Give us your top ten players of all time

[Johnny Engine]

Got it. The key to winning is playing in the 80s and ending your career early.

 

[Doctor No]

How points per game vs era isnt the #1 metric I simply cant understand.

Plain and simple - goals are only valuable if they can be used to "purchase" victories. And in the 1980s, it took more goals to purchase a victory than in other eras.

 

[Doctor No]

Not including goalies since that's impossible to group together imo.

Do I get to wheel out my response every time someone comes to the table with this "new" concern?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Plain and simple - goals are only valuable if they can be used to "purchase" victories. And in the 1980s, it took more goals to purchase a victory than in other eras.

-The Stats I posted are points per game, era adjusted to each player. The stats dont have anything to do with the 80s. Its why Wayne Gretzky isnt ranked #1 in points per game era adjusted, Lemieux is, because his dominance in the 90s was even greater then Gretzky in the 80s, era adjusted for overall team scoring average goals per team each year.

 

[Iapyi]

I have Wayne ranked where he's supposed to be ranked. BTW, if this is an all-time list including players from all leagues, not just the NHL, then there should be more European content here. Hasek, Jagr, Ovechkin, Makarov, probably Fetisov, should all receive some serious consideration. Makarov, for instance, is increasingly seen as the greatest Soviet forward of all. Where should a player of that magnitude fit into all of this? I honestly don't know with complete certainty. The biggest problem is, who do you take out? Out of the thousands of players who have played the game at the highest professional level, to come up with a list of only 10 means some really special players are going to be left out.

Any credibility given to you would be to much. You're trying to hard to be a contrarian and you are not doing a very good job at it.

 

[danincanada]

Actually, I take nobody's opinion as fact, as opinion is by definition not a fact.

But backing up your opinion doesn't mean you have proved anything.

Fine, “try to prove it then” if that makes you happy. That’s what I meant. I know opinion is never fact but just stating a player looks more dominant still needs to be backed up by something more. As if someone can actually use the eye test when they played more than a generation apart with no overlap of competition whatsoever.

 

[danincanada]

Assuming you mean Jacques Plante whose minor league GAA was over 3.00.

Lidstrom played with more future HHOFers -6, on defence especially, than Harvey ever did -4.

Why use minor league Plante when he won the Hart and Vezina (lowest GAA) the very next season after Harvey was traded? You couldn’t be any more disingenuous.

And sure, Harvey was runner up with the Rangers but he wasn’t leading them to the lowest GAA without his former teammates so it was more than just Harvey who was leading those Habs teams to low GAA’s. He was a part of the puzzle but having the top goalie in the league sure helps. Again, something Lidstrom never got to experience. What he did have was terrific two-way centers but they benefited from playing with Lidstrom, too.

Lidstrom’s fellow HOF defensemen teammates were mostly past their primes when they came to Detroit. Mark Howe, Fetisov, Murphy, and Chelios were all in their mid to late 30’s and Coffey was before Lidstrom hit his prime and started to win Cups. When Harvey played hurt and had a down year who won the Norris instead? His teammate! I can’t even imagine the flack Lidstrom would get around here if that if that happened. People would be like “see, he just benefits from playing big minutes on a powerhouse team”.

 

[quoipourquoi]

When Harvey played hurt and had a down year who won the Norris instead? His teammate! I can’t even imagine the flack Lidstrom would get around here if that if that happened. People would be like “see, he just benefits from playing big minutes on a powerhouse team”.

It is at this point that we must remind ourselves that Chris Chelios at 40 came just a few votes shy of taking the Norris Trophy from teammate Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02. And that Vladimir Konstantinov finished 2nd for the Norris in 1997 with triple the voting share of Lidstrom. And that Paul Coffey did win the 1995 Norris and was voted the best Western Conference player in a year with no inter-Conference play. No injury necessary for these examples; Lidstrom was on a blessed defensive team too.

And to further illustrate the original point being made, Lidstrom had that great Chelios season, the defending Vezina winner Dominik Hasek in net, four different Selke winners up-front, and the Red Wings still lost the Jennings by 18 goals in 2002. If his defense was this truly transformative quality, they wouldn’t have gone 12 years between Jennings - and they certainly wouldn’t have lost by such a huge margin in 2002 of all years!

Harvey and Lidstrom are not so closely paralleled that we cannot casually mention one without having a responsibility to talk about the other.

