Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Strong Hearts]

Appreciate the above replies, guys.

One more question regarding an NHL-only list... how would players who spent a significant portion of their careers in the WHA be affected in a ranking like this? There are two players who come to mind: Mark Howe and J. C. Tremblay.

Howe obviously had a very prolific 16-year career in the NHL, including three first-team all-star honours, though he played the first six seasons of his pro career in the WHA. He's ranked #95 on the list, so obviously he's not going anywhere even if you subtract his WHA resume... the question is how much does his career value change?

With Tremblay, he's the opposite of Howe, in that he spent the latter half of his career in the WHA. Just looking at his numbers, his offensive output increased substantially toward the end of his tenure with the Habs, followed by high-scoring seasons with the WHA Nordiques. Tremblay is ranked #173 on the list— how much does his seven years in the WHA contribute to his placement in this project?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Appreciate the above replies, guys.

One more question regarding an NHL-only list... how would players who spent a significant portion of their careers in the WHA be affected in a ranking like this? There are two players who come to mind: Mark Howe and J. C. Tremblay.

Howe obviously had a very prolific 16-year career in the NHL, including three first-team all-star honours, though he played the first six seasons of his pro career in the WHA. He's ranked #95 on the list, so obviously he's not going anywhere even if you subtract his WHA resume... the question is how much does his career value change?

With Tremblay, he's the opposite of Howe, in that he spent the latter half of his career in the WHA. Just looking at his numbers, his offensive output increased substantially toward the end of his tenure with the Habs, followed by high-scoring seasons with the WHA Nordiques. Tremblay is ranked #173 on the list— how much does his seven years in the WHA contribute to his placement in this project?

I think your instincts are right on Howe. His WHA seasons validated that he was very good as a young player, but they don't really add all that much to his case. The reason he's ranked #95 is his mid-1980s peak as one of the top D in the world, with an understanding that his peak likely looks even better if not for that injury. Without the WHA seasons he might slip out of the top-100, because he would lose the benefit of what he did as a winger in that league, but I don't think it would be much of a drop. Arbitrarily I'd say maybe 110?

Tremblay's an interesting question. I feel like his reputation went through a bit of a boost over the past decade or so, largely in reaction to the perceived HHOF snub as certain other players were being inducted. A big part of his case for induction is that, politics aside, his WHA performance validated that he was a really high-end performer for several years beyond the end of his term in Montreal. If we assume that his WHA accolades translate at least modestly into the NHL, then he has a claim to very strong longevity... he could have been one of the great NHL greybeards of the late 70s, along with Bucyk and Ratelle and Mikita. Instead he's out of sight out of mind, and loses HHOF induction to boot. IMO those factors definitely did impact his ranking on this list. If that all gets thrown out, I think he probably slips back into the pack a bit more.

Of course if we're striking a bunch of other non-NHL guys from the list, they both might actually have a net gain in ranking.

 

[sr edler]

It really just comes down to Gerard being a much better player. Take his two NHA seasons off his career (25%) and he's still a safe bet to be top-200, since he's ~85th as it is. Cameron's probably a near-miss on the existing top-200, needing the ~30 non-NHL players to come off to make room for him. But, lop off four of his ten high-level seasons.... and he's probably no better off than he is now.

Career point totals are probably the best possible way to ensure that you overrate Cameron and underrate Gerard, by the way. I can see how superficially they look like equals using simple stats but a deeper look at the era would show you who was significantly better defensively, more respected as a player and person, contributed to winning more, and was unanimously seen as the superior player by all observers.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. While I agree it's obviously a very bad process to judge players simply based on offensive numbers, there's a whole lot of more nuance going into it here and in general should be a case to case exercise, and it's not even like Cameron had outlandish offensive numbers.

Like, what's the argument here? That Cameron was a defensive liability and cost his teams Cups because of it? I don't see it. I feel that's also a peculiar point in this comparison as Gerard in general played on way more stacked teams. Cameron won a Cup in 1918 with Harry Mummery (a non-HHOF player) as his D-partner, and then again in 1922 with Stackhouse and Stuart (two non-HHOF players) as D-partners. Gerard's teams on the other hand had Boucher and Cleghorn (two HHOF players) stapled on D, and arguably the best defensive forward in the game up to that point (Nighbor) stapled in front of them.

Lidström 4 Cups, Bourque 1 Cup. I guess Lidström just "contributed to winning more".

