Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (With a Vengeance)

[MXD]

8 spots on the Centers project means almost 40 to 50 on here.
It's the difference between Mark Howe & Marcel Pronovost.
It's the difference between Frank Brimsek & Bernie Parent.
It's the difference between Brett Hull & Tommy Phillips.

None of these guys are centers.
8 spots difference, amongst centers, brings us back to something like the difference between Milt Schmidt and Elmer Lach. ... And I don't think we're exactly in the same territory in terms of gap.

 

[MXD]

... I don't quite know what to do with Lach's playoff resume. On one hand, and on surface, the numbers look good. Similar to his contemporary Kennedy (who is a great playoff performer), better than contemporary Sid Abel, and much better than another one of his contemporaries, Milt Schmidt. And he was a well rounded player too.

But then, there's a catch :
From 1943 to 1946 : 29 Games - 13 goals - 31 assists - 44 points
From 1949 to 1954 : 44 Games - 5 Goals - 14 assists - 19 points

Everyone has his own opinion of War + 1946 Numbers. And it's not like the Habs were an extremely successful team in the playoffs of the second group of years either, so it's not a case of a player sacrificing the numbers for the good of the team. And we're also talking about a playmaking center playing with Maurice Richard.

But then again, THIS reasoning is ... a bit simple. Between 1949 to 1954, Elmer Lach was 31 to 36 years old, off his prime (and suffered a serious injury in 1949, I think). Which mean that we have a case of a player whose prime (playoffs years) happened exactly as the league was not very good (while he was playing on the very good team). There are good reasons not to take the 44 pts in 29 games figure a face value. (For the record, Lach suffered an injury in 1947, missed the playoffs entirely, and the Habs bowed out in the SCF to the Leafs. In 1948, the Habs would miss the playoffs, despite Lach winning the Art Ross; if I got things right, that's the year where only 3 players scored 10 goals or more.... one of them being a D-Man. And in 1949, Lach suffered an injury and played very little playoff hockey.

(I'll have to link to this post whenever Lach's up for voting)

The point of this post is : Maybe Elmer Lach is a better player than Joe Thornton. Maybe he's not. But if you think he is, and your main argument is "Playoffs ZOMG", you probably should seriously give it another go. And if you still think he is, well, give it ANOTHER go. I don't see Lach and Thornton having any kind of huge advantage one over the other.

And that's coming from what was probably Thornton's biggest detractor in the Centers project.

 

[DannyGallivan]

It can actually be harder to rank players you've watched a lot, because then your memories, impressions and eye test compete with their accomplishments and respect in the industry.

It takes awhile (and several drafts) to weed out personal bias, but you're never going to get rid of it totally... which is good (it'll add variety to the lists).

The "eye" test is very important, though. Hockey is too mult-faceted to rely on numbers alone. It is crucial that there is commentary for each player. That's why I think so many people undervalue Dave Keon. The commentary on him from the sixties and early seventies confirm that he was one of the faces of the NHL during that period - more so than his numbers or hardware. He was even chosen as the greatest Leaf of all time. I had him quite high (low 50's) then moved him down to where I'm more comfortable with him (number 75), but I still have this nagging feeling that I dropped him too far.

That's a challenge for so many of the players from the early part of the last century as well.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Norris Trophies have nothing to do with it. In the Norris years, he was very good. In other seasons, he was either above average or just plain average. I value post season AS voting a lot and he was/has been 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th , 11th, 11th, 14th with 3 seasons with o votes.

...and a Conn Smythe. I have him rated higher.

 

[blogofmike]

8 spots on the Centers project means almost 40 to 50 on here.
It's the difference between Mark Howe & Marcel Pronovost.
It's the difference between Frank Brimsek & Bernie Parent.
It's the difference between Brett Hull & Tommy Phillips.