 

[Jeffrey Pedler]

Gretzky
Orr
Lemiuex
Howe
Crosby
Ovechkin
Esposito
Messier
The Rocket
Jagr
Yzerman

Both Crosby and Ovechkin will continue to add to their point totals and will end up top 10 all time in scoring.

 

[VanIslander]

Morenz, Fetisov, Taylor ... might be among the top ten if we put biases aside.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why use minor league Plante when he won the Hart and Vezina (lowest GAA) the very next season after Harvey was traded? You couldn’t be any more disingenuous.

And sure, Harvey was runner up with the Rangers but he wasn’t leading them to the lowest GAA without his former teammates so it was more than just Harvey who was leading those Habs teams to low GAA’s. He was a part of the puzzle but having the top goalie in the league sure helps. Again, something Lidstrom never got to experience. What he did have was terrific two-way centers but they benefited from playing with Lidstrom, too.

Lidstrom’s fellow HOF defensemen teammates were mostly past their primes when they came to Detroit. Mark Howe, Fetisov, Murphy, and Chelios were all in their mid to late 30’s and Coffey was before Lidstrom hit his prime and started to win Cups. When Harvey played hurt and had a down year who won the Norris instead? His teammate! I can’t even imagine the flack Lidstrom would get around here if that if that happened. People would be like “see, he just benefits from playing big minutes on a powerhouse team”.

Then why Czech League Hasek or QMJHL Roy?

Mid to late thirties, the HOF defencemen that played with Lidstrom would have been at their peak.After all Lidstrom won the Norris 7 times between the age of 30 and 40.Obvious that the other defencemen were in their prime.

1960-61,Jacques Plante played only 40 RS games due to a knee injury, coming back after treatment and rehab.

Off season rehab brought Plante to 1956-59 form and he performed at Vezina/Hart levels playing all 70 RS games

Jacques Plante Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Knee regressed, traded,retired, knee surgially repaired, returned to the NHL in 1968.

Doug Harvey,as Rangers player coach in 1961-62, molded a team that allowed 41 fewer goals against over 70 games.

1959 Norris when Harvey was hurt, Johnson,Pronovost, Gadsby, Harvey were very close in the first half voting.Red Wings and Rangers collapsed, Canadiens and Johnson progressed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Morenz, Fetisov, Taylor ... might be among the top ten if we put biases aside.

Actually not about biases but evaluation metrics.

Example out west assists were more freely awarded

 

[shazariahl]

-The Stats I posted are points per game, era adjusted to each player. The stats dont have anything to do with the 80s. Its why Wayne Gretzky isnt ranked #1 in points per game era adjusted, Lemieux is, because his dominance in the 90s was even greater then Gretzky in the 80s, era adjusted for overall team scoring average goals per team each year.

PPG rewards players like Lemieux who didn't play many games past their prime. Gretzky played more than twice as many games past age 30 than Lemieux did. Lemieux never played a full season in his career, and in is 17 seasons had 7 where he played 70+ games, and 7 where he played less than 25 games. In other words, he was just as likely statistically to miss most the season as he was to play it. Even when he was old and winding down, Gretzky was usually good for 70+ games.

Also, Lemieux was no where near as dominant in the 90's vs Gretzky in the 80's when we look at actual results, not adjusted per game which usually rewards someone for not actually playing hockey. Gretzky was regularly winning scoring races by 70+ points. Lemieux was ON PACE to dominate to a large degree, but usually missed a bunch of time so didn't actually put up similar numbers. I believe playing the game actually matters, not just pace.

PPG also rewards Lemieux for not wanting to play back to back games, missing huge stretches of time and then coming back rested, etc. Also, most era-adjustments in the past (not necessarily yours) have tended to underrate players in the 80's.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

PPG rewards players like Lemieux who didn't play many games past their prime. Gretzky played more than twice as many games past age 30 than Lemieux did. Lemieux never played a full season in his career, and in is 17 seasons had 7 where he played 70+ games, and 7 where he played less than 25 games. In other words, he was just as likely statistically to miss most the season as he was to play it. Even when he was old and winding down, Gretzky was usually good for 70+ games.

Also, Lemieux was no where near as dominant in the 90's vs Gretzky in the 80's when we look at actual results, not adjusted per game which usually rewards someone for not actually playing hockey. Gretzky was regularly winning scoring races by 70+ points. Lemieux was ON PACE to dominate to a large degree, but usually missed a bunch of time so didn't actually put up similar numbers. I believe playing the game actually matters, not just pace.