Also, I find the "more respected person" angle bit a bit odd too since off-ice character probably shouldn't bleed too much into on-ice player evaluation. Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews were (or still are) also very beloved by the media, are they getting the same type of brownie points here as Gerard?

Was Hobey Baker a better player than Didier Pitre because he was inducted into the HHOF in 1945 and Pitre in 1963?

I have no problem if someone wants to rank Gerard over Cameron as a player, it's the whole "and it's not even close" thing I reacted to.

 

[seventieslord]

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. While I agree it's obviously a very bad process to judge players simply based on offensive numbers, there's a whole lot of more nuance going into it here and in general should be a case to case exercise, and it's not even like Cameron had outlandish offensive numbers.

Like, what's the argument here? That Cameron was a defensive liability and cost his teams Cups because of it? I don't see it. I feel that's also a peculiar point in this comparison as Gerard in general played on way more stacked teams. Cameron won a Cup in 1918 with Harry Mummery (a non-HHOF player) as his D-partner, and then again in 1922 with Stackhouse and Stuart (two non-HHOF players) as D-partners. Gerard's teams on the other hand had Boucher and Cleghorn (two HHOF players) stapled on D, and arguably the best defensive forward in the game up to that point (Nighbor) stapled in front of them.

Lidström 4 Cups, Bourque 1 Cup. I guess Lidström just "contributed to winning more".

Also, I find the "more respected person" angle bit a bit odd too since off-ice character probably shouldn't bleed too much into on-ice player evaluation. Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews were (or still are) also very beloved by the media, are they getting the same type of brownie points here as Gerard?

Was Hobey Baker a better player than Didier Pitre because he was inducted into the HHOF in 1945 and Pitre in 1963?

I have no problem if someone wants to rank Gerard over Cameron as a player, it's the whole "and it's not even close" thing I reacted to.

Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it. (I'm sorry that I don't have the exact numbers, this was something that came from a straight-up comparison with Joe Hall that I did five years ago). Gerard, on the other hand, I think we can both say that his defensive results would be exemplary by the same measure. Of course, we can't truly say how much of that was the result of his good work, versus Nighbor, Benedict, Cleghorn, etc, but he seemed to pass the eye test for observers. I don't think it's the least bit unfair to say that Cameron was both much better defensively based on observer accounts and based on what can be taken from statistical evidence.

Re: Lidstrom and Bourque, we have much more detailed statistics available so there is a lot standing in the way of us drawing conclusions such as "Lidstrom contributed to winning more". I know you know that, that's the point you were trying to make. But in the case of players from the 1910s and 20s, most starting lineup players had even more personal influence on team performance than even a superstar defenseman can have today. So it's not apples to apples - in the case of Gerard, you can say he contributed to winning more - that's not unfair.

As far as being more respected as a person is concerned, I know it's sparse evidence overall, but what we have seems to indicate that Cameron was somewhat of a flake, while Gerard was the epitome of class. Unfortunately, observers of the day have written history for us, and it's all we have to go by. As far as Niedermayer and Toews are concerned, luckily we have the benefit of seeing their whole careers and are able to draw our own conclusions on them as players, factoring in their "gud canadian kid" reputation into it as we see fit. We don't have to accept the media narrative of these players nearly as credulously as we do for Cameron and Gerard.

I think we both know that the first few years of HHOF inductions focused less on "these are the all-time pillars of hockey greatness" and more on "these are some early greats who died too young". Of course Hobey Baker isn't better than Pitre on the basis of HHOF induction dates, and I wasn't making that claim about Gerard and Cameron, either.

And yeah, I mean it's not close, is it? It's like comparing Niedermayer to Zubov or something like that. Is there any contemporary ranking that puts Cameron on Gerard's level? And that's despite what appears to be a wide offensive edge.

 

[sr edler]

Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it. (I'm sorry that I don't have the exact numbers, this was something that came from a straight-up comparison with Joe Hall that I did five years ago). Gerard, on the other hand, I think we can both say that his defensive results would be exemplary by the same measure. Of course, we can't truly say how much of that was the result of his good work, versus Nighbor, Benedict, Cleghorn, etc, but he seemed to pass the eye test for observers. I don't think it's the least bit unfair to say that Cameron was both much better defensively based on observer accounts and based on what can be taken from statistical evidence.