Centres probably follow each other more closely than other positions, and are going to be overrepresented compared to how many of them are on the ice at once. There will be 1 centre and 2 wingers on the ice, but on this list, having 20 centres and 40 wingers will be off. Even 30 and 30 seems off. I imagine it will be more like 40-45 and 20 for me if I did one.

 

[DitchMarner]

I think to me, I'd have those players listed as such.
Belfour
Keon
Fedorov
Parent
Francis/Oates
Hawerchuk
Sundin
Modano

Francis, Hawerchuk, Sundin and Modano are pretty much interchangeable.

 

[DitchMarner]

The thing about Thornton is that there are a lot of similar centers who were passers first who won't make it. Francis, Oates, Gilmour, Hawerchuk will mostly won't make it. Now Jumbo has a Hart and Art Ross to his credit while the other that I mentioned don't. Realistically, the only other center that I can think of who would compare to Thornton is Henrik Sedin. Sedin has a Hart & Art Ross and I'm pretty confident that He won't make most lists, unless it's closer to 120 then 100 or higher.

Thornton is definitely better than Henrik Sedin. I don't think they're particularly close.

Thornton has impressive advanced stats (if you're into that sort of thing) and he comes out looking really good in terms of adjusted plus/minus. Despite not being a renowned two-way player, he makes a major team-positive impact in terms of goal differential.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/adjusted-even-strength-plus-minus-1960-2017.591548/

 

[MXD]

...Thornton also has better longevity and, at first glance, is also a significantly better goalscorer (!) than Sedin. Seriously, Thornton has eleven 20-goals seasons, and Henrik Sedin has, like, two.

 

[ted2019]

None of these guys are centers.
8 spots difference, amongst centers, brings us back to something like the difference between Milt Schmidt and Elmer Lach. ... And I don't think we're exactly in the same territory in terms of gap.

I'm glad you told me that they aren't centers.

 

[ted2019]

Thornton is definitely better than Henrik Sedin. I don't think they're particularly close.

Thornton has impressive advanced stats (if you're into that sort of thing) and he comes out looking really good in terms of adjusted plus/minus. Despite not being a renowned two-way player, he makes a major team-positive impact in terms of goal differential.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/adjusted-even-strength-plus-minus-1960-2017.591548/

I was going by assists.

 

[MXD]

I'm glad you told me that they aren't centers.

My point was basically the same as blogofmike.

 

[Canadiens1958]

... I don't quite know what to do with Lach's playoff resume. On one hand, and on surface, the numbers look good. Similar to his contemporary Kennedy (who is a great playoff performer), better than contemporary Sid Abel, and much better than another one of his contemporaries, Milt Schmidt. And he was a well rounded player too.

But then, there's a catch :
From 1943 to 1946 : 29 Games - 13 goals - 31 assists - 44 points
From 1949 to 1954 : 44 Games - 5 Goals - 14 assists - 19 points

Everyone has his own opinion of War + 1946 Numbers. And it's not like the Habs were an extremely successful team in the playoffs of the second group of years either, so it's not a case of a player sacrificing the numbers for the good of the team. And we're also talking about a playmaking center playing with Maurice Richard.

But then again, THIS reasoning is ... a bit simple. Between 1949 to 1954, Elmer Lach was 31 to 36 years old, off his prime (and suffered a serious injury in 1949, I think). Which mean that we have a case of a player whose prime (playoffs years) happened exactly as the league was not very good (while he was playing on the very good team). There are good reasons not to take the 44 pts in 29 games figure a face value. (For the record, Lach suffered an injury in 1947, missed the playoffs entirely, and the Habs bowed out in the SCF to the Leafs. In 1948, the Habs would miss the playoffs, despite Lach winning the Art Ross; if I got things right, that's the year where only 3 players scored 10 goals or more.... one of them being a D-Man. And in 1949, Lach suffered an injury and played very little playoff hockey.