PPG also rewards Lemieux for not wanting to play back to back games, missing huge stretches of time and then coming back rested, etc. Also, most era-adjustments in the past (not necessarily yours) have tended to underrate players in the 80's.

-Non-Era Adjusted Top 5 leaders per decade. And what you post isnt true. A 38 year old Lemieux put up 91 points in 67 games in 2003 during the dead puck era. That is 1.36 points per game, in the dead puck era. If that was adjusted to todays game he would have statistically annihilated every player in the regular season, including Connor Mcdavid, at 38 years old after beating Cancer and having a spinal disc in his back


2010s

1) Sidney Crosby- 1.237 points per game
2) Connor Mcdavid- 1.225 points per game
3) Evgeni Malkin- 1.15 points per game
4) Steven Stamkos- 1.04 points per game
5) Patrick Kane- 1.03 points per game

2000s

1) Sidney Crosby- 1.364 points per game
2) Mario Lemieux- 1.34 points per game (39 years old)
3) Alex Ovechkin- 1.33 points per game
4) Peter Foresberg- 1.25 points per game
5) Evgeni Malkin- 1.23 points per game

1990s

1) Mario Lemieux- 2.063 points per game
2) Wayne Gretzky- 1.37 points per game
3) Eric Lindros- 1.35 points per game
4) Jaromir Jagr- 1.33 points per game
5) Pat Lafontaine- 1.29 points per game

1980s

1) Wayne Gretzky- 2.398 points per game
2) Mario Lemieux- 1.96 points per game
3) Mike Bossy- 1.55 points per game
4) Peter Stastny- 1.41 points per game
5) Jari Kurri- 1.38 points per game

 

[danincanada]

Then why Czech League Hasek or QMJHL Roy?

Mid to late thirties, the HOF defencemen that played with Lidstrom would have been at their peak.After all Lidstrom won the Norris 7 times between the age of 30 and 40.Obvious that the other defencemen were in their prime.

1960-61,Jacques Plante played only 40 RS games due to a knee injury, coming back after treatment and rehab.

Off season rehab brought Plante to 1956-59 form and he performed at Vezina/Hart levels playing all 70 RS games

Jacques Plante Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Knee regressed, traded,retired, knee surgially repaired, returned to the NHL in 1968.

Doug Harvey,as Rangers player coach in 1961-62, molded a team that allowed 41 fewer goals against over 70 games.

1959 Norris when Harvey was hurt, Johnson,Pronovost, Gadsby, Harvey were very close in the first half voting.Red Wings and Rangers collapsed, Canadiens and Johnson progressed.

It would be like me pointing to Hasek’s early struggles in North America to pretend the Red Wings didn’t get great goaltending from him in 2002, ignoring what he already accomplished in the NHL. I wouldn’t do that though because it would be ridiculous and I would feel ridiculous claiming that. You don’t seem to have a problem being deliberately obtuse though if it means muddying the water in a debate. I’m not interested in going down the C1958 vortex again but here I am, once again.

Mark Howe and Fetisov were still in their primes? That’s quite the claim. Was Chelios? Not every season, that’s for sure. He had knee issues during his early time in Detroit and it wasn’t until after he fully recovers from surgery that he showed glimpses of his former self. Coffey had one amazing season but a year later Bowman traded him away and gave the reigns to Lidstrom and Konstantinov.

The Habs allowed 22 less goals the season after Harvey left, too. You even made a thread about the trade and that season at one point. You seem to forget things you don’t want to remember when it’s not convenient. Yeah, Harvey wasn’t the only reason and Plante could stand on his own.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

-

1990s

1) Mario Lemieux- 2.063 points per game
2) Wayne Gretzky- 1.37 points per game
3) Eric Lindros- 1.35 points per game
4) Jaromir Jagr- 1.33 points per game
5) Pat Lafontaine- 1.29 points per game

It should be noted that Lemieux missed the lowest scoring seasons in the 90's due to either fatigue (1994-95) or his first retirement (the start the of dead-puck era, 1997-98 and 1998-99). A fairer comparison would be to look at 1989-90 through 1996-97:

Rk	Player	PTS/GP	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	PTS
1	Mario Lemieux*	2.07	1989	1997	7	377	313	466	779
2	Wayne Gretzky*	1.55	1989	1997	8	561	225	643	868
3	Eric Lindros*	1.47	1992	1997	5	297	193	243	436
4	Pat LaFontaine*	1.38	1989	1997	8	417	253	322	575
5	Adam Oates*	1.37	1989	1997	8	580	204	593	797

