DitchMarner
It's time.
There are quite a few. Some are obvious. Is it logical for ten or more of the top 100 players in NHL history to be currently active? There are more players and teams than ever, so perhaps it is.
You have a problem with the poll. You can only vote for one player. I am sure you intended people to pick multiple players.
But Im not sure about the actual list. All-time is a long time.
To me, there's no way Josi and Stamkos are top 100 all-time.
For what it's worth - several participants in the Top 100 project felt that we were too conservative with Kane.For Certain:
Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin
McDavid
The History of Hockey board voted Kane a top 100 player on the latest top 100 list the board compiled. He made the list on the low-end. For me he's debatable. He has tremendous talent and has been a prolific producer but is extremely one-dimensional. That said, he has been a good and clutch playoff performer and has proven you can win with him. I'd tentatively put him 95th to 105th.
I think Kuch makes it by now. There isn't a huge difference between him and Kane. I prefer Kucherov slightly.
Drai is probably there by now.
By the end of the season Matthews and MacKinnon will have done enough to warrant inclusion.
I have to think more about the defensemen. I think I'd include Hedman. Doughty and Karlsson are very close if they're not there. Makar will be there soon if he isn't already.
Ten or a few more seems reasonable. One can still make concessions for the past and take players from the 1890s to the 1940s that way.There are quite a few. Some are obvious. Is it logical for ten or more of the top 100 players in NHL history to be currently active? There are more players and teams than ever, so perhaps it is.
There's guys today who will be on the top 100 when retired but aren't on there today.There are quite a few. Some are obvious. Is it logical for ten or more of the top 100 players in NHL history to be currently active? There are more players and teams than ever, so perhaps it is.
There's guys today who will be on the top 100 when retired but aren't on there today.
Makar is a great example. This is only his 5th season and he's missed time every year. Most of us expect he will be on by retirement, but he's still in the first third (quarter?) of his NHL career.
So it's not really active players. It's active players age 26+.
No one would have put Kucherov in a top 100 in 2017, but he was still active at the time.
most recent Top 100 list (2018-2019) have guys like: Thornton, Kane, Keith, Lindros, Leetch, and MSL close to 100.Currently.
most recent Top 100 list (2018-2019) have guys like: Thornton, Kane, Keith, Lindros, Leetch, and MSL close to 100.
Top 5 choices are definitely top 100, but I dont think: Karlsson, Kuch, MacK, Drai, Matthews, Hedman are there yet until their respective careers are over.... Karlsson maybe over Keitch/Leetch after last season acutally.
View attachment 845974
Agreed if Kuch wins another Hart/Art Ross…. Thornton just has the career numbers, 1539P can’t be ignored. Played for so long and was so consistent.If Kucherov wins an Art Ross and/or Hart this season, should he really rank behind guys like Lindros and Thornton?
If picking one to build a team around, I'm sure almost everyone would take Lindros. But I think Kuch will clearly be more accomplished after this season if he isn't already.
And he is a much better playoff player than Thornton.
There just can't be more than 10 current guys in that echelon as a ballpark.
I did say ballpark. But the main reason is that there's a distinct difference between legendary players and most skilled, talented, etc.Why not?
The history forum has 15 players born within a 10 year span who played in the 1950s, and 17 players born within a 10 year span who played in the 1980s.