Give us your top ten players of all time

[Theokritos]

Also, I don't have the stats on this but wasn't it more difficult for a defense man to garner Hart consideration back then and wouldn't that make it more difficult to compare their Hart voting records?

That is a good question and a pretty important one if we're looking for inter-positional comparisons in the new HOH Top 100 project. I'm curious about it myself, e.g. when the question comes to Beliveau vs Harvey.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier would be battling with Yzerman, Fedorov, Oates, Roenick, Hawerchuk, Francis, and Lindros.

All-Star selections aren’t about career value, but instead single-season value. Gilmour’s not even on your list, but if he can’t even slip into an All-Star selection in 1993 and 1994, then what do you think 1st Team All-Star Ray Bourque’s chances would be if he was measured against Lemieux/Lafontaine and Gretzky/Fedorov?

Throw out Hart voting if you think it’s unfair. If Ray Bourque competed against the field at Center, in which years is he better than the 1st or 2nd Team Center?

Can we all agree that he was not better than either of the top-2 Centers in any individual year from 1980-1986?

Barring a scenario like in 1996 where Messier was leapfrogged by Lindros in All-Star voting while finishing 2nd in Hart voting let’s say 1987 is worth a 2nd Team over Mario Lemieux.

1988-1989 seem unlikely.

Let’s ignore Messier and call 1990 a 1st Team.

1991 is a solid 2nd Team.

Going down the line, is that it? I mean, it’s a tough era at Center, and that’s my point. So there shouldn’t be an expectation of balance here, when one player has to be better than Gretzky/Lemieux and whomever is having their career year on offense while the other competes in a different field.

Totally welcome anyone to come and say that Bourque would be more worth more than the equivalent of a 1st (1990), 2nd (1987), and 2nd (1991) though. But bring the receipts, so we’re not just talking about how the position as a whole is underrated/overrated.

 

[The Panther]

BackToTheBasics, you've twice mentioned "consistency" as a problem with Messier's resume. How do you figure?

With the exception of 1985 (injuries), he was either a 50-goal or 95+ point player every season between 1981-82 and 1996-97. He was money in the bank to score big points every season for 16 straight seasons.

Also, you don't have to remove Lemieux and Gretzky to show Messier's quality at center. Against Lemieux and Gretzky, Messier won the Hart trophy twice.

(Having said all of this, I have no problem with Bourque being in the top-20 and Messier not. I've been a huge Messier fan since I was 7, but I don't think I would have him in the top-20 players.)

 

[BackToTheBasics]

All-Star selections aren’t about career value, but instead single-season value. Gilmour’s not even on your list, but if he can’t even slip into an All-Star selection in 1993 and 1994, then what do you think 1st Team All-Star Ray Bourque’s chances would be if he was measured against Lemieux/Lafontaine and Gretzky/Fedorov?

Throw out Hart voting if you think it’s unfair. If Ray Bourque competed against the field at Center, in which years is he better than the 1st or 2nd Team Center?

Can we all agree that he was not better than either of the top-2 Centers in any individual year from 1980-1986?

Barring a scenario like in 1996 where Messier was leapfrogged by Lindros in All-Star voting while finishing 2nd in Hart voting let’s say 1987 is worth a 2nd Team over Mario Lemieux.

1988-1989 seem unlikely.

Let’s ignore Messier and call 1990 a 1st Team.

1991 is a solid 2nd Team.

Going down the line, is that it? I mean, it’s a tough era at Center, and that’s my point. So there shouldn’t be an expectation of balance here, when one player has to be better than Gretzky/Lemieux and whomever is having their career year on offense while the other competes in a different field.

Totally welcome anyone to come and say that Bourque would be more worth more than the equivalent of a 1st (1990), 2nd (1987), and 2nd (1991) though. But bring the receipts, so we’re not just talking about how the position as a whole is underrated/overrated.