(I'll have to link to this post whenever Lach's up for voting)

The point of this post is : Maybe Elmer Lach is a better player than Joe Thornton. Maybe he's not. But if you think he is, and your main argument is "Playoffs ZOMG", you probably should seriously give it another go. And if you still think he is, well, give it ANOTHER go. I don't see Lach and Thornton having any kind of huge advantage one over the other.

And that's coming from what was probably Thornton's biggest detractor in the Centers project.

Elmer Lach suffered four serious injuries including a skull fracture:

Elmer Lach Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Injury details:

Elmer Lach - Wikipedia

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Earlier in the thread, I made a quip about "Albedo Guys," by which I meant the players that we risk overvaluing because they played on such loaded teams. As I've thought through this further, a more productive approach would be for us to consider the Anti-Albedo Guys. That is to say, the players who achieved a record of excellence in spite of not having really a whole lot of help.

(For me), the quintessential 0-6 Anti-Albedo Guy is Andy Bathgate. His career is sufficiently documented as to require no additional advocacy on my part.

A modern Anti-Albedo Guy is Jarome Iginla. I'm embarrassed by the extent I undervalued him before I looked deeper into that context.

I'll list Marcel Dionne as an Anti-Albedo Guy.

Would anyone like to share further names of people we risk overlooking or under-valuing due to this factor?

 

[VanIslander]

The quintessential anti-Albedo is...

Earl Seibert.

As a rookie he was 4th in Hart trophy voting ahead of HHOF teammates Frank Boucher and Bill Cook. BUT then he goes to lowly Chicago where...

Seibert plays with zero HHOFers his first four seasons there and is an NHL all star in Chicago for 10 consecutive seasons, an achievement that no other defenseman has ever done except Doug Harvey with dynasty Habs. Earl wins the Stanley Cup as a Blackhawk (the team shouldn't have won by all accounts!) leading the lowly Chicago team in minutes played by a ton with 55 in the 1938 final (the dman even tying the team's leader in playoff goals scored), his coach identifying him as the reason why they won. The best players he played with were Paul Thompson and Johnny Gottselig, neither on anyone's longlist of the top 100, 120, heck 200 player list (though both ATD picks as bargain basement alltime 2nd line or decent 3rd line worthy guys).

Earl Seibert was considered better than Boston's Eddie Shore by several of his contemporaries, in two cases Shore said to get the Hart votes because of his flashier game that endeared him to fans and reporters, rushing riskily and fighting eagerly, while Seibert instead efficiently dominated games, getting widespread respect but not as much attention.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Earlier in the thread, I made a quip about "Albedo Guys," by which I meant the players that we risk overvaluing because they played on such loaded teams. As I've thought through this further, a more productive approach would be for us to consider the Anti-Albedo Guys. That is to say, the players who achieved a record of excellence in spite of not having really a whole lot of help.

(For me), the quintessential 0-6 Anti-Albedo Guy is Andy Bathgate. His career is sufficiently documented as to require no additional advocacy on my part.

A modern Anti-Albedo Guy is Jarome Iginla. I'm embarrassed by the extent I undervalued him before I looked deeper into that context.

I'll list Marcel Dionne as an Anti-Albedo Guy.

Would anyone like to share further names of people we risk overlooking or under-valuing due to this factor?

And what happened to such players when traded to potential or championship teams?

They did not fit in even though they had a bit of initial success.

Prime example is Andy Bathgate. Traded to the Leafs for a package including Dick Duff by the Rangers.

Both were quickly traded. Bathgate after winning a cup in 1964, Duff later in 1964 to Montreal where he contributed to 4 SCs.

Others who were terribly under valued. Allan Stanley(cornerstone defenceman on the dynasty Leafs acquired for the flashy Jim Morrison).

Bert Olmstead, given away by the Red Wings to the Canadiens, who years later did the same with Pete Mahovlich.

Barbie Doll players who beyond looking good cannot contribute to winning. Modern version Max P, John T, Patrick M,Joe Thornton, Sedins, a few others.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The quintessential anti-Albedo is...

