Do you consider Yzerman and Sakic top 25 players all time?

[Video Nasty]

Including goalies, both are a no. Excluding goalies, both are a yes.

 

[SuperScript29]

so again, Ill let you read the in depth discussions on all that. There is no easy answer, as its obviously an extremely difficult list to make when considering 120 years of hockey. I understand the the main board here usually doesnt consider the older players, but if the question is about "all-time" then that has to include all eras.

If anything, the 2 guys that stand out from the pre-WWII era are Morenz and Shore. They were the absolute best in the 20s and 30s... Morenz had 3 Harts, and Shore 4 Harts (and wouldve had about 6 Norrises). I mean they were less than 20 years from the Howe/Richard era, so I dont understand why they should be anymore omitted than Howe and Richard themselves who were 70 years ago!

This list obviously means something to you if you're defending it this much. But you're still somewhat dodging what I'm asking here. You're claiming that these guys were the greatest in their generation, fair enough. Guys like Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman were great players but definitely not the best of their generation. Why is Lalonde ahead of Yzerman but not Messier/Sakic. This is a simple question, if you're not able to answer it then I understand, but that should give you an idea on why people are questioning that list.

 

[The Macho King]

This list obviously means something to you if you're defending it this much. But you're still somewhat dodging what I'm asking here. You're claiming that these guys were the greatest in their generation, fair enough. Guys like Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman were great players but definitely not the best of their generation. Why is Lalonde ahead of Yzerman but not Messier/Sakic. This is a simple question, if you're not able to answer it then I understand, but that should give you an idea on why people are questioning that list.

If you're actually curious, we archive all of the threads where we debate relevant placements in the voting and you can see the discussion why Lalonde placed over Yzerman.

This wasn't slapped together - and it's a consensus document so of course disagreement with relative placements is warranted (and expected). Literally no one had the final list as their initial list. But to the extent you want to know *why* player A was placed over player B but behind player C, all of that is there to look at.

For the record, my issues with the list are a significant overrating of expansion era and DPE players and an underrating of pre-WW2/Soviet players, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

thats your opinion.... same will be said about today's atheltes 100 years from now. Thats what you dont seem to understand. Its relative.

Whether you were the greatest amongst 100 players or 700 players, it doesnt make a difference.

Why is Babe Ruth still considered the greatest ever 100 years later? Why is Orr considered the 2nd greatest ever when he couldnt even play in today's game? Why is Howe considered so great when he won MVPs in a 6-team league?

Yes it does.
Because like you said, it's all relative.


Believe it or not, Science and data work like that.
A small sample size over small control group mean very little.

If you are better at a video game than 10 people. Nobody cares.
If you become better at a videogame 100 million people play, you're probably dating a k-pop star and raking in $50million a year.

 

[SuperScript29]

If you're actually curious, we archive all of the threads where we debate relevant placements in the voting and you can see the discussion why Lalonde placed over Yzerman.

This wasn't slapped together - and it's a consensus document so of course disagreement with relative placements is warranted (and expected). Literally no one had the final list as their initial list. But to the extent you want to know *why* player A was placed over player B but behind player C, all of that is there to look at.

For the record, my issues with the list are a significant overrating of expansion era and DPE players and an underrating of pre-WW2/Soviet players, but that's neither here nor there.

In other words it's another list based on opinions. I disagree with using this list as a reference to to my own rankings. Moving on.

 

[The Macho King]

In other words it's another list based on opinions. I disagree with using this list as a reference to to my own rankings. Moving on.

Of course it is? But unlike your list - it's debated by those educated in various eras of the game, and it is a consensus document. So it's based off of 30+ opinions, not one, with deep discussion and research to back it up instead of "man Bure was really fast he's #6 on my list."

 

[bobholly39]

No to both.

Definitely no to Yzerman, not close.
Sakic is closer, but still so.

 

[SuperScript29]

Of course it is? But unlike your list - it's debated by those educated in various eras of the game, and it is a consensus document. So it's based off of 30+ opinions, not one, with deep discussion and research to back it up instead of "man Bure was really fast he's #6 on my list."

Okay we get it, but for such in-depth discussion of all these knowledgeable minds, one should have no issues answering my question with legit reasons to why Lalonde is ahead of Yzerman, but not Sakic/Messier. If your response is to go look for my answer in the discussion, then I get it, you don't know why either.

 

[The Macho King]

Okay we get it, but for such in-depth discussion of all these knowledgeable minds, one should have no issues answering my question with legit reasons to why Lalonde is ahead of Yzerman, but not Sakic/Messier. If your response is to go look for my answer in the discussion, then I get it, you don't know why either.

I dont remember the discussion, but it seems like your issue is you do not think Yzerman should be behind Sakic/Messier rather than any issue specific with Lalonde.

To Lalonde specifically - he was the best offensive player of the pre-consolidation era. Yzerman never was the best NHL player, and rarely in the conversation outside of one peak year.

