Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Hockey Outsider]

At this point I have my top four in order. Just 216 to go.

 

[ResilientBeast]

We’ll start screening the lists we have, but honestly, take your time if you need it. Round 2 is targeted for January 4th, so as long as I have everything by New Year’s (ish), I shouldn’t have a problem building the aggregate list in Excel the weekend before Round 2.

So... soft deadline today, hard deadline December 31.

Well then, I may as well jump in, I have some days off for the holidays and could put together a list.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At this point I have my top four in order. Just 216 to go.

I'm still at #1. Pondering between Howe and Gretzky.

And Orr.

 

[ted2019]

I'm still at #1. Pondering between Howe and Gretzky.

And Orr.

I'd go with the one that starts is between the letters "G" and "O".

 

[BenchBrawl]

My main argument for Howe at #1 : Took on all comers for two decades in what was arguably the highest level league in hockey history (the NHL of the 1950's and 1960's) and came out on top. Sheriff in town. Not only was the league better, but it was also tougher. For that, his ability to survive and thrive in the 1950's and 1960's makes him the player I'm the most confident would excel in all and every eras. His career is the most transferable. He embodies hockey. First player I'm sending against the aliens.

219 to go.

 

[Weztex]

At 34, I always believed that if I'd go back to university, I'd be a much more focussed and disciplined student that I once was.

At 34, I had to list a bunch of hockey players and missed the deadline...

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Currently vetting my own list...

 

[buffalowing88]

I'm confused a bit here. We had all summer/fall to discuss this. You created a timeline that we needed to abide by. Pushing lists now, after the deadline, seems dumb, I really think the discussion from this thread is important and participation in it matters a lot.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm confused a bit here. We had all summer/fall to discuss this. You created a timeline that we needed to abide by. Pushing lists now, after the deadline, seems dumb, I really think the discussion from this thread is important and participation in it matters a lot.

Perfection is not of this world.

 

[sr edler]

Are you sure you know what the word "disingenuous" means? Because I could argue that it's "disingenuous" to rate Bure significantly higher than other offensively oriented wingers with similar numbers just because he played for one's favorite team...

But maybe it's best not to get personal....

I only know what the word means from the dictionary, since I'm not a native English speaker, but it wasn't meant as an overly harsh insult or anything. It's nothing personal, but I honestly don't understand the chicken & egg situation regarding the origin of the toxic Bure debates here on HOH.

In my view, yes, perhaps some people overrates Bure a little bit, but on the other hand some people also underrates him to a degree, in my humble opinion. Same thing goes for a lot of players.

I thought this project was about the top 101–200 players, which would disqualify players like Selänne & Brett Hull (?) from the discussion since they were already on the top 100 list here (I think Hull was too?). At the same time people are saying they're doing lists of 220 players, so I don't even know what to think about that. That is not my problem though, since I've never intended to participate with my own list. By the way, I saw Selänne/Bure head-to-head in the 93 SC playoffs and in the 98 Olympics and saw what happened, on the same note I saw B. Hull/Bure head-to-head in the 95 playoffs and also saw what happened there.

If you think ranking Bure over Drillon is overrating Bure, that's fine with me. I'm not going to bash someone for that opinion and say it's ridiculous. If someone wants to rank Kariya over Bure, that's also fine with me because I like when people have their own opinions, unless they're outrageous. I wouldn't rank Drillon & Kariya over Bure myself, but I'm not going to call that opinion ridiculous.

Claiming Bure cherry picked all of his goals in Florida is ridiculous though. If someone's saying that, that's not a serious discussion to me. I know you're not saying that, but quite a substantial number of people are saying that. Also scapegoating Bure by putting all of the 90s wingers defensive deficiencies on his back, and pushing him out all by himself in the desert, that's also not a serious narrative to me. Yes, some hyperbole sometimes do occur when people are describing Bure in a positive light. But the hyperbole, in my opinion, is more often worse when people try to discredit him.