We could add a 2nd team in 1994 to that list. It was one of Gretzky's least impressive seasons at the time. Only 130 points and he was also a -25 while Bourque won the Norris over Stevens with 91 points. I get what you mean though. It's tough to stay among the best centers in a given season when the competition is so high. I'm also not sure if this is the way to go about comparing their seasons individually as it's tough to compare positions across AS teams. It's also not as simple as looking at how they fared against their peers at their position but the fact that Bourque managed to remain among the best for so long and longer than anyone ever as a D man should count for something.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

BackToTheBasics, you've twice mentioned "consistency" as a problem with Messier's resume. How do you figure?

With the exception of 1985 (injuries), he was either a 50-goal or 95+ point player every season between 1981-82 and 1996-97. He was money in the bank to score big points every season for 16 straight seasons.

Also, you don't have to remove Lemieux and Gretzky to show Messier's quality at center. Against Lemieux and Gretzky, Messier won the Hart trophy twice.

(Having said all of this, I have no problem with Bourque being in the top-20 and Messier not. I've been a huge Messier fan since I was 7, but I don't think I would have him in the top-20 players.)

It wasn't really his consistency so much as it was his consistency as a top player during the regular season. Some of it has to do with him dealing with several minor injuries throughout his career. I suppose he more than made up for it in the playoffs.

I don't really agree with Messier winning the Hart in '92 but I get it. He just joined the Rangers in his first season and they improved by 20 points. Lemieux also didn't separate himself from the pact enough (due to injury) to not go with the better story.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We could add a 2nd team in 1994 to that list. It was one of Gretzky's least impressive seasons at the time. Only 130 points and he was also a -25 while Bourque won the Norris over Stevens with 91 points. I get what you mean though. It's tough to stay among the best centers in a given season when the competition is so high. I'm also not sure if this is the way to go about comparing their seasons individually as it's tough to compare positions across AS teams. It's also not as simple as looking at how they fared against their peers at their position but the fact that Bourque managed to remain among the best for so long and longer than anyone ever as a D man should count for something.

If Gilmour in 1994 can’t top Gretzky, I don’t see Bourque being there either.


Is Bourque’s 1980-1996 run all that more unusual than Messier’s 1982-1997 run? Both are longer primes than what would normally be expected, given the generation of players directly preceding them. Of course, Bourque popped back up for nominations three and five years later whereas Messier had, at best, stretches of great sustained play in parts of a few years (2001 comes to mind).

But what does it mean to be the 3rd best defenseman in 1999? That you’re better than 67 GP Chris Pronger and 68 GP Eric Desjardins and 62 GP Rob Blake. What does it mean to be the 2nd best defenseman in 2001? That you’re better than 67 GP Rob Blake and 59 GP Al MacInnis and 51 GP Chris Pronger.

He wasn’t Bourque any more. He could still pick up nominations as a minus-player against a weak field when the alternative is voting for players with missing time, and he could look dynamite on the best team in hockey. But if there’s not all of these gigantic holes where quality Norris competition should be, the run probably ends in 1996.

How many forwards in 1999 and 2001 would we have to count off before we could confidently say that Bourque, the 3rd and 2nd place finisher in Norris voting, was the better player that season? 15-20 each?

Don’t get me wrong; I’ll take Bourque’s 1996-97 through 2000-01 over Mark Messier’s 1997-98 through 2003-04. But I think we’re getting diminishing returns after the 16-17 other seasons where Messier was ahead - if not in the regular seasons on their own, then because of his playoffs. Or at least it was neck-and-neck and not a top-10 player vs. a ~30th ranked one.

Like I said, put Messier against Bourque’s competition each season and tell me you don’t come back with 5-7 seasons where he was better than the field, just as we say about Bourque.

Just because a player is ineligible for the Norris doesn’t mean we can’t look at what it means to win the Norris (in 1988, this meant being better than Stevens, Suter, McCrimmon and the field) and say, “Mark Messier, while not as good as Mario Lemieux or Wayne Gretzky, clears this bar.”