Re: Lidstrom and Bourque, we have much more detailed statistics available so there is a lot standing in the way of us drawing conclusions such as "Lidstrom contributed to winning more". I know you know that, that's the point you were trying to make. But in the case of players from the 1910s and 20s, most starting lineup players had even more personal influence on team performance than even a superstar defenseman can have today. So it's not apples to apples - in the case of Gerard, you can say he contributed to winning more - that's not unfair.

As far as being more respected as a person is concerned, I know it's sparse evidence overall, but what we have seems to indicate that Cameron was somewhat of a flake, while Gerard was the epitome of class. Unfortunately, observers of the day have written history for us, and it's all we have to go by. As far as Niedermayer and Toews are concerned, luckily we have the benefit of seeing their whole careers and are able to draw our own conclusions on them as players, factoring in their "gud canadian kid" reputation into it as we see fit. We don't have to accept the media narrative of these players nearly as credulously as we do for Cameron and Gerard.

I think we both know that the first few years of HHOF inductions focused less on "these are the all-time pillars of hockey greatness" and more on "these are some early greats who died too young". Of course Hobey Baker isn't better than Pitre on the basis of HHOF induction dates, and I wasn't making that claim about Gerard and Cameron, either.

And yeah, I mean it's not close, is it? It's like comparing Niedermayer to Zubov or something like that. Is there any contemporary ranking that puts Cameron on Gerard's level? And that's despite what appears to be a wide offensive edge.

My point is that off-ice character shouldn't matter much in evaluating on-ice results, unless say we know 100% for sure someone is such a distraction off-ice he makes himself and his teammates worse on the ice because of it. I'm sure Cameron was a giant sourpuss, he even looks like one in pretty much every photo I've ever seen of him (which is many), but my point is pretty clear: it really shouldn't matter much in evaluating how good a player is on the ice. Also "class" is often quite subjective depending on context. From what I understand Zdeno Chara is a highly respected person in today's game, but the guy just went on a podcast where he spread pretty vague (and most likely false) high-school rumors about something allegedly happening 11 years ago while giggling about it. People are people, and things are not always black and white.

With "flake", do you mean he quit on his teams? I'm not a native English speaker so I had to google that word and it says "a person who does not seem to pay attention and is sometimes silly".

Niedermayer and Zubov are relatively close for me, by the way. I think Niedermayer probably peaked a bit higher though. Zubov probably shouldn't have chain-smoked so much (a character flaw, not everyone can be perfect).

I also still think Cameron just didn't play on very stacked teams. 1913–14 Toronto team was quite stacked, but that team split up when Walker, Foyston & Company left for Seattle, and Walker was excellent defensively.

 

[sr edler]

Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it.

When Sprague Cleghorn played for Renfrew and the Wanderers between 1910–1917 (that's 7 seasons) those teams bled some absolute serious goals against, worse so than any teams featuring Cameron. Then when he (Cleghorn) joined better and more well-structured teams (Canadiens and Ottawa) those teams had way fewer GA. So was Cleghorn also a defensive flake? Or should we treat players differently because someone was grumpy off ice and someone wasn't?

Toronto beat Vancouver twice in the SCFs with Cameron as the main horse on D, I feel if Cameron was such a suspect flake on D that you're painting him out to be then Vancouver would have exposed him. I'm not claiming Cameron was some amazing shutdown stalwart, or that he was better defensively than Gerard, but I don't think he was as bad as you're painting him out to be either.

 

[seventieslord]

When Sprague Cleghorn played for Renfrew and the Wanderers between 1910–1917 (that's 7 seasons) those teams bled some absolute serious goals against, worse so than any teams featuring Cameron. Then when he (Cleghorn) joined better and more well-structured teams (Canadiens and Ottawa) those teams had way fewer GA. So was Cleghorn also a defensive flake? Or should we treat players differently because someone was grumpy off ice and someone wasn't?

Toronto beat Vancouver twice in the SCFs with Cameron as the main horse on D, I feel if Cameron was such a suspect flake on D that you're painting him out to be then Vancouver would have exposed him. I'm not claiming Cameron was some amazing shutdown stalwart, or that he was better defensively than Gerard, but I don't think he was as bad as you're painting him out to be either.

Three out of 7 seasons the Wanderers were bad, the other four they were more or less average. Yes, it matters as it applies to Cleghorn, why wouldn't it? . On the other hand, his team's defensive results were typically well above average in the NHL.

I don't think it's controversial to say Cameron was below average defensively among the group of HOF or longtime NHA/NHL defensemen from 1910-1925. Someone had to be. If not him, who was?

