All-time player ranking - what factors should count and how much should they count for?

[bobholly39]

Something that's always bothered me when talking about all-time rankings (and especially with this forum possibly starting a new project soon in that sense) is deciding what factors should count, and how much it counts for in ranking of players.

I get the idea that different posters will weight different criteria separately (ie peak vs career) which is of course expected - but still. I'd love to have a discussion about how others feel about specific criteria that are sometimes tricky.

Leadership/Captaincy. Does a player like Beliveau benefit in an all-time ranking because of this? Or should this have no impact on a ranking, as it's more of an intangible?

Off-ice issues/decisions. Lemieux retired. Roy refused to play at World Cup. Hasek supposedly missed time in playoffs. Should factors like these be held against players? Again, an intangible, more than assessing their actual body of work.

A player's role vs elements lacking in his game. Comparing Gretzky/Lemieux to Howe - it's easy to say Howe was much better at defense than Gretzky/Lemieux. But I think both Lemieux/Gretzky weren't mandated to play defense - their coach wanted them to prioritize offense above all. In that sense - is lack of defense a negative?

Lack of opportunity - too bad, net negative for the other player? When comparing 2 players (same/different era) who had a lack of opportunity (because of team success/country, etc) - is that just too bad, or do we make adjustments? Lemieux missed playoffs for a lot of his career, but when he made it he generally did great vs Mark Messier made the playoffs almost every season, so had a lot more playoffs opts (and also played great). Beliveau vs Crosby international career - Crosby has a big resume, Beliveau almost non-existent - is it just too bad for Beliveau, and net positive for Crosby? Crosby vs Ovechkin - Crosby playing for Canada had a lot more success than Ovechkin playing for Russia - too bad, Crosby lucky to play for powerhouse and also enjoy success = net positive - or should that somehow be weighed?

Peak vs Career. This one is a bit more tricky - everyone will (and should be able to) weight it differently. I still always struggle here. Imo - Lemieux was "better" - Howe had a more accomplished career - how to reconcile the 2?

I'm sure there are other examples too. Would love to get posters' opinions on some of these examples.

Click to read more...

 

[Midnight Judges]

All great questions. I think it's actually too much for one thread. You could easily have a thread on each of the bolded and it could make for a great discussion.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Those are just my personal opinions:

1) Yes, Béliveau's leadership would count in his overall value

2) You listed many different things.Some would count, some wouldn't.I'd say the most obvious example would be if the player was a diva or a bad apple, in which case his value would be lowered somewhat.

3) I think if Gretzky wanted to play better defense, no coach would have disagreed, so his lack of defense is a negative.Take Mike Modano, under Hitchcock his numbers suffered, but he is not held responsible for this, rightfully so.There's a difference between both situations IMO.

4) I make some adjustment, but I accept a lot of unfairness too.For example, Karlsson had little opportunity, but when he had it, he really shone, so I give him more value in the playoffs than he has on paper.But still not as much value as someone who did what he did for 4-5 years in reality.

5) My focus is on prime, somewhere between 4 and 8+ seasons, depending on the player.Then I check the rest and add value accordingly.For seasons played at a level far lower than the prime, I ignore them (Jagr in last few years) unless it's the playoffs.A player with a better prime will almost always be ranked higher on my list, ignoring playoffs.

It's hard to come up with general laws.I'm sure there are exceptions to everything I said, just haven't thought of them.

I also care about reputation or ''star power''.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ultimately, the goal is the win the Stanley Cup,* so any aspect of a player's game that helps or hurts his team win should be relevant.

*or international equivalent for non-NHL Euros

Re: Peak vs career, everyone has a different view. I prefer to look primarily at what I would call a player's "extended prime," meaning (for example) I don't give a rat's ass what Jagr did after he came back from the KHL a shell of himself.

 

[MXD]

As we say in my language :
TOUTE

*Unless it's has nothing to do with hockey and the pursuit of results. I don't care whether Bobby Orr likes oysters or not, and Patrick Roy's eldest son musical career has nothing to do with his father's career.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The least hockey-related thing I might put value on is if the player was a superstar and a great ambassador for the game.But I'd do it asymmetrically, meaning I wouldn't lower the value of a player who wasn't a great ambassador, but I'd boost the value of one who was.But it's minor in the grand scheme of things.