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2000s

1) Sidney Crosby- 1.364 points per game
2) Mario Lemieux- 1.34 points per game (39 years old)
3) Alex Ovechkin- 1.33 points per game
4) Peter Foresberg- 1.25 points per game
5) Evgeni Malkin- 1.23 points per game

This might be doing both Lemieux and Forsberg a disservice. Both had their best years of the decade before the lockout, after which scoring jumped by a fair bit. Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin didn't have to play through the worst of the dead-puck era (at least until the last few seasons prior to the Vegas expansion).

There's no need to force measures into decades if they don't fit the players being analyzed (plus if we're going by decades, going by 1917-18 through 1926-27, etc. makes more sense for the NHL).

 

[danincanada]

It is at this point that we must remind ourselves that Chris Chelios at 40 came just a few votes shy of taking the Norris Trophy from teammate Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02. And that Vladimir Konstantinov finished 2nd for the Norris in 1997 with triple the voting share of Lidstrom. And that Paul Coffey did win the 1995 Norris and was voted the best Western Conference player in a year with no inter-Conference play. No injury necessary for these examples; Lidstrom was on a blessed defensive team too.

And to further illustrate the original point being made, Lidstrom had that great Chelios season, the defending Vezina winner Dominik Hasek in net, four different Selke winners up-front, and the Red Wings still lost the Jennings by 18 goals in 2002. If his defense was this truly transformative quality, they wouldn’t have gone 12 years between Jennings - and they certainly wouldn’t have lost by such a huge margin in 2002 of all years!

Harvey and Lidstrom are not so closely paralleled that we cannot casually mention one without having a responsibility to talk about the other.

Lidstrom had 20 more points and played 3.5 more minutes per game than Chelios during the season and nearly 5 more minutes during the playoffs so Bowman clearly valued him more. I have a hard time pretending taking Lidstrom off that team wouldn’t make it far more difficult, if not impossible, for Chelios to have that season. It was an ideal situation for Chelios because he could play behind Lidstrom on the second pairing, often avoiding the toughest matchup. I wish we had stats for QOC for that year. You always try to sell Chelios matching up against Forsberg (ignoring Sakic was the alternative) and the West Coast Express but I’ve rewatched some games recently and Lidstrom was matched up against both too so give it a rest. Bowman and Babcock were both huge matchup coaches and Lidstrom was always their go to guy in his prime.

Lidstrom was blessed with good partners and teammates, no one would or can dispute that but they were more fortunate to have him. Murphy was booed out of Toronto but then looked like he was in his prime again when paired with Lidstrom. Olausson had a very good NHL career but he was playing in the Swiss league before he came back over and formed a great pairing with Lidstrom in ‘02. In ‘02-03 Lidstrom had one of his better seasons being partnered with Dandenault and Bykov. The constant was Lidstrom being great.

How can Harvey be in the top 10 instead of Lidstrom when they had such similar careers yet Lidstrom clearly played in a much bigger era for everything? Harvey never gets criticized here but there’s a solid group of posters who love to try to downgrade and overly criticize Lidstrom. Go back and read your silly playoff performers “project”. All the playoff successes Lidstrom had In his career and all several of the posters involved in that project could do is try to find negatives. It was pathetic and I’m expecting the same from the next project you’ll run into the ground. If you are going to run a project at least pretend your impartial instead of clearly pimping your favorites (Forsberg, Pronger, etc.) while constantly trying to downgrade or ignore the core Red Wings players you can’t stand. If you can’t, then let someone else do it because the guy running it should try to moderate it, not attempt to skew the whole thing for his own purposes. Yup, I just went there.

One great year of Hasek doesn’t disprove the fact that the Red Wings rarely had elite goaltending. They get Hasek and what happens? First overall, Cup, and 6 shutouts, including shutting out a powerhouse Avs team in the two deciding games in the playoffs. Was it even peak Hasek? Imagine if Lidstrom and the Wings had an elite goaltender, whether it be Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, or Belfour. We wouldn’t be talking about a quasi dynasty, we’d be taking about a full fledged dynasty. Harvey and Plante’s primes occurred at roughly the same time in Montreal and it’s not like the Habs didn’t have great two- way forwards as well.

