Hockey's Best Players By The Numbers They Wore
- Thread starter cupcrazyman
- Start date
pnep
Registered User
lextune
I'm too old for this.
List is a joke.
As pnep notes, #6 is laughable. And how about runner up for #2 being Leetch?
Ridiculous.
As pnep notes, #6 is laughable. And how about runner up for #2 being Leetch?
Ridiculous.
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
lextune
I'm too old for this.
I don't understand why they don't go beyond #33 when they have 0 and 00 listed. Doesn't make sense.
Most of those are subjective anyways. Basically, what your preference is. How do you compare players that played 30-40 years apart like Esposito and Morenz.
2 - Leetch as runner up. All the other names listed were better Ds than Leetch.
10 - You can't pick Francis over Lafleur when Lafleur was the best player for half a decade and Francis was what 4th or 5th best center. I'd pick Hawerchuck ahead of Francis.
11- Messier fine. Gartner runner-up? Over Perreault. No way and it isn't even close.
18 - I wouldn't pick Denis over Serge.
25 - Andreychuk over Nieuwendyk and Lemaire. Andreychuk? No way. 3 Cups for Joe, and 8 for Coco. Lemaire was the #1 C on a dynasty of 4 cups while Andreychuk was enhancement talent (even though he wore the C) on 1.
29 - Runner up should be Vokoun and not Otto. Otto was still a 3rd liner in his peak years.
30 - Runner up is Rogie. Osgood shouldn't even appear on the list.
32 - Best Claude Lemieux - runner up Thomas. You go into the playoffs, who do you want on your team. Hunter just to take stupid penalties or Lemieux to score clutch goals and take stupid penalties (fewer than Hunter). You want a playoff MVP and runner-up to playoff MVP or the guy who's most notable career achievement is getting suspended 21 games for a late and dirty hit after a goal. I'm guessing here that Rob Ray was considered because the author lacked names to fill his list.
John Krieser should go cover lawn bowling or shuffleboard because I don't think he's even qualified to cover field hockey.
unknown33
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2009
- 3,942
- 150
Epsilon
#basta
Nonsense that jumps out to me:
2 : Leetch over Shore as runner-up?!?!?!
6 : Ugh.
10 : Lafleur should clearly be ahead of Francis. The first line of his justification ("fourth-highest scorer in NHL history") shows what kind of thought process went into this.
12 : Iginla is not ahead of Dickie Moore, no way.
16 : Brett Hull and Dionne ahead of Bobby Clarke?
20 : Belfour is a significantly greater player than either of the compilers Robataille and especially Ciccarelli
25 : Nieuwendyk and Lemaire are both better than Andreychuk.
27 : The Big M should be ahead of Niedermayer.
32 : Claude Lemieux is a more historically significant (for the right reasons) and impactful player (in the games that mattered) than Hunter.
2 : Leetch over Shore as runner-up?!?!?!
6 : Ugh.
10 : Lafleur should clearly be ahead of Francis. The first line of his justification ("fourth-highest scorer in NHL history") shows what kind of thought process went into this.
12 : Iginla is not ahead of Dickie Moore, no way.
16 : Brett Hull and Dionne ahead of Bobby Clarke?
20 : Belfour is a significantly greater player than either of the compilers Robataille and especially Ciccarelli
25 : Nieuwendyk and Lemaire are both better than Andreychuk.
27 : The Big M should be ahead of Niedermayer.
32 : Claude Lemieux is a more historically significant (for the right reasons) and impactful player (in the games that mattered) than Hunter.
cupcrazyman
Stupid Sexy Flanders
nothing wrong with #16 imo.
#12 i like Iginla but no way is he better than Moore or The Road Runner
I have no problem with Hull either. 86 goals.
Iginla, Moore, Cournoyer. Well to me, it's too close to complain at this point. Maybe Iginla pulls away later in his career, maybe not.
Although Moore earned his accolades on the best team in the league at the time and Iginla's team's go back and forth to playoffs and golf clubs. Personally, I might be tempted to put Moore ahead and Iginla as runner up, for now.
timekeep
Registered User
- Apr 28, 2010
- 4,338
- 24
Hull over Clarke is soooo wrong, I am not sure if Hull should be ahead of Dionne either. This is the hardest number to pick. As 9 is Howe all the way.
Francis ahead of Lafleur, no way.
I agree with most of listings
Richard and Bobby Hull are both viable options. But really, Gordie Howe is a step above both. Team 9 would definitely win against any other number though. Other guys who wore 9 include Andy Bathgate, Lanny McDonald, Mike Modano, Norm Ullman and Johnny Bucyk. Interestingly, 3 of the most controversial HOF choices also wore it (Anderson, Duff, Gillies). Other notables include Paul Kariya, Denis Maruk, and a young Doug Gilmour.
- 5 First Team Allstar selections
- 1 Art Ross Trophy
- 2 Rocket Richard Trophies
- 2 Hart Trophies
- 3 Pearson/Lindsay Awards
Ovechkin has a pretty dynamite resumé already. There's only a handful of players who have that kind of hardware.
By the look of it, his only real competition would be Selanne, and really only due to longevity. I don't think there's any doubt who the better player is between the two of them.
Well... I think that Selanne should be in the Ovechkins place right now. In ten years or so i wouldn´t have any problems with that if Ovechkin still continues to put up nice amount of points. But maybe he gets injured badly next season and his career is over. What about then? I think it is too early to put Ovechkin over Selanne. Have you already forgotten Selannes rookie season? And he still continues to score alot of goals. 606 career goals?
C´mon.But really, Ovechkin is a great player, always nice to watch him play.
krauts
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2006
- 585
- 1
It's been said already but bears more criticism - Eddie Shore won four Hart Trophies. Only Gretzky and Howe won more. He is arguably the most significant innovator, at least as a player, that the game has ever known. There was no Norris Trophy when he played, if so he might well have won more than Harvey. So to put him behind both Harvey and Leetch I think is very weak.
I know that it is a subjective thing, especially when your criteria is as vague as "best", but I think that by just about any measure you have to say that #2 = Eddie Shore.
By the same token, and to counter any accusations of homerism, you can't put Espo ahead of Howie Morenz either IMO.
I know that it is a subjective thing, especially when your criteria is as vague as "best", but I think that by just about any measure you have to say that #2 = Eddie Shore.
By the same token, and to counter any accusations of homerism, you can't put Espo ahead of Howie Morenz either IMO.
raleh
Registered User
It hasn't been brought up, probably because we all love the guy so much, but Yzerman doesn't belong at the top of the #19 list. A few things:
1. I am of the opinion that Sakic was better, but let's not get into that again.
2. Here is what was written about Yzerman:
Yes, that player is rare. What's even more rare is the player that doesn't HAVE to sacrifice offensively to be a more complete player. But that's exactly what Bryan Trottier did. To me, if you take offensive Yzerman and mate him with defensive Yzerman, you have Trottier.
3. All that being said; I'd take Robinson over all of them.
1. I am of the opinion that Sakic was better, but let's not get into that again.
2. Here is what was written about Yzerman:
Yes, that player is rare. What's even more rare is the player that doesn't HAVE to sacrifice offensively to be a more complete player. But that's exactly what Bryan Trottier did. To me, if you take offensive Yzerman and mate him with defensive Yzerman, you have Trottier.
3. All that being said; I'd take Robinson over all of them.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 4 Boston Bruins @ Toronto Maple Leafs - Boston leads series 2-1Wagers: 11Staked: $29,211.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs - Boston leads series 2-1Wagers: 6Staked: $7,365.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
-