Would You Put the Following Players on a Top 300 Players List?

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
In any case, I'd take his career over Vinny's.

So would I, but all those metrics you used can also be used in the same way for dozens of centers if you pick the right set of years for them. Richards is a guy who's not quite as good as his point totals. He was very assist heavy, and spent a lot of time picking up PP assists on the point. He also played half his career in a division easier to score points in.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
So would I, but all those metrics you used can also be used in the same way for dozens of centers if you pick the right set of years for them. Richards is a guy who's not quite as good as his point totals. He was very assist heavy, and spent a lot of time picking up PP assists on the point. He also played half his career in a division easier to score points in.

I see where you're coming from there.

I see him as a playmaking centre with the added defining characteristic that he was also very good playoff performer; the latter is what sets him apart from the likes of Koivu, Broten, Weight, Zhamnov, Gomez, Ribeiro, Federko etc etc. You can go on. That's not to say those guys were necessary not good in the playoffs; he was notably good and accomplished there.

I'd have him at or near the top of a list of assist-heavy centres that one wouldn't classify as upper-tier centres. Guys like Thornton, Henrik Sedin and Backstrom would be in the highest-tier of this type of player. However, I would actually much rather have Richards for a playoff run than any of these three.

It's true that it's debatable whether he belongs on a top 300 list. I do think he has a considerable advantage over many similar types of players.

I think a guy like Oates would certainly beat him based on longevity and length of prime alone, but Oates also was a very assist-heavy point-producer outside out maybe two or three seasons.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
Yeah, oates has a similar goals to assists ratio, but that's coming from a much, much higher point total, too, so...

According to hockey reference, their top ten era-adjusted point totals would be as such:

Oates:

115
102
102
92
89
88
88
88
88
85


Richards:

96
91
88
83
82
73
71
71
67
67


Their adjusted points differences in their respective ten best seasons are thus:


7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 17, 18, 19, 21 points.


I'd say the differences are enough to put Oates one tier higher, but I don't think he totally blows Richards away or anything. His offensive prime was also about two years longer (five years of 50 or more adjusted points versus three years of 50 or more adjusted points), so that helps his cause.


I'd probably place Oates in the top 101-150, I'm thinking. Obviously after you get through the true elites, you're going to have a whole bunch of comparable players that aren't separated by too much. I see myself putting Richards in the 250-300 range, but it's not set in stone.

__________________________________


By the way, I've read many of your posts, seventieslord, and I think you're about as knowledge about hockey history as anyone on the forum.

If you were making a top 300 OAT list, what sort of a "split" would you likely have between pre and post 1967 expansion players? Would it be about 50/50 or more weighted toward modern players?

I hate when people try to dismiss older eras as "bush League eras" because they all played an important role in the development of the modern NHL. There are stand-out players from all eras that ought to be included.

However, I think that selections of players from the 10s and 20s in particular should be made within reason. At one point, there were three teams in the League and fewer than 100 players. The NHL didn't even allow forward passing in the offensive zone until 1928-1929.

Therefore, I think players who were top five to top ten players at their positions for a period of several years during, say, the 80s, 90s, 00s or 10s should have an advantage when it comes to being considered for selection over players who were among the best but not the cream of the crop in the early days...

Ie... a guy like Modano or Denis Savard, for example, is a better choice for a list than a guy like Billy Burch (14th highest scoring forward from 1917-1929).

The best of that era (Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Dye, Morenz, Nighbour and a select few others) get on and then that's pretty much it for those days...

...Or would you go a little deeper and add several more?

I'd say being even the tenth best centre of the 80s, for example, is more impressive than being the 15th or so highest scorer from an era in which players played against two or three other teams and then suddenly started facing many more players during the early expansion days of a League that still didn't allow forward passing in the attacking zone.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
Yes:

Naslund
Alfredsson
Mogilny
Tkachuk
Leclair
Goulet
St. Louis
Richards
Roenick
Kovalchuk
Kariya

Dale Hawerchuk
Mike Modano
Mats Sundin
Pierre Turgeon
Mark Recchi
Mike Gartner
Darryl Sittler
Joe Thornton
Jarome Iginla
Joe Nieuwendyk


Maybe:


Anderson
Palffy
Smith
Gaborik
Nicholls
Damphousse
Briere (only because he was a beast in the playoffs)
Federko


Unlikely:


Nash
Carter
Lecavalier
Bondra
 

NoMessi

Registered User
Jan 2, 2009
1,697
453
There's no room in the top 100 for those three. They're top 200 at best.