I'm thinking of Béliveau and Crosby writing this.

 

[The Panther]

I think the main thing to me is prime. If a player's eight to twelve(ish)-year prime is consistently strong and consistently elite, we have one of the greatest players.

I'm not really impressed by one or two hugely peaked seasons, unless they add to an already great career.

Playoffs are a matter of opportunity vs. performance.

Longevity means very little to me, unless it is the result of an exceptionally long prime. And I also don't care much about players' post-prime careers.

I would tend to ignore things like 'leadership', except as it's visible ON THE ICE.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think you have to be open to the shape of greatness when it comes around, and allow it to surprise you.

 

[Big Phil]

I think for starters you have to look at how they were at their best. Then, how LONG that peak was at their best. Both of those factor in tremendously. I think Ron Francis was a great player, but he didn't peak as high as others. This is why Orr is a unanimous #1 overall defenseman. His peak was so much higher than anyone else's that you can forgive him for only playing until 28.

Conversely, if a player is great for a very long time that helps too. Marcel Dionne was a top flight scorer well into his 30s.

Another factor is playoffs. This isn't baseball, hockey has a lot more playoff games in its history. Ted Williams, Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds never won a World Series and in general don't have the best stats in the postseason. That matters little when evaluating them because especially in Cobb and Williams' day it was very difficult to even make the postseason, so that is a small sample size.

Not so with hockey. Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe and Orr all were great in the playoffs. Beliveau was too, Richard has a lot of his legend built around that, as does Roy. When a player had a great career but is "meh" in the playoffs I think it hurts him. Bobby Clarke's stats don't jump out at you in the playoffs (yes he was great defensively) and maybe that is why Yzerman and Sakic are routinely ahead of him.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[bobholly39]

Those are just my personal opinions:

1) Yes, Béliveau's leadership would count in his overall value

2) You listed many different things.Some would count, some wouldn't.I'd say the most obvious example would be if the player was a diva or a bad apple, in which case his value would be lowered somewhat.

3) I think if Gretzky wanted to play better defense, no coach would have disagreed, so his lack of defense is a negative.Take Mike Modano, under Hitchcock his numbers suffered, but he is not held responsible for this, rightfully so.There's a difference between both situations IMO.

4) I make some adjustment, but I accept a lot of unfairness too.For example, Karlsson had little opportunity, but when he had it, he really shone, so I give him more value in the playoffs than he has on paper.But still not as much value as someone who did what he did for 4-5 years in reality.

5) My focus is on prime, somewhere between 4 and 8+ seasons, depending on the player.Then I check the rest and add value accordingly.For seasons played at a level far lower than the prime, I ignore them (Jagr in last few years) unless it's the playoffs.A player with a better prime will almost always be ranked higher on my list, ignoring playoffs.

It's hard to come up with general laws.I'm sure there are exceptions to everything I said, just haven't thought of them.

I also care about reputation or ''star power''.

Good answers on most. I'll respond with my own opinions.

1. Yes - Beliveau's leadership should count, I agree. Net positive for him.

2. I really like your point about "being a diva and hurting the team". If you can prove a direct correlation between a player's behavior and impact on team results - net negative. But in that regards Lemieux gets 0 impact for retiring - it would be one thing if he retired mid-season and said "the hell with u guys and quit". You should be allowed to leave the game/retire as you wish. Similarly - Roy not playing at World Cup, no impact. It would be different if he started with the team, didn't get starter position and then said "screw you guys i'm out". You should be allowed to decide whether to play or not. Hasek - i don't know the whole story nor how much is fact vs rumor - but if it is established he ditched the team in playoffs when he could/should have played, sure, that could hurt him some.

