Greatest Forwards of All Time #3

[Hockey Outsider]

I agree with GBC: Jagr should be added soon, but not before 3-time MVP Bobby Clarke or Hart & Conn Smythe winner Bryan Trottier. Jagr is better offensively but I value Clarke and Trottier's defense and postseason play. However, given his play this season, Jagr is quickly closing in on both of them and could surpass them if he wins the Hart and gives a strong playoff performance.

 

[canucksfan]

I never said Jagr wasn't clutch. I said Trottier and Clarke were better in clutch situations, a big part of why they should be added ahead of Jagr. (Along with their overall all-round play).

Jagr has scored some very big goals in his career, has two Cup rings (all be it as a secondary player for both), and had some excellent playoffs - witness carrying Pittsburgh to an upset win over New Jersey in 1999.

I agree I worded it wrong. I just woke up when I typed that.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Might try Goals Created

GC = (.5 * G) + (.3 * A)

This gives goal-scorers more credit for goals, without taking away from playmakers.

If you adjust for relative scoring level of the league, Jagr is already in the top ten, and if you adjust for the 118 games he missed due to NHL strike/lockout, I think he's top five, and should easily finish his career at least #3 (even if he only plays another couple years).

Also, since after this poll, the voting may be quite competitive, perhaps an extra player (or two) can be added by deleting the player (or two) who got the fewest votes in the last poll (or last two or three). No sense on having players on there that no one is going to vote for, even if they are deserving (in the opinion of some at least).

 

[Ogopogo*]

GC = (.5 * G) + (.3 * A)

This gives goal-scorers more credit for goals, without taking away from playmakers.

If you adjust for relative scoring level of the league, Jagr is already in the top ten, and if you adjust for the 118 games he missed due to NHL strike/lockout, I think he's top five, and should easily finish his career at least #3 (even if he only plays another couple years).

Also, since after this poll, the voting may be quite competitive, perhaps an extra player (or two) can be added by deleting the player (or two) who got the fewest votes in the last poll (or last two or three). No sense on having players on there that no one is going to vote for, even if they are deserving (in the opinion of some at least).

I am confused.

How exactly can you give extra credit for goals without taking away from assists? If the NHL makes one goal and one assist equal, then, any system that makes a goal worth more than an assist takes away from playmakers.

 

[James Ownz Harper*]

How is Howe owning Messier that bad? Messier did a lot more during his career minus the goals.

Also Cam Neely over Bure for scoring talent? I dunno about that... I mean this guy scored 58 goals in the trap era and was cut out of his prime due to the injuries and holding out.

Bure would have been an easy 700 goal scorer.

 

[James Ownz Harper*]

Also Messier better make it next round.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How is Howe owning Messier that bad? Messier did a lot more during his career minus the goals.

Messier was a great player but wasn't close to Howe. He should come in at around #10-15, though.

Messier never led the league in goals. Howe did it 5 times.

Messier never led the league in assists. Howe did it 3 times.

Messier never led the league in scoring. Howe did it 6 times.

Messier won 2 Hart Trophies; Howe won 6.

Messier was a 5-time all-star; Howe was a 21-time all-star.

Messier was a top 5 scorer three times; Howe was a top five scorer twenty seasons in a row.

Howe was better defensively.

Both were excellent in the playoffs.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Howe, add Clarke.

 

[hfboardsuser]

True, scoring titles are not the only measure.

The way I rate players is how many times they finish in the top 7 in the scoring race. And, within that top 7, they get more credit for finishing higher than lower.

That being said, Jaromir Jagr has spent a lot more time in the top 7 than did stastny. In fact, on my system, Jagr gets a 45.5 rating while Stastny gets a 21. Again, both are excellent but, Jagr's total is phenomenal. By awarding points for top 7 finishes, having Wayne and Mario in the league prevents NOBODY from making a significant impact.

In my system, Jagr is the 9th greatest scorer of all time, and has the possibility to move up with a great year this season. Stastny is the 30th greatest scorer of all time on my system.

Both are great but, Jagr is significantly greater.

1. I don't care what your 'system' says. Assigning arbitrary values to performance that you just made up one day doesn't quantify who is great and who is not.

2. Your 'system' is inherently flawed. It doesn't take into account teammates. Jagr had Lemieux. Kurri had Gretzky. Stastny had... wait, Stastny was the centre on his team, and his wingers fed off of him.

 

[reckoning]

Howe.

Add Clarke.

 

[Roke]

Voted Howe, don't know who I'd add.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Gordie Howe dominated all aspects of the game unlike any forward in NHL history. He should have gone No. 1. There are still a lot of hockey historians who will tell you he's the greatest player ever to lace on skates. (I'll go with Bobby Orr myself, but Howe's a close No. 2).