("flake" is more like the second definition you posted - someone who's aloof.)

 

[sr edler]

I don't think it's controversial to say Cameron was below average defensively among the group of HOF or longtime NHA/NHL defensemen from 1910-1925. Someone had to be. If not him, who was?

Overall it's hard to tell, since we didn't see these guy play. Sometimes it's hard to tell even if you've seen guys play. I don't think Cameron was worse defensively than Joe Hall and probably not Cleghorn either, and if he was worse defensively than Cleghorn it wasn't by a particularly big margin, IMO. Was he worse defensively than Gerard, yes most likely. A lot of it is usage and systems too. I think old Joe Hall, they had him in a bit of a Derian Hatcher-esque role, whereas Cameron was used more as a Dahlin or something, due to team circumstances. I think when he had to be good defensively, he most often was good.

 

[Namba 17]

Small correction. #144, Sweeney Schriner, was born in 1911, so it was not Soviet Union, but Russian Empire.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Small correction. #144, Sweeney Schriner, was born in 1911, so it was not Soviet Union, but Russian Empire.

Change made!

 

[SwedishFire]

So rhis list has Krutov over Datsyuk and McDavid. Gilmour and Kurri over Lundqvist and Sundin.

Hard to take this list seriously.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

So rhis list has Krutov over Datsyuk and McDavid. Gilmour and Kurri over Lundqvist and Sundin.

Hard to take this list seriously.

There are several pages of discussion available where you can get a sense of how this list ended up the way it did. Krutov was the second best player on one of the most dominant lines ever, behind Makarov who’s ranked ~25th or so by the HoH. A lot of people who watched Krutov in his prime would place him firmly in the top 100 based on what they saw. It’s likely that his failure to adjust to the NHL/“life in the free world” drags his ranking down here, many will second guess his perceived greatness because of that.

I feel Gilmour gets overrated by some because of a couple of great seasons with the Maple Leafs, but to be fair there’s actually a lot more meat to his bone once you take a deeper dive. Kurri was a great player, a great goal scorer, had notable playoffs, and was defensively adept. He’s proven he wasn’t simply a product of Gretzky. Sundin got a boost during discussions for his international career, but he doesn’t have a lot of NHL accolades or big seasons compared to others. How do you place Sundin ahead of Kurri? With Lundqvist and goalies in general, there’s just a lot of differing views on how to rate them, it’s difficult to get them right, I guess I’ll leave it at that.

It’s also hard to rank young active players. Several participants thought long and hard about McDavid’s eligibility since he was so young, lacked longevity of his prime, and had no playoff record of note. The top 100 list was made in 2018, don’t know what time of the year but McDavid at most had three finished NHL seasons. When this project was made and expanded the list, McDavid had definitely added to his resume, but he was still a player whose career a work in progress and it was pretty clear this project wasn’t going to be able to do him justice. Should everyone have put him at a token 101st place since it’s obvious he either is or will be the best player of those eligible? Also, what do you make of a guy whose playoffs are basically N/A, in comparison with players of more or less full careers and where we’ve got a pretty complete sense of their worth in the playoffs? Remember: he’s got the awesome 2022 WCF run by now, but at the time of this project, McDavid’s playoffs was one good not great trip out of the first round (where Draisaitl was better), then going to town on a team that wasn’t making the playoffs if not for the pandemic, and most recently a very bleak performance in a sweep at the hands of the Jets.

To no fault of McDavid’s or the participants, this project was never going to get him right.

And, finally, it’s so sad that most of the time when there’s a new post in this thread, it’s just a drive-by bitching. It’s fine to disagree with the conclusions, but a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into researching and discussing these players. It would be nice to see people contributing their viewpoints on why they found certain players over- or underrated, but oftentimes it stays exactly at “my favorite players got short ended, hard to take this serious”.

 

[SwedishFire]

There are several pages of discussion available where you can get a sense of how this list ended up the way it did. Krutov was the second best player on one of the most dominant lines ever, behind Makarov who’s ranked ~25th or so by the HoH. A lot of people who watched Krutov in his prime would place him firmly in the top 100 based on what they saw. It’s likely that his failure to adjust to the NHL/“life in the free world” drags his ranking down here, many will second guess his perceived greatness because of that.

