HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[unknown33]

I agree. Love seeing Nighbor in the top 10. Just not over Phil Esposito.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=539270

It's pretty funny in hindsight that a rejected list in 2009 had Nighbor #8 Center which was seen as 'weird' and pointed out numerous times. (Not the reason for rejection)
Seems like it was based on pnep's point system.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Of the 5 new players added (Gilmour, Maltsev, Thornton, Francis, Stastny), 4 of them were active in both 1983 and 1984.

 

[Gobo]

Always interested in seeing where Sakic/Yzerman end up relative to each other. Flip flops consistently

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Always interested in seeing where Sakic/Yzerman end up relative to each other. Flip flops consistently

It hasn't flip flopped on the history board; Sakic is consistently head by a small amount; this project is the first time there has ever been any bit of separation between them (and I think the separation is correct - Sakic just did his thing for such a long time)

 

[Rhiessan71]

It hasn't flip flopped on the history board; Sakic is consistently head by a small amount; this project is the first time there has ever been any bit of separation between them (and I think the separation is correct - Sakic just did his thing for such a long time)

The bolded, you have said this before and I still have yet to understand it.

Yzerman played 2 more seasons, 136 more games and had 114 more points than Sakic.
Yzerman's peak height blows Sakic's peak height out of the water.
The only thing thing one might give to Sakic is the length of his offensive peak and even that isn't by much. They were both point per game or better players for the exact same amount of seasons, 18.
And a 35 year old Yzerman brought more to the table than a 35 year old Sakic did.

I mean I accept the fact that Sakic generally places better than Yzerman here but I will never agree with it or ever understand it.

Having witnessed the full careers of both players in great detail, I could never and will never put Sakic ahead of Stevie.

/end rant

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yzerman's peak height blows Sakic's peak height out of the water.
The only thing thing one might give to Sakic is the length of his offensive peak and even that isn't by much. They were both point per game or better players for the exact same amount of seasons, 18.
And a 35 year old Yzerman brought more to the table than a 35 year old Sakic did.

I disagree with every sentence in this quote.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I disagree with every sentence in this quote.

"Yzerman's peak height blows Sakic's peak height out of the water."

Please show me 7 consecutive years from Sakic that can match Yzerman's 87/88-93/94 and please show any year of Sakic's that's matches Yzerman's 88/89 season, especially considering the players around him that Yzerman did it with.


"The only thing thing one might give to Sakic is the length of his offensive peak and even that isn't by much. They were both point per game or better players for the exact same amount of seasons, 18."

Ok, you're right, it was 17 each.


"And a 35 year old Yzerman brought more to the table than a 35 year old Sakic did."

35 and over numbers for Yzerman: Seasons-6 GP-336 G-100 P-272 +67 1 Selke 1 Cup
35 and over numbers for Sakic: Seasons-5 GP-304 G-116 P-326 +13 -------

Once you consider that Yzerman was being employed in a much more defensive role than Sakic was at the same ages.
And that Sakic got the benefit of playing 4 of those last 5 seasons in the "new" obstruction free/powerplay happy NHL while 5 of Stevie's last 6 seasons were played during the height of the DPE, that point gap is negated and then some.

I mean this is what it really comes down to with these two isn't it? Supposedly Sakic not only makes up all this ground on Yzerman when comparing their last 5-6 seasons but he also manages to pass him.
The reality though is that conclusion only survives the barest surface test and the weight of those years for Sakic is much, much less than it is being assigned.


Either way, at the end of the day, Yzerman made the NHL as an 18 year old, Sakic as a 19 year old and Yzerman played until he was 41, Sakic until he was 40 so any comment as to who did what longer should be answered right then and there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

"Yzerman's peak height blows Sakic's peak height out of the water."

Please show me 7 consecutive years from Sakic that can match Yzerman's 87/88-93/94 and please show any year of Sakic's that's matches Yzerman's 88/89 season, especially considering the players around him that Yzerman did it with.


"The only thing thing one might give to Sakic is the length of his offensive peak and even that isn't by much. They were both point per game or better players for the exact same amount of seasons, 18."

Ok, you're right, it was 17 each.


"And a 35 year old Yzerman brought more to the table than a 35 year old Sakic did."

# of PPG seasons is actually 15-13 in favor of Sakic. Where are you getting your numbers?

I already addressed the rest of this during the project.