3. I disagree. In some cases, I feel as though players have specific roles, and that's what they're meant to do. Defense is one example, hitting another...but I have to assume Lemieux/Gretzky were told to score as much as they can, and if they're a bit lax on defense, get their linemates to cover them. So I don't think pointing to defense as a hole in their game would be justified. You can give Modano credit for playing defense if you want (or deduct points if his offense suffered, or call it even if it's an even trade-off) - but unless it makes logical sense for a player to participate in an aspect of the game where they didn't - i don't think you can hold it against them. If I'm a coach I want Gretzky/Lemieux going offense, not wasting time on defense - let their teammates do it for them. Same idea with some players who aren't meant to hit/by physical, and instead rely on linemates to do that.

4. I'd tend to agree. If Sidney Crosby ends up qualifying for the playoffs every season of his career - and in contrast McDavid only qualifies 5x total - good for Crosby, and too bad for McDavid. Even if the 5 playoffs of McDavid are on par/slightly better than Crosby's 5 best, still net positive Crosby for qualifying and playing more. Now if McDavid's 5 playoffs are vastly superior to any of Crosby's - qty vs quality of course starts to count at some point. Same idea for net positive for Crosby vs Beliveau who got a lot of chances at International play, and "too bad for Ovi" playing for a weaker Russia vs net positive for Crosby playing for a strong Canada internationally in their careers.

Ultimately, the goal is the win the Stanley Cup,* so any aspect of a player's game that helps or hurts his team win should be relevant.

*or international equivalent for non-NHL Euros

Re: Peak vs career, everyone has a different view. I prefer to look primarily at what I would call a player's "extended prime," meaning (for example) I don't give a rat's ass what Jagr did after he came back from the KHL a shell of himself.

I get what you're saying but that's also extremely tricky. We can look no further than Ovechkin this very season. Arguably going to be the greatest (and maybe best) goal scorer ever. He's also usually performed in playoffs despite lack of team success prior to this year, many great playoff scoring seasons.

But these past 2 seasons he seems to be contributing more defensively too. This year he finally won cup + smythe. So is this past season an Ovi that helps his team win a cup more than a peak Ovi was? But if so - wouldn't peak Ovi still be worth a lot more than last year's Ovi, considering how great he was at his peak?

I think the main thing to me is prime. If a player's eight to twelve(ish)-year prime is consistently strong and consistently elite, we have one of the greatest players.

I'm not really impressed by one or two hugely peaked seasons, unless they add to an already great career.

Playoffs are a matter of opportunity vs. performance.

Longevity means very little to me, unless it is the result of an exceptionally long prime. And I also don't care much about players' post-prime careers.

I would tend to ignore things like 'leadership', except as it's visible ON THE ICE.

Leadership on the ICE - give me an example? And - does that mean that players like Beliveau or Messier would get 0 additional boost in a ranking for their captaincy/leadership skills (off the ice) in your estimation?

 

[VanIslander]

1. It's an open question, and as such, will remain so.

2. The desire to be reductionistic, and boil all cases, conditions and considerations down to a number or formula, is strong.

3. Ranking players by a set of criteria can be illuminating but it's also obscuring, so an entirely different set of criteria and/or weighted aspects can also be illuminating. A multitude of perspectives helps, different threads with different concoctions of rankings can help us better understand the value of a player relative to other players.

So,... go ahead and propose a set of measures and weigh them as you see fit - some are better than others - just don't expect to reach the final word on the matter.

This is a basic issue in philosophy regarding any claims to 'the best' or 'the greatest' in many areas of human endeavor.

 

[VanIslander]

It takes very different ways to fully appreciate the huge differences between Orr and Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux, Hasek and Roy. Each is ranked above the other, depending on what you consider. It's a real hornets' nest to try and talk GENERALLY rather than on a case-by-case basis.

 

[The Panther]

If Sidney Crosby ends up qualifying for the playoffs every season of his career - and in contrast McDavid only qualifies 5x total - good for Crosby, and too bad for McDavid. Even if the 5 playoffs of McDavid are on par/slightly better than Crosby's 5 best, still net positive Crosby for qualifying and playing more.