I feel Gilmour gets overrated by some because of a couple of great seasons with the Maple Leafs, but to be fair there’s actually a lot more meat to his bone once you take a deeper dive. Kurri was a great player, a great goal scorer, had notable playoffs, and was defensively adept. He’s proven he wasn’t simply a product of Gretzky. Sundin got a boost during discussions for his international career, but he doesn’t have a lot of NHL accolades or big seasons compared to others. How do you place Sundin ahead of Kurri? With Lundqvist and goalies in general, there’s just a lot of differing views on how to rate them, it’s difficult to get them right, I guess I’ll leave it at that.

It’s also hard to rank young active players. Several participants thought long and hard about McDavid’s eligibility since he was so young, lacked longevity of his prime, and had no playoff record of note. The top 100 list was made in 2018, don’t know what time of the year but McDavid at most had three finished NHL seasons. When this project was made and expanded the list, McDavid had definitely added to his resume, but he was still a player whose career a work in progress and it was pretty clear this project wasn’t going to be able to do him justice. Should everyone have put him at a token 101st place since it’s obvious he either is or will be the best player of those eligible? Also, what do you make of a guy whose playoffs are basically N/A, in comparison with players of more or less full careers and where we’ve got a pretty complete sense of their worth in the playoffs? Remember: he’s got the awesome 2022 WCF run by now, but at the time of this project, McDavid’s playoffs was one good not great trip out of the first round (where Draisaitl was better), then going to town on a team that wasn’t making the playoffs if not for the pandemic, and most recently a very bleak performance in a sweep at the hands of the Jets.

To no fault of McDavid’s or the participants, this project was never going to get him right.

And, finally, it’s so sad that most of the time when there’s a new post in this thread, it’s just a drive-by bitching. It’s fine to disagree with the conclusions, but a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into researching and discussing these players. It would be nice to see people contributing their viewpoints on why they found certain players over- or underrated, but oftentimes it stays exactly at “my favorite players got short ended, hard to take this serious”.

Okey. Its an explaination. Goalies are, yes, close to impossible.

I cant wrap my head over that Krutovs international career counted as higher than Sundins, who had both, and secured both WCs and olympic gold. Sundin wss both Leafs all time scorer and always at the top in international scoring races. For some reason he is so underestimated on HF boards.

Kurri, I cant tell to much other he was scjhooled in europe- good defensivly, but the later part of his career was very low.

 

[SwedishFire]

And I feel bad for the 4 th best scorer , and 2nd best assister all time. I think he got snubbed at NHL 100 annversiry as well..

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Okey. Its an explaination. Goalies are, yes, close to impossible.

I cant wrap my head over that Krutovs international career counted as higher than Sundins, who had both, and secured both WCs and olympic gold. Sundin wss both Leafs all time scorer and always at the top in international scoring races. For some reason he is so underestimated on HF boards.

Kurri, I cant tell to much other he was scjhooled in europe- good defensivly, but the later part of his career was very low.

Not all voters compared careers.

Some of us compared the actual players.

Though a big Sundin fan, I thought Krutov was the better player. Just that simple.

And I feel bad for the 4 th best scorer , and 2nd best assister all time. I think he got snubbed at NHL 100 annversiry as well..

Not sure who you are referring to.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm assuming it's Ron Francis (who is 5th in points, not 4th), but he did end up on the NHL100 and the Athletic99 (and the HoH list).

Francis had a long prime in the highest scoring era and spent a good chunk of it playing with Lemieux and/or Jagr. He was never a top 5 forward in the league, never finished top 5 in Hart voting, and only three times finished top 10 in Hart voting.

That's not a knock against Francis, he's just a player that's career totals makes him look so so much better than he was.

 

[SwedishFire]

UallyNot all voters compared careers.

Some of us compared the actual players.

Though a big Sundin fan, I thought Krutov was the better player. Just that simple.



Not sure who you are referring to.

He aint got snubbed . Its Ron Frncis ofC

 

[SwedishFire]

I'm assuming it's Ron Francis (who is 5th in points, not 4th), but he did end up on the NHL100 and the Athletic99 (and the HoH list).

Francis had a long prime in the highest scoring era and spent a good chunk of it playing with Lemieux and/or Jagr. He was never a top 5 forward in the league, never finished top 5 in Hart voting, and only three times finished top 10 in Hart voting.

That's not a knock against Francis, he's just a player that's career totals makes him look so so much better than he was.

