10: 2
11-20: 0
21-30: 0
31-40: 2
41-50: 2
51-60: 6
61-70: 2
71-80: 0
81-90: 2
91-100: 0
101-110: 1
111-120: 0

I have six in my top 50, and 17 overall as well. However, to be fair a few the 17 played mostly in the 30's or almost equally in the 30's. Tiny Thompson, for example, just dipped his toe in the 20's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Precisely where I'm at with Nighbor. Have him 21st, one spot over Howie and I think I'll be moving Frank up a few spots when it's all said and done.

He is, without a doubt in my mind, the greatest 2 way player of all time. The Montreal papers and media polls favor Morenz (again, some serious hyperbole is evident and Morenz benefited from playing for Montreal in terms of exposure) but if you look at what Morenz himself was saying, along with many other superstars and coaches, you clearly can see that Nighbor was the best pre WWII player of all time....IMO.

If anything I'd swap Nighbor and Shore on my original list sent.

Much as I admire Frank Nighbor, we have to recognize that he played in an era where playoff hockey favoured his strengths, especially the total goal format coming after a pass into the second round.

From the Ottawa Citizen - no Montreal bias, 1927 second round,Ottawa had a first round bye:

Game 1

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 2

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Finals against Boston. Best of 5.

Controversial finish to Game 1 in Boston. Rules reset favouring Ottawa. Articles both sides of cartoon:

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 2 not available.

Game 3

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 4

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Takeaways.

Nighbor was the master of total goals playoffs. His style was ideal. Yet Nighbor was rarely tested in true best of formats.

Shore seems to have suffered the most from the total goals format.

Morenz was somewhere in between.

 

[ImporterExporter]

McDavid is well on his way to being an elite all time player. I've long said he has the talent to break into the top 5. But to do that he needs postseason success, both on an individual level and team wise. It's just the way it goes. I'd love to see it in Edmonton, given the shit their fans have had to deal with the past decade or so. But it remains to be seen if management can actually right the ship. Either way I hope he gets a number of deep playoff runs to his name. The best should be seen playing in April, May and June.

I won't put him on my list simply because he's played 2.5 years worth of hockey. Yep he's amazing, but if he retired right now, he's not done enough in my book to be top 100. No matter how impressive he's been, which has been the case for sure.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Discounting the original claim by 50% already? Hard sell.

I beg your pardon?

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you need a closer example I would give the 14-15 season as one, where Steven Stamkos and Rick Nash finished with 43 and 42 goals respectively (2nd and 3rd overall that year). Obviously Stamkos has a laser of a shot, but Nash that year scored his goals off the cycle and around the net since he just never had a very good shot. I'm sure it's not too hard to find other examples like this.

Highlighting again that skills don't exist in a vacuum, this is a good exercise. Sustainability also becomes a factor. Stamkos: five straight years (and likely would have been six straight had he not broken his leg) of being 1st or 2nd in goals...Nash, much more spotty, just a few times in the top 5 and never close to consecutively and never even in the same situation...once pre-lockout in a Cy Young season, once well on the other side of the rule changes and then several years later on a different team...not consistent, nor did his goal scoring prowess prove sustainable...

Nash scored his goals a different way...Stamkos, a winger trapped in a center's body, has that laser shot, he can one-time pucks for days. Nash, a less threatening shooter, but with a huge wing span, a world-class puck protector and great hands near the net, he did his work in a way that suited his skill set best.

So here's where the rubber meets the road...they can produce an equal amount of goals in a season, we got that, that's not interesting...it's when you look at the surrounding factors and who they each worked with and what situations made them successful and how did they adapt to different systems and different linemates...that's where you start to figure some things out...