Earl Seibert.

As a rookie he was 4th in Hart trophy voting ahead of HHOF teammates Frank Boucher and Bill Cook. BUT then he goes to lowly Chicago where...

Seibert plays with zero HHOFers and is an NHL all star in Chicago for 10 consecutive seasons, an achievement that no other defenseman has ever done except Doug Harvey with dynasty Habs. Earl wins two Stanley Cups as a Blackhawk (the team shouldn't have won either by all accounts!) leading the lowly Chicago team in minutes played by a ton with 55 in the 1938 final (the dman even tying the team's leader in playoff goals scored), his coach identifying him as the reason why they won. The best players he played with were Paul Thompson and Johnny Gottselig, neither on anyone's longlist of the top 100, 120, heck 200 player list (though both ATD picks as bargain basement alltime 2nd line or decent 3rd line worthy guys).

Earl Seibert was considered better than Boston's Eddie Shore by several of his contemporaries, in two cases Shore said to get the Hart votes because of his flashier game that endeared him to fans and reporters, rushing riskily and fighting eagerly, while Seibert instead efficiently dominated games, getting widespread respect but not as much attention.

Factually off.

Seibert only won 1 Sc in 1938. Traded to Chicago for Art Coulter. Chicago being the onlyteam who could fit him under the 1930s Salary Cap.
1940s Chicag0 he played with HHOFers Max and Doug Bentley, Bill Mosienko and Clint Smith, going to the 1944 SC finals minus Max Bentley. Swept in 4.

 

[VanIslander]

Factually off.

Seibert only won 1 Sc in 1938.

Ugh. Forgot he arrived in Chicago after 1934.

Fixed.

Seibert won one Stanley Cup (arguably the least expected victory ever, team with alltime terrible record in the regular season).

Seibert played with no HHOFers his first four seasons in Chicago, including that 1938 victory, (until Doug Bentley joined for the season ending in 1940).

My point stands. Text corrected in prior post.

 

[VanIslander]

Another anti-Albedo...

Glenn Hall.

Hall and Plante were contemporaries, one backstopping a terrible set of 1950's teams and not getting enough talent support until three star skaters helped him get one Stanley Cup in the 1960's, though he lost the finals another year in the sixties but got the Conn Smythe. The other backstopped two talent-LOADED Habs dynasties, hoisting six team championship trophies.

Yet, Hall was an 11-time all star, 7 of those times 1st team all star (three of them over 2nd team all star Plante). Plante was a 7-time all star, 4 of them as a 1st teamer.

Hall was 8 times top-2 in NHL saves, playing behind a much less talented defense that gave up more shots and certainly one would expect more quality scoring position shots and rebound opportunities.

Plante was just twice top 2 in NHL saves. He played most of his career with HHOFers Doug Harvey and Tom Johnson and half a dozen HHOF forwards. The year Plante won the Hart he also had two more great defensemen in Jean-Guy Talbot and J-C Tremblay playing in front of him, the Habs getting a league-high 41 wins.

The point is: Hall is the anti-Albedo compared to guys like Plante. When I was young, Hall was considered just as good as Plante and arguably the greatest of all time (this was pre-1986). On HfBoards, trophy counting has many putting Plante way ahead of Hall, even on another 'tier'. Hogwash. There shouldn't be much of a gap between the two.

 

[Doctor No]

Another anti-Albedo...

Glenn Hall.

Hall and Potvin were contemporaries, one backstopping a terrible set of 1950's teams and not getting enough talent support until three star skaters helped him get one Stanley Cup in the 1960's, though he lost the finals another year in the sixties but got the Conn Smythe. The other backstopped two talent-LOADED Habs dynasties, hoisting six team championship trophies.

Yet, Hall was an 11-time all star, 7 of those times 1st team all star (three of them over 2nd team all star Potvin). Potvin was a 7-time all star, 4 of them as a 1st teamer.