Bure in 98–99 came in late season from a Willy Nylander-esque holdout without a training camp and scored at a 1.45 PPG clip with the Panthers and instantly looked like the best (or one of the absolute best) player/players in the league, while his team briefly rose in the standings (until he got injured). Is that a lazy player or a consummate professional?

Bure from January–June 1994 was the best player in the world, in deadly competition, leading the whole league in scoring down that stretch, and then posting an iconic 16 game point streak in the playoffs, the 2nd longest point streak ever in a single playoffs only behind Bryan Trottier (18 games) on the 80s dynasty Islanders.

Was he a perfect player, of course not. But show me a perfect player and I will fall asleep.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I only know what the word means from the dictionary, since I'm not a native English speaker, but it wasn't meant as an overly harsh insult or anything. It's nothing personal, but I honestly don't understand the chicken & egg situation regarding the origin of the toxic Bure debates here on HOH.

In my view, yes, perhaps some people overrates Bure a little bit, but on the other hand some people also underrates him to a degree, in my humble opinion. Same thing goes for a lot of players.

I thought this project was about the top 101–200 players, which would disqualify players like Selänne & Brett Hull (?) from the discussion since they were already on the top 100 list here (I think Hull was too?). At the same time people are saying they're doing lists of 220 players, so I don't even know what to think about that. That is not my problem though, since I've never intended to participate with my own list. By the way, I saw Selänne/Bure head-to-head in the 93 SC playoffs and in the 98 Olympics and saw what happened, on the same note I saw B. Hull/Bure head-to-head in the 95 playoffs and also saw what happened there.

If you think ranking Bure over Drillon is overrating Bure, that's fine with me. I'm not going to bash someone for that opinion and say it's ridiculous. If someone wants to rank Kariya over Bure, that's also fine with me because I like when people have their own opinions, unless they're outrageous. I wouldn't rank Drillon & Kariya over Bure myself, but I'm not going to call that opinion ridiculous.

Claiming Bure cherry picked all of his goals in Florida is ridiculous though. If someone's saying that, that's not a serious discussion to me. I know you're not saying that, but quite a substantial number of people are saying that. Also scapegoating Bure by putting all of the 90s wingers defensive deficiencies on his back, and pushing him out all by himself in the desert, that's also not a serious narrative to me. Yes, some hyperbole sometimes do occur when people are describing Bure in a positive light. But the hyperbole, in my opinion, is more often worse when people try to discredit him.

Bure in 98–99 came in late season from a Willy Nylander-esque holdout without a training camp and scored at a 1.45 PPG clip with the Panthers and instantly looked like the best (or one of the absolute best) player/players in the league, while his team briefly rose in the standings (until he got injured). Is that a lazy player or a consummate professional?

Bure from January–June 1994 was the best player in the world, in deadly competition, leading the whole league in scoring down that stretch, and then posting an iconic 16 game point streak in the playoffs, the 2nd longest point streak ever in a single playoffs only behind Bryan Trottier (18 games) on the 80s dynasty Islanders.

Was he a perfect player, of course not. But show me a perfect player and I will fall asleep.

When I first joined these boards I was really stunned by the way Bure was viewed. For many of the posters it was as if he wasn't even worth discussing.

There was so much to learn about players from the past. So much I didn't know, so much I thought I knew but didn't really. But I did know something about the players I had seen play. So I took the Bure-bashing with a grain of salt and the possibility of some anti-Russian bias. Though the view of Bure has gotten better over the last decade, I still don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. Call me an overrater.

 

[quoipourquoi]

When I first joined these boards I was really stunned by the way Bure was viewed. For many of the posters it was as if he wasn't even worth discussing.

I think that’s just the fault of the mid-2000s/late-2000s group on HOH who were overly dismissive of DPE players. Nothing specific to Bure.

I don’t think Bure is overrated by anyone specific to these past two projects. On the high end of the last project, he had a few scattered votes from #58-61 from voters who were very lenient to other prominent players from the DPE with injury issues (except one player).