I'm not sure about that. Certainly Crosby gets full marks if he makes the playoffs every season and performs well in them -- no negative, obviously. But qualifying for, and being competitive in, the NHL playoffs is not an individual's pursuit. In other words, no one player ever makes a hockey team great. So if McDavid is (as we know he is) a huge positive for his team, and his team qualifies for the playoffs 5 times vs. Crosby's team's 15 times or whatever, I don't see that as a negative for McDavid, by way of comparison (unless McDavid stank in the playoffs of course).

Take Mario Lemieux as a good comparative. His team made the playoffs 8 times in 16 seasons, many of those being seasons when it was a lot easier to make it in than today. Larry Robinson, by contrast, made the playoffs 16 times in his first 16 seasons. Brett Hull 16 times in 16 seasons. Are we going to fault Lemieux individually for the fact that his franchise had incompetent management / coaching from about 1982 (before he arrived) to about 1990, or that it declined again in the early 2000s? Of course not. So, I see playoffs as a matter of performance per opportunity.

Leadership on the ICE - give me an example?

And - does that mean that players like Beliveau or Messier would get 0 additional boost in a ranking for their captaincy/leadership skills (off the ice) in your estimation?

That's right. When I rate players, I think only of how they perform on the ice. The rest is obviously important, but it's pure speculation by fans.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ok i’ll be that guy: crosby missed the playoffs in his rookie year

 

[daver]

It takes very different ways to fully appreciate the huge differences between Orr and Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux, Hasek and Roy. Each is ranked above the other, depending on what you consider. It's a real hornets' nest to try and talk GENERALLY rather than on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with this.

You can identify which factors you give a higher mark to but you also have to be open to players having a very impressive showing in lower rated factors to offset an advantage in a higher rated factor.

The Big Four all have set the all-time high marks in every factor you can name.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Prime/peak for me is the most important

Longevity is last. Unless it’s ELITE longevity.

 

[frisco]

I think a lot of guys are hung up on peak a little too much. Jaromir Jagr helped his team to the playoffs with 66 points in 79 games (+23) when most guys his age were entering their second decade of retirement. To me, to ignore that year or chalk it up as "compiling" is wrong. I see it as a positive for Jagr. Same thing if I guy puts up a stinker year. To not include that in their evaluation because it wasn't a peak season seems wrong.

At the same time if someone is a peak proponent, what about a guy like Richard Martin (384 goals in 685 games) in a not super high goals era? 11th in goals per game all-time. Does anyone make a case for him?

My Best-Carey

 

[KMart27]

Leadership/Captaincy: I would say it can give a player an edge over another player if you are torn on who is better. I can't justify considering it a large factor because we have a limited knowledge of each player's leadership and every good team has a strong leadership group rather than a single strong leader.

Off-ice issues/decisions: Only if it hurt their team in some way. A hockey player's greatness at playing hockey should be judged by what they did as a hockey player. That being said, we are all humans that are judging these players and sometimes there will be off-ice incidents that we can't help but include in our judgment.

A player's role vs elements lacking in his game: The weakness would have to be a glaring weakness rather than a weakness as opposed to a strength. Defense would be Gretzky's weakness but he wasn't somebody you would bench in important defensive situations. The element he was lacking was a physical game but at his size it wouldn't have added anything anyway.

Lack of opportunity - too bad, net negative for the other player? Definitely can't hold it against a player if there was no or few international opportunities when they played. Again though, I would see international play as something that could give one player an edge over another but it isn't a major factor overall. I have also always disagreed with punishing a player for being in a great situation. If a player finds themselves with a great opportunity and they take advantage of it, they deserve credit for what they accomplished. As for lack of playoff appearances, over a few years I give the player a break. Over a 15+ year healthy career if they rarely make the playoffs that is going to require some further analysis to determine if they are a reason for that.