What would work well with Nash and the different iterations of Nash...notice how much better Stamkos did with a playmaking winger in Martin St. Louis...but when he wasn't afforded that luxury with Nikita Kucherov (who played mostly with Ondrej Palat and Tyler Johnson) notice how irrelevant (relatively speaking) Stamkos became...? Nash was a one-man show in early Columbus (thus, the Cy Young season)...adapted his game over time...late in his career becoming a really strong two-way way forward and really improved his NZ distribution abilities...Nash compensated for the Rangers lack of puck carrying centers and puck carrying defensemen (well, they wasted the perfect player for them in Keith Yandle by playing in 10 minutes a night, when he's a "rhythm" player) and became the primary breakout man...Chris Kreider owes Rick Nash a Coke too for helping with his development...Kreider, as a streak and score winger found little success because attention-getting centers didn't exist in New York and thus, he made a lot of blue to blue solo rushes that amount in little...when he got Rick Nash, Nash opened up the NZ for him, commanding attention and allowing Kreider to cruise up the weak side, generate speed and get higher quality chances using his best asset - his skating.

How these things all interwork with each other is all on the foundation of proper talent evaluation...to ignore it or dismiss it, is ignoring the game itself...

 

[Canadiens1958]

I beg your pardon?

Claimed 50 goal scorers then cite career 25 goal scorer in Hornqvist. 50% off.

 

[ResilientBeast]

McDavid is well on his way to being an elite all time player. I've long said he has the talent to break into the top 5. But to do that he needs postseason success, both on an individual level and team wise. It's just the way it goes. I'd love to see it in Edmonton, given the **** their fans have had to deal with the past decade or so. But it remains to be seen if management can actually right the ship. Either way I hope he gets a number of deep playoff runs to his name. The best should be seen playing in April, May and June.

I won't put him on my list simply because he's played 2.5 years worth of hockey. Yep he's amazing, but if he retired right now, he's not done enough in my book to be top 100. No matter how impressive he's been, which has been the case for sure.

I wish we did this project in like 2 more years just so I could lobby for McDavid

Our coach has finally figured out the logical lines, which means he won't get fired. But those lines dominated Winnipeg

 

[ImporterExporter]

Much as I admire Frank Nighbor, we have to recognize that he played in an era where playoff hockey favoured his strengths, especially the total goal format coming after a pass into the second round.

From the Ottawa Citizen - no Montreal bias, 1927 second round,Ottawa had a first round bye:

Game 1

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 2

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Finals against Boston. Best of 5.

Controversial finish to Game 1 in Boston. Rules reset favouring Ottawa. Articles both sides of cartoon:

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 2 not available.

Game 3

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Game 4

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Takeaways.

Nighbor was the master of total goals playoffs. His style was ideal. Yet Nighbor was rarely tested in true best of formats.

Shore seems to have suffered the most from the total goals format.

Morenz was somewhere in between.

Oh, I agree that Nighbor benefited from the playoff format, but he's certainly not the only player. And also everyone played under those rules on the same sheet of ice. Nighbor's postseason numbers are quite ridiculous and that doesn't even touch on the fact he's still at a disadvantage because of the lack of assist totals. And then we need to examine how his defensive impact tilted the ice often in favor of Ottawa.

The very fact that a 31 year old Nighbor was the leagues first Hart winner (and Byng btw) is telling. He was highly respected for his peerless play. I really like to highlight Frank Selke's description of Nighbor. This isn't some fan or sportswriter. Selke had no direct connection to Nighbor as far as i know. Didn't coach him. Yet this is what he said:

Frank Selke in 11-10-1962 Montreal Gazette said:

With all due respect to the many wonderful players who have come and gone since 1900, there are few who could be rated above Frank Nighbor. Someone once called him the "peerless centre," and I can think of no label which would have been more apt. We always felt he could have played a complete game of hockey in formal attire without even putting a wrinkle in his suit. He was a leading scorer, an expert passer and a playmaker; and no rival forward could come close to him in defensive skill. Along with Jack Walker he developed the poke-check to such an extent that his contemporaries were forced to revamp completely their style of play in order to cope with him.
....
It is hard to say whether Morenz' style of play was more effective than Nighbor's, but there was this difference--Nighbor was so letter-perfect that a spectator could fall asleep watching him play, knowing just what was going to happen.