This is an easy one. In fact, the next two picks should be easy ones, too: Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau. It just depends on what order you want them to go.

 

[Sens Rule]

How is Howe owning Messier that bad? Messier did a lot more during his career minus the goals.

Howe did far more than Messier in his career. He was on his own dynasty in Detroit in the early 50's too. Howe became the NHL all time scoring leader in the early 60's and then played for another 15 YEARS or so after he was the All-Time scoring leader. And Howe played at a higher level in his late 30's and 40's than Messier did. Plus Howe was a far better goal scorer than Messier.

 

[Sens Rule]

1. I don't care what your 'system' says. Assigning arbitrary values to performance that you just made up one day doesn't quantify who is great and who is not.

2. Your 'system' is inherently flawed. It doesn't take into account teammates. Jagr had Lemieux. Kurri had Gretzky. Stastny had... wait, Stastny was the centre on his team, and his wingers fed off of him.

How much of his career did Jagr play with Lemieux? Not that that much of it and alot of the time they did play together they were on different lines except on the PP. Though clearly Gretzky and Kurri were very mutually beneficial to each other just like Goulet was to Statsny.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I never said Jagr wasn't clutch. I said Trottier and Clarke were better in clutch situations, a big part of why they should be added ahead of Jagr. (Along with their overall all-round play).

Jagr has scored some very big goals in his career, has two Cup rings (all be it as a secondary player for both), and had some excellent playoffs - witness carrying Pittsburgh to an upset win over New Jersey in 1999.

He had some big goals in 90-91 playoffs and 24 points in 91-92 playoffs (including 4 GW goals). Those were his first two years in the league. Had 23 points in 95-96, when they lost in conference finals after Lemieux & Jagr beat Philly & Rangers (if memory serves correctly) practically by themselves.

 

[God Bless Canada]

He had some big goals in 90-91 playoffs and 24 points in 91-92 playoffs (including 4 GW goals). Those were his first two years in the league. Had 23 points in 95-96, when they lost in conference finals after Lemieux & Jagr beat Philly & Rangers (if memory serves correctly) practically by themselves.

But are you going to tell me he was a key, top 5 or 6 player on either Cup team? No. The key guys on Pittsburgh in both Cup runs were Lemieux, Barasso, Stevens, Francis, Murphy and Samuelsson. Guys like Trottier and Mullen were invaluable in 1991 with their experience and leadership. Recchi was an offensive force in 1991. Coffey spent most of the 1991 post-season on the injured list with a serious eye injury, but his experience was important in the room. Murphy was critical to their success in 1992, and nobody can ever underestimate the value of Tocchet to the 1992 run, as he played that missing piece role. (The Pens were battling the Islanders for fourth in the conference in the 1991-92 season, but the acquisition of Tocchet really gave them a boost).

Trottier and Clarke were the best positional players on Stanley Cup champions. There's something to be said for that. They consistently elevated their play in the playoffs. It's a hard thing to say, since it's based on speculation/forecasting, but Jagr has never struck me as the type who a team can with a Cup with as its best player or forward.

 

[Ogopogo*]

1. I don't care what your 'system' says. Assigning arbitrary values to performance that you just made up one day doesn't quantify who is great and who is not.

2. Your 'system' is inherently flawed. It doesn't take into account teammates. Jagr had Lemieux. Kurri had Gretzky. Stastny had... wait, Stastny was the centre on his team, and his wingers fed off of him.

We have had this go around before so, I will not take the time to get into it again. Your comprehension is inherently flawed.

Let's just say I disagree with you and call it a day.

You might consider removing the chip from your shoulder, as well.

 

[Polska]

Mario won with 63.77% of the vote. Mike Bossy will be added. There was a lot more votes this time compared to the first poll.

#1 Gretzky(64.71%)
#2 Lemieux(63.77%)

Who is #3 and remember to say who to add next. I voted for Howe and add Clarke.

You should add some more modern era players. Your list is pretty heavy on older era players, many modern era players are better than many ppl on your list currently. Consider adding the likes of Jagr, Brett Hull, Yszerman, Fedorov, Bure, etc.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Your comprehension is inherently flawed.

Thanks for that ad hominem attack.

You might consider removing the chip from your shoulder, as well.

And you might want to consider removing your system from discussions on player vs. player discussions, at least so far as passing it off as fact go. I appreciate the work you put into it, and God knows I've done similar work, but I don't go around using it as the end-all and be-all on discussions. It encourages further discussion, sure, and brings some interesting questions to light, but you can't possibly rely on this to make judgments such as:

"In my system, Jagr is the 9th greatest scorer of all time, and has the possibility to move up with a great year this season. Stastny is the 30th greatest scorer of all time on my system.

Both are great but, Jagr is significantly greater."

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I am confused.