I think if we saw voters putting Bure in the top-40 or Bure in the top-60 while also being dismissive of guys like Forsberg and Lindros, then it’s a red flag. But I haven’t seen that here.

I think there’s two separate tracks: 90s stars who have had full careers (Jagr, Sakic, Selanne-ish, Hull, Fedorov) and 90s stars who didn’t (Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, Kariya). So if you’re looking at the players at their best or even just looking at them with a more forgiving eye because of the insane amount of injuries to star forwards in that era, you’ll probably have more overlap for those two tracks of players than someone who is less forgiving.

In a general sense, I think the temperature of HOH is that Forsberg arrives at the station before Selanne and the two tracks start to merge after.

I think there’s only fault if someone is making concessions for Bure and not for those other injured players on the track, but I don’t necessarily think we’re seeing that with this particular group of posters (again, except as it pertains to one specific player who topped out at #98 when everyone else was getting at least some #40-60 support).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think that’s just the fault of the mid-2000s/late-2000s group on HOH who were overly dismissive of DPE players. Nothing specific to Bure.

I don’t think Bure is overrated by anyone specific to these past two projects. On the high end of the last project, he had a few scattered votes from #58-61 from voters who were very lenient to other prominent players from the DPE with injury issues (except one player).

I think if we saw voters putting Bure in the top-40 or Bure in the top-60 while also being dismissive of guys like Forsberg and Lindros, then it’s a red flag. But I haven’t seen that here.

I think there’s two separate tracks: 90s stars who have had full careers (Jagr, Sakic, Selanne-ish, Hull, Fedorov) and 90s stars who didn’t (Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, Kariya). So if you’re looking at the players at their best or even just looking at them with a more forgiving eye because of the insane amount of injuries to star forwards in that era, you’ll probably have more overlap for those two tracks of players than someone who is less forgiving.

In a general sense, I think the temperature of HOH is that Forsberg arrives at the station before Selanne and the two tracks start to merge after.

I think there’s only fault if someone is making concessions for Bure and not for those other injured players on the track, but I don’t necessarily think we’re seeing that with this particular group of posters (again, except as it pertains to one specific player who topped out at #98 when everyone else was getting at least some #40-60 support).

I agree that DPE players were brutally underrated on the 2008 and 2009 Top 100 lists, but I don't think that was the case any longer by the time we did the positional lists (with the possible exception of goalies for reasons given earlier in this thread).

I think it's pretty clear from the recent top 100 list that DPE stars are no longer underrated on this board. I'll take a step back and not necessarily call them "overrated," because that word has a subjective element to it, but the numbers do point towards DPE stars being slightly overrepresented on the top 100 list. Not as much as O6 and 1970s players were overrepresented on the 2008 and 2009 lists, however.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When I first joined these boards I was really stunned by the way Bure was viewed. For many of the posters it was as if he wasn't even worth discussing.

There was so much to learn about players from the past. So much I didn't know, so much I thought I knew but didn't really. But I did know something about the players I had seen play. So I took the Bure-bashing with a grain of salt and the possibility of some anti-Russian bias. Though the view of Bure has gotten better over the last decade, I still don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. Call me an overrater.

For the most part, you seem to consistently value goal-scorers and high-peak players higher than most, and that's totally fine.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I only know what the word means from the dictionary, since I'm not a native English speaker, but it wasn't meant as an overly harsh insult or anything. It's nothing personal, but I honestly don't understand the chicken & egg situation regarding the origin of the toxic Bure debates here on HOH.

In my view, yes, perhaps some people overrates Bure a little bit, but on the other hand some people also underrates him to a degree, in my humble opinion. Same thing goes for a lot of players.

I thought this project was about the top 101–200 players, which would disqualify players like Selänne & Brett Hull (?) from the discussion since they were already on the top 100 list here (I think Hull was too?). At the same time people are saying they're doing lists of 220 players, so I don't even know what to think about that. That is not my problem though, since I've never intended to participate with my own list. By the way, I saw Selänne/Bure head-to-head in the 93 SC playoffs and in the 98 Olympics and saw what happened, on the same note I saw B. Hull/Bure head-to-head in the 95 playoffs and also saw what happened there.