Peak vs Career: They are both important. I won't use Howe vs Lemieux because really both had great peaks and great careers just different in both regards. I will use Lindros vs Gartner. Lindros had less than 10 seasons of Hall of Fame calibre play but at his peak he was a top 5 player (at times arguably the best player) for around five years. Gartner had a Hall of Fame career but he didn't have a Hall of Fame peak. I think pretty much everybody would agree that Lindros was the better player. Peak has the advantage because it is more of a direct comparison with the other players of that era. History will always show trophy wins, first/second all star teams, position in scoring races. Those indicate peak. As far as career stats are concerned, unless the way hockey is played changes considerably, everybody is just overwhelmed by Gretzky.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I think a lot of guys are hung up on peak a little too much. Jaromir Jagr helped his team to the playoffs with 66 points in 79 games (+23) when most guys his age were entering their second decade of retirement. To me, to ignore that year or chalk it up as "compiling" is wrong. I see it as a positive for Jagr. Same thing if I guy puts up a stinker year. To not include that in their evaluation because it wasn't a peak season seems wrong.

At the same time if someone is a peak proponent, what about a guy like Richard Martin (384 goals in 685 games) in a not super high goals era? 11th in goals per game all-time. Does anyone make a case for him?

My Best-Carey

I think the thing about Jagr's post peak play is not so much that it was worthless, because it wasn't, but that it doesn't necessarily move the needle all that much relative to Jagr's own standard of play and his closest comparables. I mean, no one's trying to prove that Jagr's longevity vaults him over Paul Kariya, because Jagr has definitively surpassed Kariya's career (his Kariyr?) in every way possible and it's not necessary. But if you're haggling over Hull vs. Richard vs. Jagr, does Hull's time with the Whalers tip your opinion one way or another?

 

[bobholly39]

I think the thing about Jagr's post peak play is not so much that it was worthless, because it wasn't, but that it doesn't necessarily move the needle all that much relative to Jagr's own standard of play and his closest comparables. I mean, no one's trying to prove that Jagr's longevity vaults him over Paul Kariya, because Jagr has definitively surpassed Kariya's career (his Kariyr?) in every way possible and it's not necessary. But if you're haggling over Hull vs. Richard vs. Jagr, does Hull's time with the Whalers tip your opinion one way or another?

I agree with this. Maybe to go even further - if you compare Jagr to Howe, who also had a long extended prime, the more years Jagr adds the easier it is to compare him head to head vs Howe and look good, as their resumes start to overlap nicely at a certain age.

But if you compare Jagr to say.....Beliveau, or even Hull? You either have Jagr ahead, or behind, and that extra season or 2 past 40 years old isn't going to be the differentiator between the 2, as it's such a small portion of Jagr's overall career value (which starts with his amazing peak/prime).

 

[bobholly39]

It takes very different ways to fully appreciate the huge differences between Orr and Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux, Hasek and Roy. Each is ranked above the other, depending on what you consider. It's a real hornets' nest to try and talk GENERALLY rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Just to address this. Obviously i'm not expecting us to come up with a generally accepted way of weighing different factors that everyone agrees on. Just trying to drum up discussion points, on some issues that I always struggle with (and I assume others do too).

For example I feel very strongly in my personal bias towards peak, and towards offensive domination in my evaluation of players, and don't see that changing no matter what arguments other suggest. But i'm much more open minded when it comes to whether or not to consider Leadership (intangible) in ranking, and therefore curious to see how other posters deal with it. Maybe it'll influence my own rankings.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

for me the real measure is how much better than everyone else were you.

Orr was a man among boys
Gretzky and Lemieux looked like they were playing a different game to everyone else
Howe was the best player in the league for 20 years and at his peak was untouchable.

Compare this to Crosby., who is a fantastic player and definitely a top 15 of all time. There are a couple seasons where Malkin was better, Ovechkin had a couple seasons being better, you can argue Stamkos had one.

Despite being the best player in the league over his career, he didnt separate himself from the field the way the Big 4 did.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Something that's always bothered me when talking about all-time rankings (and especially with this forum possibly starting a new project soon in that sense) is deciding what factors should count, and how much it counts for in ranking of players.

I get the idea that different posters will weight different criteria separately (ie peak vs career) which is of course expected - but still. I'd love to have a discussion about how others feel about specific criteria that are sometimes tricky.

Leadership/Captaincy. Does a player like Beliveau benefit in an all-time ranking because of this? Or should this have no impact on a ranking, as it's more of an intangible?