I dont agree here. He wss n important center for pens on their cuprun, sns Jsgr ssid helped him a lot, contributed 92 assists 93-94. An intergral part of pens win.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I dont agree here. He wss n important center for pens on their cuprun, sns Jsgr ssid helped him a lot, contributed 92 assists 93-94. An intergral part of pens win.

This forum voted him the 18th top centre since 1967. 15 of the ones in front of him won either a Hart or Pearson, with Stastny and Gilmour being the only ones who didn't. And with the diversity in voting, multiple posters would have had Francis ahead of them. It's not a forum that is throwing Francis under the bus, but the reality of a sport with a long history and centre being the deepest position.

For whatever it's worth, I rank them Gilmour > Francis > Stastny.

6 of the centres ahead of him have at least 3 seasons of winning a Hart, Pearson, or Smythe (Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Messier, Clarke, Esposito). A further 5 have at least 2 seasons where that is the case (Sakic, Trottier, Yzerman, Dionne). That's not including guys like Forsberg, Lindros, and Thornton who all had multiple years in Hart contention.

I think this forum has done a great job of ranking Francis while taking into account his relatively low offensive peak, relatively high defensive prime, and long career in favourable conditions.

 

[SwedishFire]

This forum voted him the 18th top centre since 1967. 15 of the ones in front of him won either a Hart or Pearson, with Stastny and Gilmour being the only ones who didn't. And with the diversity in voting, multiple posters would have had Francis ahead of them. It's not a forum that is throwing Francis under the bus, but the reality of a sport with a long history and centre being the deepest position.

For whatever it's worth, I rank them Gilmour > Francis > Stastny.

6 of the centres ahead of him have at least 3 seasons of winning a Hart, Pearson, or Smythe (Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Messier, Clarke, Esposito). A further 5 have at least 2 seasons where that is the case (Sakic, Trottier, Yzerman, Dionne). That's not including guys like Forsberg, Lindros, and Thornton who all had multiple years in Hart contention.

I think this forum has done a great job of ranking Francis while taking into account his relatively low offensive peak, relatively high defensive prime, and long career in favourable conditions.

Funny, I rank those centers Stastny , Frsncis and Gilmour as a distant 3rd. Really, what has Gilmour done? He hsd some good seasons in leafs, and that is better than 2nd best assist machine in NHL, and top 5 pt/game scorer in NHL history... my mind... blows

 

[jigglysquishy]

Funny, I rank those centers Stastny , Frsncis and Gilmour as a distant 3rd. Really, what has Gilmour done? He hsd some good seasons in leafs, and that is better than 2nd best assist machine in NHL, and top 5 pt/game scorer in NHL history... my mind... blows

Gilmour had point finishes of 4,5,7. His 93 season of finishing 7th in points, 1st in Selke, and 2nd in Hart stands out really really well.

His 93 Cup run is better than any run Stastny or Francis had.

 

[SwedishFire]

Gilmour had point finishes of 4,5,7. His 93 season of finishing 7th in points, 1st in Selke, and 2nd in Hart stands out really really well.

His 93 Cup run is better than any run Stastny or Francis had.

Leaf bias?? Thats ridicolous. Stastny wss the 80s 3rd best scorer if I remember it correctly. He kept Quebec relevant, as soon as he dissapeared, it went garbage for quebec. Quebec was almost only about Stastny, for a loong period. Gilmour hsd one year.

Boy, I wished Stastmy played for Toronto, and was canadian


Its like saying Pierre Turgeon should be ahead Stastny, he had a great 92 -93 season as well.

 

[seventieslord]

Gilmour hsd one year.

Tell us you know nothing about Gilmour without saying "I know nothing about Gilmour"...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Funny, I rank those centers Stastny , Frsncis and Gilmour as a distant 3rd. Really, what has Gilmour done? He hsd some good seasons in leafs, and that is better than 2nd best assist machine in NHL, and top 5 pt/game scorer in NHL history... my mind... blows

Best is the wrong term here. Should be most.

As stated before, that is a reflection of Francis playing more games and in the highest scoring era hockey.

 

[MXD]

Doug Gilmour had one year the same way someone like Joe Thornton had one year; of course, one year stands out a bit, but both had two other seasons where they ended up Top-5 in Hart voting (on top of their big seasons).

While Ron Francis had ....check notes ... zero.

EDIT : Joe Thornton actually had 3 other seasons other than 2005-06 where he was a Top-5 in Hart voting, but point remains the exact same.