Not necessarily in order... here's a list of the best players I can think of that anyone with credible knowledge of hockey would include...


1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe
4. Lemieux
5. Beliveau
6. Bobby Hull
7. Mikita
8. Jagr
9. Hasek
10. Lidstrom
11. Crosby
12. Maurice Richard
13. Morenz
14. Esposito
15. Joe Malone
16. Lalonde
17. Milt Schmidt
18. Syl Apps
19. Charlie Conacher
20. Shore
21. Cook
22. Max Bentley
23. Dit Clapper
24. Bill Cowley
25. Dickie Moore
26. Red Kelly
27. Turk Broda
28. "Busher" Jackson
29. Boucher
30. Nighbour
31. Elmer Lach
32. Cy Denneny
33. King Clancy
34. Toe Blake
35. Ken Dryden
36. Plante
37. Sawchuk
38. Brodeur
39. Glenn Hall
40. Lafleur
41. Robinson
42. Bobby Clarke
43. Ted Lindsay
44. Park
45. Geoffrion
46. Frank Mahovlich
47. Henri Richard
48. Bourque
49. Messier
50. Trottier
51. Bossy
52. Denis Potvin
53. Kurri
54. Coffey
55. Stastny
56. Patrick Roy
57. Chelios
58. Billy Smith
59. Brett Hull
60. Robitaille
61. Yzerman
62. Sakic
63. Pronger
64. Scott Stevens
65. Selanne
66. Ovechkin
67. Joe Primeau
68. Johnny Bower
69. Babe Dye
70. Serge Savard
71. Tony Esposito
72. Brian Leetch
73. Doug Bentley
74. Borje Salming
75. Joliat
76. Brimsek
77. Nels Stewart


Then I'd rather put guys like Forsberg, Fedorov, Gilbert Perreault, Ron Francis, Adam Oates, Patrick Kane (yes, he's better than the three guys you mentioned), Bure and some others in my top 100 than Kariya or Goulet. St. Louis has the best case of the three.

Kariya, Goulet and St. Louis would have to battle it out with the likes of Pierre Pilote, Ted Kennedy, Sittler, Joe Thornton, Denis Savard, Mike Modano, Jarome Iginla, Hawerchuk, Sundin, Lindros, Jean Ratelle, Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio and numerous others for their rankings on a top 100-200 list.

Malkin as #101?
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
It's hard to say because most lists i've seen are top 50, top 100. You rarely see top 300, let alone 500.

I think i'd feel comfortable ranking most players on your list from best to worst - but hard to say what# that slots each player in all time.

Damphousse > Koivu.

But is Damphousse #156? or 419? Hard to say.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
According to hockey reference, their top ten era-adjusted point totals would be as such:

Oates:

115
102
102
92
89
88
88
88
88
85


Richards:

96
91
88
83
82
73
71
71
67
67



7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 17, 18, 19, 21 points.

Let's consider adjusted points to be a perfect metric for the sake of this post.

Adam Oates was 15 pts better than Brad Richards in a ten-season span. That is, 15 points every season.

That is, roughly, the difference between Ryan Getzlaf and Jeff Carter... That's not a small difference, at all.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
I do have to echo Bob Holly. Once you start going after a top 100/200+ list it becomes quite subjective. You would see many drastically different lists the further you go.

I'll be releasing my months long project top 50 (top 100 will be done later this year hopefully) this week and even with that, I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who'd move players around from where I rank them.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
I can't imagine a plausible case for Gaborik over Bondra. Bondra was clearly better at everything.

I don't think that's true...

I view Bondra as a scoring specialist who wasn't the great playmaker in the world. I feel Gaborik is a little more well-rounded as an attacker.