Off-ice issues/decisions. Lemieux retired. Roy refused to play at World Cup. Hasek supposedly missed time in playoffs. Should factors like these be held against players? Again, an intangible, more than assessing their actual body of work.

A player's role vs elements lacking in his game. Comparing Gretzky/Lemieux to Howe - it's easy to say Howe was much better at defense than Gretzky/Lemieux. But I think both Lemieux/Gretzky weren't mandated to play defense - their coach wanted them to prioritize offense above all. In that sense - is lack of defense a negative?

Lack of opportunity - too bad, net negative for the other player? When comparing 2 players (same/different era) who had a lack of opportunity (because of team success/country, etc) - is that just too bad, or do we make adjustments? Lemieux missed playoffs for a lot of his career, but when he made it he generally did great vs Mark Messier made the playoffs almost every season, so had a lot more playoffs opts (and also played great). Beliveau vs Crosby international career - Crosby has a big resume, Beliveau almost non-existent - is it just too bad for Beliveau, and net positive for Crosby? Crosby vs Ovechkin - Crosby playing for Canada had a lot more success than Ovechkin playing for Russia - too bad, Crosby lucky to play for powerhouse and also enjoy success = net positive - or should that somehow be weighed?

Peak vs Career. This one is a bit more tricky - everyone will (and should be able to) weight it differently. I still always struggle here. Imo - Lemieux was "better" - Howe had a more accomplished career - how to reconcile the 2?

I'm sure there are other examples too. Would love to get posters' opinions on some of these examples.

Leadership: I'd rank this pretty low since it's so hard for anybody outside of the dressing room to weigh in on. Beliveau, by the way, would likely rank in or very near the top ten of all time regardless of whether he was ever captain.

Off ice issues: Totally irrelevant.

Player's role vs elements lacking: This is a tough one and is what makes these lists so subjective. In almost all cases, you really shouldn't care that Gretzky didn't really backcheck and had zero physical element to his game, because he was in another dimension entirely when it came to offense. However, when you compare him to someone who was also other-worldly (Bobby Orr), then you look at the sub-factors. That is why I pick Orr over Gretzky as the best of all time.

Lack of opportunity: Again, this depends. It is a team game, so I think Marcel Dionne is often too low on the all-time lists because of the teams he played on. If Montreal drafted Denis Savard like they should have, he may have been a top three or four Hab of all time. Hawerchuck spent his nine best seasons in Winnipeg. If he played for the NYR or Leafs during that time, his legacy would be so much greater.

Peak vs Career: For this, it's a bit of a mixed bag but I put emphasis on peak years. Mike Gartner scored over 700 goals, but he was never, ever among the greatest offensive players in any season. Meanwhile, Orr was a man playing among children during his brief career. I like to look at the peak years. Where they ever the best, even for a couple of seasons? To me, that's better than being top 10 but never better than fourth or fifth.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Something that's always bothered me when talking about all-time rankings (and especially with this forum possibly starting a new project soon in that sense) is deciding what factors should count, and how much it counts for in ranking of players.

I get the idea that different posters will weight different criteria separately (ie peak vs career) which is of course expected - but still. I'd love to have a discussion about how others feel about specific criteria that are sometimes tricky.

Leadership/Captaincy. Does a player like Beliveau benefit in an all-time ranking because of this? Or should this have no impact on a ranking, as it's more of an intangible?

Not really an intagible, measurable.

How a player produces on the road in a hostile arena. Shutting down the home team from the start - goalie is a prime example.

Key game situations, adjusting play accordingly.

Steve Smith, 1986 own goal. Two wingers had overstayed their shift, Gretzky had replaced the center yet no forward should have been Gretzky, adjusted to allow a safe transition pass. Commentators mention this.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think leadership is significant - especially in the playoffs when you’re able to get the most out of your teammates in short stretches that can lead to greater team success than what would normally be expected.





If you make it a habit of getting guys willing to run through a brick wall for you because they know you’ll do the same for them, it gets harder to call it intangible.