If you think ranking Bure over Drillon is overrating Bure, that's fine with me. I'm not going to bash someone for that opinion and say it's ridiculous. If someone wants to rank Kariya over Bure, that's also fine with me because I like when people have their own opinions, unless they're outrageous. I wouldn't rank Drillon & Kariya over Bure myself, but I'm not going to call that opinion ridiculous.

Claiming Bure cherry picked all of his goals in Florida is ridiculous though. If someone's saying that, that's not a serious discussion to me. I know you're not saying that, but quite a substantial number of people are saying that. Also scapegoating Bure by putting all of the 90s wingers defensive deficiencies on his back, and pushing him out all by himself in the desert, that's also not a serious narrative to me. Yes, some hyperbole sometimes do occur when people are describing Bure in a positive light. But the hyperbole, in my opinion, is more often worse when people try to discredit him.

Bure in 98–99 came in late season from a Willy Nylander-esque holdout without a training camp and scored at a 1.45 PPG clip with the Panthers and instantly looked like the best (or one of the absolute best) player/players in the league, while his team briefly rose in the standings (until he got injured). Is that a lazy player or a consummate professional?

Bure from January–June 1994 was the best player in the world, in deadly competition, leading the whole league in scoring down that stretch, and then posting an iconic 16 game point streak in the playoffs, the 2nd longest point streak ever in a single playoffs only behind Bryan Trottier (18 games) on the 80s dynasty Islanders.

Was he a perfect player, of course not. But show me a perfect player and I will fall asleep.

"disingenuous" has become one of the favorite minor insults thrown around on HOH. It implies an intentional dishonesty, which is something that I think applies to very few HOH members.

Call me overly stubborn or call me an asshole*, but my posts here are not made with dishonest intentions.

*actually, that would probably be against the rules for better or worse

 

[quoipourquoi]

I agree that DPE players were brutally underrated on the 2008 and 2009 Top 100 lists, but I don't think that was the case any longer by the time we did the positional lists (with the possible exception of goalies for reasons given earlier in this thread).

I think it's pretty clear from the recent top 100 list that DPE stars are no longer underrated on this board. I'll take a step back and not necessarily call them "overrated," because that word has a subjective element to it, but the numbers do point towards DPE stars being slightly overrepresented on the top 100 list. Not as much as O6 and 1970s players were overrepresented on the 2008 and 2009 lists, however.

I wonder if we’ll see that from all generations going forward. With big money contracts - particularly after 1997 - there’s more incentive to extend one’s career now than there was when people dropped out in their early-30s for other financial opportunities. So we’ll probably have a wave of players who peak high enough to be on our radar and then stick around long enough to make it interesting - when they otherwise might have opened up a car dealership.

 

[sr edler]

For the most part, you seem to consistently value goal-scorers and high-peak players higher than most, and that's totally fine.

Bure's stat line in the playoffs is 35-35-70. He was primarily a goal scorer, yes, but he could also set up guys and create plays. I think that was actually his biggest strength, his ability to create plays & havoc from nowhere without crutches and shit. His stat line in the 94 playoffs was 16-15-31, leading his team in assists. It's not like he was Fernando Pisani or something, or Claude Lemieux. Claude Lemieux won a Conn Smythe with 3 assists....

When Bure scored his 100 point seasons he had 50 and 47 assists. He led the Canucks in assists in 1998. He even led the Panthers in assists one year, despite having to score all goals himself. He played only 5 full seasons but he finished 3 times within the top 5 point producers, and 4 times within the top 7. He was a top point producer of his generation when healthy, not only a goal scorer.

 

[quoipourquoi]

New thread is up, so we’ll close this in a bit. I’ll give it a few minutes just in case someone is currently posting.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For the most part, you seem to consistently value goal-scorers and high-peak players higher than most, and that's totally fine.

I think what bothered me most was the "cherry picker" characterization.