 

[amnesiac]

This list obviously means something to you if you're defending it this much. But you're still somewhat dodging what I'm asking here. You're claiming that these guys were the greatest in their generation, fair enough. Guys like Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman were great players but definitely not the best of their generation. Why is Lalonde ahead of Yzerman but not Messier/Sakic. This is a simple question, if you're not able to answer it then I understand, but that should give you an idea on why people are questioning that list.

I understand your point, but again, to rank players from the 1920s or even from the 50s is a difficult thing to do. Its not a perfect list by any means, but people have to understand why we see a guy like Morenz or Shore so high. Thats all my argument is here.

No, I cant justify why Lalonde is below Mess but above Yzerman, its a ranking based on average votes. All you can say is that he was in their "tier of greatest players" if you will. Where hes placed, whether its one or two above/below this guy doesnt really matter. I mean how do you justify Beliveau or Richard being better than Jagr for example? Completely different eras, but most experts would say that was the case.

Sure, a more "fair" list would be separated by era. But if youre doing a GOAT ranking, you do your best to include all eras. Its a very difficult thing to do.

 

[amnesiac]

Yes it does.
Because like you said, it's all relative.


Believe it or not, Science and data work like that.
A small sample size over small control group mean very little.

If you are better at a video game than 10 people. Nobody cares.
If you become better at a videogame 100 million people play, you're probably dating a k-pop star and raking in $50million a year.

so then Howe and Richard must be really low on your GOAT ranking since they only played in a 6 team league. Whats your argument there?

of course ALL athletes on the planet get better over time with the evolution of the sport, thats just common sense. But were not ranking the "physical talent" of the hockey players. If that were the case then the top 10 GOAT would all be players from the 90s and after.

A GOAT list is relative to the era the players played in. Hence why Orr is always top 3 or so. Greatest of his time, but sure as hell wouldnt dominate if you plopped him into today's game.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I
do

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I take both Yzerman and Sakic over a vast majority of NHLers. Yes, even Mark Messier.

 

[daver]

Here's the 3 time national dodgeball champions.
The official home of the San Diego, Crossfire

You are suggesting a century from now, these 6 players they should be revered as the greatest of all time, even if this sport grows into a multi-billion dollar sport that's played worldwide.


Do you understand winning an MVP trophy in a league of 40 players, for an obscure sport that not many people follow, is not particularly impressive?


Hockey in that era bordered on "intramural level".


Calling these guys Top 25 of all time, and better than Yzerman and Sakic is hilarious.

Terrible post.

 

[daver]

The "old players suck" responses are so predictable. Why do people even bother posting if they lack the imagination to consider that talented athletes existed in any era.

 

[Caps8112]

As others have said in here its difficult to rank players from 70 80 years ago against what we see today. Unless your using a rule like so and so from 1930 was the best player for ten years so he is top 25. As far as actual hockey ability, it's not close. Probably a 1000 players from today that are better then that guy.

 

[SuperScript29]

I dont remember the discussion, but it seems like your issue is you do not think Yzerman should be behind Sakic/Messier rather than any issue specific with Lalonde.

To Lalonde specifically - he was the best offensive player of the pre-consolidation era. Yzerman never was the best NHL player, and rarely in the conversation outside of one peak year.

That's not my issue, in fact I don't have a problem if one puts Yzerman behind Messier/Sakic even if I disagree with it. I think all three players are close to one another but least those in the Messier/Sakic camp can make good arguments using stats, trophies, etc.

My issue is that Lalonde is supposed to be the best offensive player of that era, how does one asses that he's above Yzerman but not Messier/Sakic? If Lalonde is supposed to be a Crosby/Ovechkin like of his generation, he should be much higher on the list and ahead of all the three players I'm talking about.

I understand your point, but again, to rank players from the 1920s or even from the 50s is a difficult thing to do. Its not a perfect list by any means, but people have to understand why we see a guy like Morenz or Shore so high. Thats all my argument is here.

No, I cant justify why Lalonde is below Mess but above Yzerman, its a ranking based on average votes. All you can say is that he was in their "tier of greatest players" if you will. Where hes placed, whether its one or two above/below this guy doesnt really matter. I mean how do you justify Beliveau or Richard being better than Jagr for example? Completely different eras, but most experts would say that was the case.

Sure, a more "fair" list would be separated by era. But if youre doing a GOAT ranking, you do your best to include all eras. Its a very difficult thing to do.

I understand that it's difficult making those rankings, but you get where I'm coming from. In the cases of players like Morenz and Shore, I think it's easier arguing for those guys given their trophy accomplishments.