​

​

 

[MXD]

....Thanks to this whole "let's count pre-30ies players", I realized I made a somewhat gross omission in my list. A "I can't realize I forgot THAT guy" omission.

 

[VanIslander]

Much as I admire Frank Nighbor, we have to recognize that he played in an era where playoff hockey favoured his strengths,...

Do we? Coffey played in an era that really benefited his strengths!

We are not imagining how they would have played in other eras or an all-time competition 'what if' scenario. Again, this ain't the ATD.

Plenty of greats played in an era that suited their strengths! I think Howe would have thrived more across eras compared to Gretzky, but this is immaterial to my assessment of greatness or who was the best when I look specifically at how they played in their own era.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I wish we did this project in like 2 more years just so I could lobby for McDavid

Haha, oh I know!

Maybe I'll change my mind on this one as the project goes on. I'm open to just about anything in regards to it. Even after this year I'd almost surely put him on a top 120, provided he continues to do what he's doing, which I fully expect. If he's healthy it's another Art Ross and Lindsay at a minimum I'd wager. It wouldn't surprise me to see McD with 5-6 Hart's and possibly even more Art Ross trophies when it's all said and done.

 

[MXD]

I wish we did this project in like 2 more years just so I could lobby for McDavid

Our coach has finally figured out the logical lines, which means he won't get fired. But those lines dominated Winnipeg

2 years ago, Crosby in the Top-30 would've been a really hard sell.
Now he's a very legit Top-15 candidate at the very least.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Claimed 50 goal scorers then cite career 25 goal scorer in Hornqvist. 50% off.

That was an example. It is not tied to any specific number of goals. It works for 50-goal scorers, 30-goal scorers, 5-goal scorers. I used the Hornqvist example because it was already brought up and was easily looked up.

Excellent job distracting from the actual point being made though. I'll wait for you to address that. (insert skeleton Leafs fan waiting for next Stanley Cup)

 

[DannyGallivan]

The 1915-1929 era is the most entertaining of all, you don't know what you're missing out.

Great to read about, for sure. Much harder to quantify accomplishments and exploits, but I agree that the characters were indeed colourful.

What that short video I posted showed, even in a comedy, was just how vicious hockey was. That was its well-deserved rep even back then. I seriously assume that there are many, many serious injuries and even deaths from that era that we are unaware of. Like it or not, that "frontier spirit" of hockey adds immeasurably to the allure of those by-gone days. You had to be both brave and tough to play... even more so than today.

Also, as someone who recently bought "modern" skates after not buying a pair since the 80's, I am AMAZED at how well those players skated on what was essentially boots with dull blades screwed to them. Zero ankle support, yet, the skates were extensions of their legs. I rack that up to so much more time spent skating outdoors, since there was much less leisure activity in those days.

 

[bobholly39]

I wish we did this project in like 2 more years just so I could lobby for McDavid

Our coach has finally figured out the logical lines, which means he won't get fired. But those lines dominated Winnipeg

Even 4-5 years totals seems silly. Crosby/Malkin/Ovechking are only now starting to make sense to rank - as wherever they end up ranked today vs when they retire likely doesn't fluctuate by more than 10 ranks or so if that, and they're in their 30s. They've already had the majority of the important parts of their career (barring some big surprises).

Even in 2 years you might have argued McDavid....top 50? 40? But if he was pacing for a top 5-10 by end of career, it still would seem kind of a moot point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do we? Coffey played in an era that really benefited his strengths!

We are not imagining how they would have played in other eras or an all-time competition 'what if' scenario. Again, this ain't the ATD.

Plenty of greats played in an era that suited their strengths! I think Howe would have thrived more across eras compared to Gretzky, but this is immaterial to my assessment of greatness or who was the best when I look specifically at how they played in their own era.

No imagining just recognition of eras and the different demands.

Conversely "days of rest" in all its facets is slowly rising to the top of the list as a key factor across all eras.