Plus Gaborik made a name for himself when he played a significant role in getting the '03 Wild further than they really should have gone in the '03 playoffs. He also won a Cup as an important contributing member to a team.

Gaborik has some very impressive defensive point shares assigned to him for several seasons by hockey reference.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gaborma01.html


Defensive point shares of 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and 2 are damn good for an offensive winger. I'm sure his time in Minny playing for Lemaire helped his defensive game quite a bit.


Bondra's best defensive point shares are fine for someone who scored a lot, but they aren't as strong.

He has a 2.1 for 2000-2001 but is usually in the 1.1-1.6 range.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bondrpe01.html
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
It's hard to say because most lists i've seen are top 50, top 100. You rarely see top 300, let alone 500.

I think i'd feel comfortable ranking most players on your list from best to worst - but hard to say what# that slots each player in all time.

Damphousse > Koivu.

But is Damphousse #156? or 419? Hard to say.

Yes, you're right.

However, the thing about a top 100 list is it has to exclude some very, very good players, which causes arguments as to who should and shouldn't have made it.

The usefull thing about as an extended list would be that it could give people an indication as to whether or not a particular player has any business being brought up for HHOF discussion.

If you're inclined to rank the players on my preliminary list, I'd implore you to go for it. It could help my endeavor somewhat. Input from multiple sources is a positive.
 
Last edited:

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
Let's consider adjusted points to be a perfect metric for the sake of this post.

Adam Oates was 15 pts better than Brad Richards in a ten-season span. That is, 15 points every season.

That is, roughly, the difference between Ryan Getzlaf and Jeff Carter... That's not a small difference, at all.

Yeah, I didn't say Richards is literally comparable to Oates; I meant that he's a lower-tier version of that type of player.

I did say Oates is a tier higher (you can argue two, but I think that's pushing it a bit considering he didn't have as much playoff success as Richards despite playing on some strong/competitive teams and he did have the Hull and Neely factor).

I think once you've filled in enough names, you have to give some consideration to assist-heavy players who aren't quite in that Oates/Sedin tier, and I feel Richards has a better case than the likes of Weight, Broten, Gomez, Ribeiro, Zhamnov, Ridley and others. I probably wouldn't include Briere, but he'd be a better choice than some of these other guys as well.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Gaborik has some very impressive defensive point shares assigned to him for several seasons by hockey reference.

HR defensive point shares used to be of very questionable value, as pointed out in this thread (in particular posts #1, #9 and #16). Have they changed their approach in the meantime?
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Yeah, I didn't say Richards is literally comparable to Oates; I meant that he's a lower-tier version of that type of player.

I did say Oates is a tier higher (you can argue two, but I think that's pushing it a bit considering he didn't have as much playoff success as Richards despite playing on some strong/competitive teams and he did have the Hull and Neely factor).

I think once you've filled in enough names, you have to give some consideration to assist-heavy players who aren't quite in that Oates/Sedin tier, and I feel Richards has a better case than the likes of Weight, Broten, Gomez, Ribeiro, Zhamnov, Ridley and others. I probably wouldn't include Briere, but he'd be a better choice than some of these other guys as well.

If anything, I just wanted to compare those two players to another two players when it comes to production. You can indeed say that Richards is something of a Poor Man's Oates.

I mean.... 15 points per season is... not exactly an insignficant gap.
 

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
Run Goulet and Kariya's case, and you'll realize you'll probably miss room even before getting players that were better (like, Martin St Louis) than those two.

Michel Goulet

Three time First Team All Star, two time Second Team All Star

Paul Kariya

Three time First Team All Star, One time Second Team All Star, Two time Lady Byng winner, Hart Trophy runner up.

I like those accolades better than some who made the list.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Michel Goulet

Three time First Team All Star, two time Second Team All Star

Paul Kariya

Three time First Team All Star, One time Second Team All Star, Two time Lady Byng winner, Hart Trophy runner up.

I like those accolades better than some who made the list.

You necroed this thread for.... THIS?
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
Man, we all see things so differently. I can't even imagine what my players in the 300 range would look like. I also have a weak knowledge of pre-WWII players. I'd be going mostly off of consensus lists, when I'd rather do my own research, or better yet watching them play myself.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->