How exactly can you give extra credit for goals without taking away from assists? If the NHL makes one goal and one assist equal, then, any system that makes a goal worth more than an assist takes away from playmakers.

Yeah that's just stupid. Ogo.. I like your list but what about basing the best players of all time on the percentage of their team's goals they were in on every year. Would that be possible? Or something along the lines of that?

 

[Adriatic]

Trottier and Clarke were the best positional players on Stanley Cup champions. There's something to be said for that. They consistently elevated their play in the playoffs. It's a hard thing to say, since it's based on speculation/forecasting, but Jagr has never struck me as the type who a team can with a Cup with as its best player or forward.

But in Jagr's prime (post Lemieux) he never had a team around him strong enough to make a serious playoff run. He was stuck on a crappy penguins team with no goalie and no decent defense. I don't care who you are, but put any player in history on those penguin teams and I doubt they would have ever done better. Jagr had some really good playoffs in the late 90's but in no way were his teams capable of winning a cup. Had he been on a stacked team ala Dallas, Colorado, Detroit..you could be sure he would have led a team to a cup. I don't think it's fair to say he couldn't lead a team to a cup because you have to look at the situation...Sakic led a team to a cup but he had Patrick Roy in nets for both cups...Modano led a team to a cup but look at his stacked Dallas team with Belfour in nets...look at the support Yzerman had in Detroit. And then look at a guy like Stastny who was seriously amazing..he was a hard worker, good scorer, good playmaker and he was clutch...but for god's sake never had anyone close to being an average goalie playing for his teams.! is it fair then to rate him lower for not leading a team to a cup..I don't think so. And it's not fair for Jagr too.

 

[Dropkick Alex]

Howe, add Francis

 

[Weztex]

You should add some more modern era players. Your list is pretty heavy on older era players, many modern era players are better than many ppl on your list currently. Consider adding the likes of Jagr, Brett Hull, Yszerman, Fedorov, Bure, etc.

There's no way Hull, Yzerman, Fedorov and Bure are better than Howe, Richard, Béliveau, Lafleur, Hull, Esposito, Mikita, Bossy, Morenz and Messier. Absolutely no way.

Voted Howe. Add Jagr or Lindsay.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You should add some more modern era players. Your list is pretty heavy on older era players, many modern era players are better than many ppl on your list currently. Consider adding the likes of Jagr, Brett Hull, Yszerman, Fedorov, Bure, etc.

Two "modern-era" players went 1-2. Messier was an elite player in the 80s and 90s. Bossy starred in the 1980s. LaFleur dominated the late 70s, and Espo was a star in the 1970s. That's four players who were elite in the last 30 years. Nobody would deny that Howe, Bobby Hull, Richard, Beliveau and Mikita merit strong consideration in any debate of the top 10 forwards of all time. That leaves Howie Morenz, and as I said earlier, I highly commend canucksfan for including Morenz in the original list. One of hockey's top 25 all-time players, top 10 centres and the man who is widely considered to be hockey's first superstar. Brett Hull or Bure in Morenz's class? Not in a million years.

Add another player who dominated in the 1970s: Bobby Clarke. A feared player in every aspect of the game.

 

[God Bless Canada]

But in Jagr's prime (post Lemieux) he never had a team around him strong enough to make a serious playoff run. He was stuck on a crappy penguins team with no goalie and no decent defense. I don't care who you are, but put any player in history on those penguin teams and I doubt they would have ever done better. Jagr had some really good playoffs in the late 90's but in no way were his teams capable of winning a cup. Had he been on a stacked team ala Dallas, Colorado, Detroit..you could be sure he would have led a team to a cup. I don't think it's fair to say he couldn't lead a team to a cup because you have to look at the situation...Sakic led a team to a cup but he had Patrick Roy in nets for both cups...Modano led a team to a cup but look at his stacked Dallas team with Belfour in nets...look at the support Yzerman had in Detroit. And then look at a guy like Stastny who was seriously amazing..he was a hard worker, good scorer, good playmaker and he was clutch...but for god's sake never had anyone close to being an average goalie playing for his teams.! is it fair then to rate him lower for not leading a team to a cup..I don't think so. And it's not fair for Jagr too.

My point isn't just that Jagr was never the MVP/top forward on a Cup champion. My point is he's not the type who's going to do that. He doesn't have the leadership or the mentality to be a guy who was the best player on a Stanley Cup champion. He's had several series where he was AWOL when his team was eliminated, even when the stats looked good. It won't keep him out of the HHOF, and his place among the top 50 players is assured. But given the choice between Jagr vs. a Trottier or a Clarke, and I'll take Trottier or a Clarke. It's close, I'll give you that. But for me, the clincher is: If I was entering a Game 7, who would I want? Jagr vs. Trottier? Jagr vs. Clarke?