Hall was 8 times top-2 in NHL saves, playing behind a much less talented defense that gave up more shots and certainly one would expect more quality scoring position shots and rebound opportunities.

Potvin was just twice top 2 in NHL saves. He played most of his career with HHOFers Doug Harvey and Tom Johnson and half a dozen HHOF forwards. The year Potvin won the Hart he also had two more great defensemen in Jean-Guy Talbot and J-C Tremblay playing in front of him, the Habs getting a league-high 41 wins.

The point is: Hall is the anti-Albedo compared to guys like Potvin. When I was young, Hall was considered just as good as Potvin and arguably the greatest of all time (this was pre-1986). On HfBoards, trophy counting has many putting Potvin way ahead of Hall, even on another 'tier'. Hogwash. There shouldn't be much of a gap between the two.

I recommend CTRL-Hing "Potvin" with "Plante".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Plante's case was made back in the 2008 or 2009 project, and IIRC, relied heavily on save percentage in both the regular season and playoffs. Plante actually finished #1 among all goalies all time in the first ever project this forum did!

In those projects, older posters such as Dark Shadows mentioned that they weren't all that impressed with Hall's playoffs.

When I was young, most of the older crowd seemed to think Sawchuk was the best of all-time. It's amazing how much Terry's star fell after Roy passed him for the all-time wins record (of course Brodeur has since passed Roy for that record). And yet, I still have Sawchuk a clear 3rd of the Original 6 goalies.

I want to have Hall higher. And I get his case vs Plante. Part of me wants to list those guys back to back. But... there are players I currently have below Plante but above Hall and I'm not sure how to rectify it.

 

[MXD]

I want to have Hall higher (at this point : 5th netminder, 19th total) and close the gap to Jacques Plante (3rd netminder, 11th total), but consistency would require having Roberto Luongo MUCH higher than just about everyone would consider reasonable (after having made the case for Hall being very close to Jacques Plante, can you even make the case that Bill Durnan are Turk Broda are better netminders than Roberto Luongo?... I don't think so. They aren't contemporaries, I know).

 

[VanIslander]

Luongo has never been a 1st team all star. He twice was a 2nd team all star. History is littered with one or two year star goalies who just keep on playing.

Hall was an 11-time all star against all-time greats like Plante, Sawchuk and Bower.

There's no inconsistency to having Hall ranked high and yet having Luongo ABSENT from top-100 lists.

 

[MXD]

Luongo has never been a 1st team all star. He twice was a 2nd team all star. History is littered with one or two year star goalies who just keep on playing.

Hall was an 11-time all star against all-time greats like Potvin, Sawchuk and Bower.

There's no inconsistency to having Hall ranked high and yet having Luongo ABSENT from top-100 lists.

You're really not helping Hall's case by purposefully making Luongo's resume worse than it actually is in order to make Hall's case better for whatever reason. Not wasting my time anymore.

 

[Nick Hansen]

A guy I haven't seen mentioned yet...Howie Morenz. What do you do with him? Was considered the best player the world had seen up until the 1950's and the emergence of the great Habs dynasty.

Considered one of the first stars of the NHL, Morenz played 14 seasons in the league. He was a member of a Stanley Cup–winning team three times, all with the Canadiens. During his NHL career he placed in the top 10 leading scorers ten times. For seven straight seasons, Morenz led the Canadiens in both goals scored and points. He was named the winner of the Hart Trophy as the most valuable player of the league three times, and he led the league once in goals scored and twice in points scored. After the introduction of All-Star teams in 1931, he was named to the NHL First All-Star Team twice and the NHL Second All-Star Team once.

Fun fact...

When not playing hockey, Morenz bet avidly on horse races and played the ukulele.

 

[VanIslander]

Howie Morenz vs. Frank Nighbor

There's reason to believe they are equal in value. Certainly there are several contemporaries who thought Nighbor was better. Howie was modest enough to also think so.