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If Gilmour in 1994 can’t top Gretzky, I don’t see Bourque being there either.


Is Bourque’s 1980-1996 run all that more unusual than Messier’s 1982-1997 run? Both are longer primes than what would normally be expected, given the generation of players directly preceding them. Of course, Bourque popped back up for nominations three and five years later whereas Messier had, at best, stretches of great sustained play in parts of a few years (2001 comes to mind).

But what does it mean to be the 3rd best defenseman in 1999? That you’re better than 67 GP Chris Pronger and 68 GP Eric Desjardins and 62 GP Rob Blake. What does it mean to be the 2nd best defenseman in 2001? That you’re better than 67 GP Rob Blake and 59 GP Al MacInnis and 51 GP Chris Pronger.

He wasn’t Bourque any more. He could still pick up nominations as a minus-player against a weak field when the alternative is voting for players with missing time, and he could look dynamite on the best team in hockey. But if there’s not all of these gigantic holes where quality Norris competition should be, the run probably ends in 1996.

How many forwards in 1999 and 2001 would we have to count off before we could confidently say that Bourque, the 3rd and 2nd place finisher in Norris voting, was the better player that season? 15-20 each?

Don’t get me wrong; I’ll take Bourque’s 1996-97 through 2000-01 over Mark Messier’s 1997-98 through 2003-04. But I think we’re getting diminishing returns after the 16-17 other seasons where Messier was ahead - if not in the regular seasons on their own, then because of his playoffs. Or at least it was neck-and-neck and not a top-10 player vs. a ~30th ranked one.

Like I said, put Messier against Bourque’s competition each season and tell me you don’t come back with 5-7 seasons where he was better than the field, just as we say about Bourque.

Just because a player is ineligible for the Norris doesn’t mean we can’t look at what it means to win the Norris (in 1988, this meant being better than Stevens, Suter, McCrimmon and the field) and say, “Mark Messier, while not as good as Mario Lemieux or Wayne Gretzky, clears this bar.”

While Bourque did pick up a 2nd team all-star with a minus rating, its not as bad as Lidstrom winning a Norris as a minus-player a decade later.

And I don't think Bourque should be a top 10 player. But Bourque had to carry his teams a lot more than Messier ever had to.

 

[quoipourquoi]

While Bourque did pick up a 2nd team all-star with a minus rating, its not as bad as Lidstrom winning a Norris as a minus-player a decade later.

I don’t know. Did any of the major players in the 2011 Norris field miss time?

But obviously we’re talking about a win (2011) and a nomination (1999) that no one would really write home about. Just like with Bourque in 1999, we could grab a dozen forwards better than the 2011 Norris winner - and yet still have the discussion about Hart voting being biased against defensemen.

But Bourque had to carry his teams a lot more than Messier ever had to.

Almost definitely. Which would probably make it harder for Messier to accumulate award support prior to 1989. Separate from the 1987 and 1988 Edmonton Oilers, maybe he’s picking up more recognition for the player he already was. It seemed like the media was angling for the 1988 Conn Smythe to be another statement award for Messier, but then Gretzky turned on the jets against Boston and that narrative was dropped.

 

[The Panther]

I don't really agree with Messier winning the Hart in '92 but I get it. He just joined the Rangers in his first season and they improved by 20 points. Lemieux also didn't separate himself from the pact enough (due to injury) to not go with the better story.

Even if Lemieux had played 80 games in 1991-92, I don't think he wins the Hart. Not unless the Pens had gone on a massive winning streak with him leading the way. His point-production was well below his (then) 1989 peak, which was one thing -- the competing with yourself problem. But the main issue that year was that the Pens were spanked in the standings by the Rangers. As defending Cup champs, the Pens had to show more that season than just a bit over .500 to convince voters that Mario was more valuable to his team than Messier.