Roy and the Avs won the Jennings on ‘02 with a team .927 sv% while the Red Wings were at .914. Detroit allowed 10 less shots that season. Did the Wings not win the Jennings because Lidstrom was overrated defensively or because Roy had an amazing season and one of his best?

And who do they name for the Jennings again? Right, the goaltenders because they stop the pucks. At one time they gave goalies the Vezina for that team accomplishment. The fact that the Red Wings won any without elite goaltending is in Lidstrom’s favour but you don’t want to see it that way. The list from the modern era is littered with elite goaltenders but it’s a good time for you to forget that now and pretend it means Lidstrom didn’t have a huge impact on his teams GAA. Take him away and that mediocre to strong goaltending would get exposed far more.

Having Coffey and Konstantinov was great for the team but it definitely helped hide how great Lidstrom already was. He was the momma bear of the 3. Didn’t have the points Coffey had nor the +/- of Konstantinov but he sat somewhere near the middle for both. The recognition had to wait but that’s fine. Looking back Bowman seemed to know what he had there. I didn’t realize it at the time but I got to watch it unfold.

 

[DDRhockey]

detroit started making playoffs when lidstrom joined and started missing playoffs when he quit.

His 4 cup rings speaks for itself.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

It should be noted that Lemieux missed the lowest scoring seasons in the 90's due to either fatigue (1994-95) or his first retirement (the start the of dead-puck era, 1997-98 and 1998-99). A fairer comparison would be to look at 1989-90 through 1996-97:

Rk	Player	PTS/GP	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	PTS
1	Mario Lemieux*	2.07	1989	1997	7	377	313	466	779
2	Wayne Gretzky*	1.55	1989	1997	8	561	225	643	868
3	Eric Lindros*	1.47	1992	1997	5	297	193	243	436
4	Pat LaFontaine*	1.38	1989	1997	8	417	253	322	575
5	Adam Oates*	1.37	1989	1997	8	580	204	593	797

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This might be doing both Lemieux and Forsberg a disservice. Both had their best years of the decade before the lockout, after which scoring jumped by a fair bit. Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin didn't have to play through the worst of the dead-puck era (at least until the last few seasons prior to the Vegas expansion).

There's no need to force measures into decades if they don't fit the players being analyzed (plus if we're going by decades, going by 1917-18 through 1926-27, etc. makes more sense for the NHL).

-Your points are fair. The only thing I will add is, Lemieux was robbed because of Cancer in 1993 and 1994. He was by far the most dominant player at that time in the entire league and his stats would have been boosted had he not had radiation treatment for Cancer. The same should be said for other players who lost years off their prime, guys like Crosby, Bure, etc.. because of very serious injuries. I factor this in because had certain injuries not occurred, these players would have been higher up the leader board over their peers and would have had more trophies, hardware, cups, best points per game, etc... I dont consider longevity a main criteria factor. I weight a lot more heavily on the points per game vs era and the peak of the actual players career over their peers. Peak Gretzky and Peak Mario and Peak Orr are virtually untouchable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It would be like me pointing to Hasek’s early struggles in North America to pretend the Red Wings didn’t get great goaltending from him in 2002, ignoring what he already accomplished in the NHL. I wouldn’t do that though because it would be ridiculous and I would feel ridiculous claiming that. You don’t seem to have a problem being deliberately obtuse though if it means muddying the water in a debate. I’m not interested in going down the C1958 vortex again but here I am, once again.

Mark Howe and Fetisov were still in their primes? That’s quite the claim. Was Chelios? Not every season, that’s for sure. He had knee issues during his early time in Detroit and it wasn’t until after he fully recovers from surgery that he showed glimpses of his former self. Coffey had one amazing season but a year later Bowman traded him away and gave the reigns to Lidstrom and Konstantinov.

The Habs allowed 22 less goals the season after Harvey left, too. You even made a thread about the trade and that season at one point. You seem to forget things you don’t want to remember when it’s not convenient. Yeah, Harvey wasn’t the only reason and Plante could stand on his own.

No, it is commonplace for goalies to outperform their junior or minor league numbers in the NHL. Chris Ogood is a prime example.

Chris Osgood hockey statistics and profile at hockeydb.com

Hasek's minor league phase was raised strictly by you.

NHL defencemen make the necessary adjustments to a goalie.

Comparing healthy Plante to unhealthy Plante with/without Harvey.