 

[Eisen]

I think the point is that players from that era would basically be pylons or cones in today's era. Like if you took someone that played in 1920 and plopped them into 1995 to play against Yzerman or Sakic, even the scrubs from back then(95), they wouldn't even be NHL players. Let alone considered one of the best of all time.
Where if you took Yzerman and plopped him into the 1920s nhl he'd look like Gretzky relative his competition.
Best or top players of all time should be just that. It shouldn't be well he was good compared to his competition in the 20s-30s but we ranked him above players he couldn't hold a candle to because nostalgia

I'd love to plop a naked Yzerman into the 20s and play with their equipment. I'm not sure who'd be the pylon.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes it does.
Because like you said, it's all relative.


Believe it or not, Science and data work like that.
A small sample size over small control group mean very little.

If you are better at a video game than 10 people. Nobody cares.
If you become better at a videogame 100 million people play, you're probably dating a k-pop star and raking in $50million a year.

But if you are better than the top 10 video game players in the world, its the same as better than 100 million.

So even if there were only 50 players in the league, they were still the best hockey players at the time.

 

[amnesiac]

I don't follow baseball so no comment on the Babe Ruth thing, but as for Howe his numbers and impact still stand very high against players today. He's what 4th in nhl scoring, 2nd in goals even after all this time.
Orr revolutionized a position and set a bunch of record that still stand to this day.

They weren't clearly charity cases and deserved inclusion unlike players who are only included because they were just slightly better than the 20 other guys that played in the league at the time

ok, then Beliveau, Richard, Harvey..... What makes them so much better than say Sakic, Yzerman, and Coffey? Clearly the latter had more competition being in a 20-30 team league (vs 6) and had better stats, yet no expert puts them in the same breath.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

so then Howe and Richard must be really low on your GOAT ranking since they only played in a 6 team league. Whats your argument there?

of course ALL athletes on the planet get better over time with the evolution of the sport, thats just common sense. But were not ranking the "physical talent" of the hockey players. If that were the case then the top 10 GOAT would all be players from the 90s and after.

A GOAT list is relative to the era the players played in. Hence why Orr is always top 3 or so. Greatest of his time, but sure as hell wouldnt dominate if you plopped him into today's game.

Disagree.

First off, he'd get simple knee surgery so he'd be healthy. He'd skate on better skates. Play with a lighter sick and be better protected by new equipment. Give him a few games to figure out how the modern game is played (no blue line, oh boy!) and he would be a superstar.

 

[amnesiac]

That's not my issue, in fact I don't have a problem if one puts Yzerman behind Messier/Sakic even if I disagree with it. I think all three players are close to one another but least those in the Messier/Sakic camp can make good arguments using stats, trophies, etc.

My issue is that Lalonde is supposed to be the best offensive player of that era, how does one asses that he's above Yzerman but not Messier/Sakic? If Lalonde is supposed to be a Crosby/Ovechkin like of his generation, he should be much higher on the list and ahead of all the three players I'm talking about.



I understand that it's difficult making those rankings, but you get where I'm coming from. In the cases of players like Morenz and Shore, I think it's easier arguing for those guys given their trophy accomplishments.

but there was obviously more than just 2 great players from 1910-1940.... thats 30 years of hockey, about 1/4 of its history.

 

[amnesiac]

Disagree.

First off, he'd get simple knee surgery so he'd be healthy. He'd skate on better skates. Play with a lighter sick and be better protected by new equipment. Give him a few games to figure out how the modern game is played (no blue line, oh boy!) and he would be a superstar.

a few games??? are you kidding? Several years, maybe, but he sure as hell wouldnt "figure out the modern game" after a few games and dominate.

Let alone their training was nothing, absolutely NOTHING compared to today.... I mean, they used to go drink and smoke their lungs out after a game back then.... Seriously, come on, man.

I get that you probably watched him play, and Im the first to say he is one of the greatest ever, but the game is MUCH MUCH better in all sense of its meaning today than it was just 30 years ago let alone 50!

When I watched the old Canada Cups of the 70s I could swear I was watching a modern old-timers game. Its not even slightly comparable.

 

[JackSlater]

A bit too high for either of them, but they are in that range if the list was limited to forwards only.

 

[Video Nasty]

a few games??? are you kidding? Several years, maybe, but he sure as hell wouldnt "figure out the modern game" after a few games and dominate.

Let alone their training was nothing, absolutely NOTHING compared to today.... I mean, they used to go drink and smoke their lungs out after a game back then.... Seriously, come on, man.

I get that you probably watched him play, and Im the first to say he is one of the greatest ever, but the game is MUCH MUCH better in all sense of its meaning today than it was just 30 years ago let alone 50!

When I watched the old Canada Cups of the 70s I could swear I was watching a modern old-timers game. Its not even slightly comparable.

Far easier for past players to reap the benefits of the "modern" game than for current players to go back and lose all those benefits in the process.

Haven't you seen that video of a modern player using equipment from the 80's and suddenly looking extremely unimpressive?

Such a pointless stance.