Last healthy Plante season with Harvey was 1958-59. Plante played 67 games,allowing 144 goals, 0.925SV%.Better than 1961-62.

 

[The Panther]

-The Stats I posted are points per game, era adjusted to each player. The stats dont have anything to do with the 80s. Its why Wayne Gretzky isnt ranked #1 in points per game era adjusted, Lemieux is, because his dominance in the 90s was even greater then Gretzky in the 80s, era adjusted for overall team scoring average goals per team each year.

Just to point out (what many already know) that this claim is completely false.

Lemieux was not even on pace to dominate the competition as much as Gretzky actually dominated in real life, while playing all the games.

 

[danincanada]

No, it is commonplace for goalies to outperform their junior or minor league numbers in the NHL. Chris Ogood is a prime example.

Chris Osgood hockey statistics and profile at hockeydb.com

Hasek's minor league phase was raised strictly by you.

NHL defencemen make the necessary adjustments to a goalie.

Comparing healthy Plante to unhealthy Plante with/without Harvey.

Last healthy Plante season with Harvey was 1958-59. Plante played 67 games,allowing 144 goals, 0.925SV%.Better than 1961-62.

Wait, back up here. This all started because you pointed out all the times the Habs had the lowest GAA so I pointed out that Harvey had an (the?) elite goaltender behind him for most of his prime in Montreal and we know who that goalie was. Then you posted this, which implied to me that Plante wasn't the reason for the low GAA, it was all about Harvey:

Assuming you mean Jacques Plante whose minor league GAA was over 3.00.

Did I assume something I shouldn't have? Why would you respond with this though, other than to imply that?

Second point, okay, I compared a healthy Plante with Lou Fontinato to an unhealthy Plante with Harvey. So what? It's still 22 less goals and therefore it obviously (it was always obvious anyways) wasn't just about Harvey. Having elite goaltending is key to having a low GAA the majority of the time. There are exceptions and the two seasons it happened for Lidstrom's Red Wings are among them.

I already explained why I brought up Hasek. It's nice to see it went right over your head.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wait, back up here. This all started because you pointed out all the times the Habs had the lowest GAA so I pointed out that Harvey had an (the?) elite goaltender behind him for most of his prime in Montreal and we know who that goalie was. Then you posted this, which implied to me that Plante wasn't the reason for the low GAA, it was all about Harvey:



Did I assume something I shouldn't have? Why would you respond with this though, other than to imply that?

Second point, okay, I compared a healthy Plante with Lou Fontinato to an unhealthy Plante with Harvey. So what? It's still 22 less goals and therefore it obviously (it was always obvious anyways) wasn't just about Harvey. Having elite goaltending is key to having a low GAA the majority of the time. There are exceptions and the two seasons it happened for Lidstrom's Red Wings are among them.

I already explained why I brought up Hasek. It's nice to see it went right over your head.

I countered with a healthy Plante and an injured Harvey during 1958-59.

After neglecting Harvey's memorable 1960 playoff performance, +13 in 8 games - Lidstrom never passed + 12 while playing over 20 playoff games regularly, you raise Lou Fontinato?

Another one of your non-researched comments better left uncovered. Specifically, 1961-62 Lou Fontinato lead the NHL with a +55 in only 54 games. Nicklas Lidstrom in his complete career played many 80+ game seasons never topping +43. Yet Lidstrom had a much better offensive game than Fontinato and the Wings regularly scored as many or more goals than the 1961-62 Canadiens.

This is rather interesting since Toe Blake put in a different defensive system for the 1961-62 season that was continued thru the Bowman years who brought it to Detroit. Yet it seems that the numbers suggest that Lou Fontinato executed better than Nicklas Lidstrom ever did within the system? Maybe because of the goalies?

 

[ManofSteel55]

Wayne Gretzky
Gordie Howe
Bobby Orr
Mario Lemieux
Jean Beliveau
Eddie Shore
Bobby Hull
Maurice Richard
Doug Harvey
Dominik Hasek

Crosby could end up on this list eventually, but if he retired today I wouldn't include him, so what happens in the future will remain in the future for the sake of this debate to me. Rankings 5 - 10 could be re-arranged. The top 4 are locks in that order.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Meh. If you don't include Gretzky in a list of this type, you're trying too hard to be controversial. It's been done to death.

I have a hard time with anyone trying to rank Howe/Orr/Lemieux above Gretzky. If someone leaves him off the list entirely they are simply incorrect and are not worth debating with.