35 and over numbers for Yzerman: Seasons-6 GP-336 G-100 P-272 +67 1 Selke 1 Cup
35 and over numbers for Sakic: Seasons-5 GP-304 G-116 P-326 +13 -------

Once you consider that Yzerman was being employed in a much more defensive role than Sakic was at the same ages.
And that Sakic got the benefit of playing 4 of those last 5 seasons in the "new" obstruction free/powerplay happy NHL while 5 of Stevie's last 6 seasons were played during the height of the DPE, that point gap is negated and then some.

Wait, what? You were comparing raw stats until now, then you bring in the need for an era adjustment in favor of... Yzerman?

Either way, at the end of the day, Yzerman made the NHL as an 18 year old, Sakic as a 19 year old and Yzerman played until he was 41, Sakic until he was 40 so any comment as to who did what longer should be answered right then and there.

All that answered is who played longer, not who played at how high a level for longer.

 

[Rhiessan71]

# of PPG seasons is actually 15-13 in favor of Sakic. Where are you getting your numbers?

I counted any year where they were close enough to a PpG that it didn't matter.

Wait, what? You were comparing raw stats until now, then you bring in the need for an era adjustment in favor of... Yzerman?

Not JUST era adjustment, respective roles for each while doing it as well.
And please tell me how 5 of 6 years in the DPE NHL compared to 4 of 5 years in Obstruction free/PP happy NHL should be taken at any where close to equal value?
Save the sarcasm, Joe has a huge advantage in both role with his team and scoring environment over Stevie to finish his career.

All that answered is who played longer, not who played at how high a level for longer.

Heh, you telling me you would take a 19-27 year old Sakic over an 18-27 year old Yzerman? You would honestly have to be on crack to say this.
Are you then telling me that from 28-34 that Sakic has an advantage great enough to overcome the advantage Yzerman has from those 19-27 year old seasons? I mean hey, I even agree that Sakic has an advantage over Stevie ages 28-34, but it's by no means an extensive one. Stevie wasn't exactly chopped liver through those years himself.
Because the 35 and up seasons are a wash if anything.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think on a career value basis, Sakic was a better player than Yzerman.

I do agree that Yzerman's offensive and defensive peaks were both higher than Sakic. I personally feel Yzerman was a better leader and grittier for sure. I kind of go back and forth on which one I like better.

For whatever reason people seem to discount Yzerman's insane peak season nowadays.. I think because "it was the 80s" but it was quite remarkable to watch I'll say that. Especially considering the strength of the Detroit team at the time.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I counted any year where they were close enough to a PpG that it didn't matter.

You can't count close to a ppg seasons as ppg seasons because they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, by any definition, a ppg season

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I think on a career value basis, Sakic was a better player than Yzerman.

I do agree that Yzerman's offensive and defensive peaks were both higher than Sakic. I personally feel Yzerman was a better leader and grittier for sure. I kind of go back and forth on which one I like better.

For whatever reason people seem to discount Yzerman's insane peak season nowadays.. I think because "it was the 80s" but it was quite remarkable to watch I'll say that. Especially considering the strength of the Detroit team at the time.

The people who discredit it are mainly the people who think Crosby is the greatest ever

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think on a career value basis, Sakic was a better player than Yzerman.

I do agree that Yzerman's offensive and defensive peaks were both higher than Sakic. I personally feel Yzerman was a better leader and grittier for sure. I kind of go back and forth on which one I like better.

For whatever reason people seem to discount Yzerman's insane peak season nowadays.. I think because "it was the 80s" but it was quite remarkable to watch I'll say that. Especially considering the strength of the Detroit team at the time.

I agree that Yzerman's offensive and defensive peaks were both higher than Sakic's, but I don't think Yzerman's overall peak was higher, since Sakic's offensive and defensive peaks were at the same time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can't count close to a ppg seasons as ppg seasons because they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, by any definition, a ppg season

When a player has 74 in 80, 52 in 54 and 48 in 52 or 40 in 44, it's close enough.
It is by no means a stretch to say that those players were basically a PpG player in those seasons.

I agree that Yzerman's offensive and defensive peaks were both higher than Sakic's, but I don't think Yzerman's overall peak was higher, since Sakic's offensive and defensive peaks were at the same time.

Define Sakic's peak in consecutive seasons for me please.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

When a player has 74 in 80, 52 in 54 and 48 in 52 or 40 in 44, it's close enough.
It is by no means a stretch to say that those players were basically a PpG player in those seasons.




Define Sakic's peak in consecutive seasons for me please.

Except that the definition for ppg is having the same number of points or more as games played. Saying he was basically a ppg player is like saying Stamkos is basically a 100 point player even though he never hit that mark. Do you think Stamkos is a 100 point player?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When a player has 74 in 80, 52 in 54 and 48 in 52 or 40 in 44, it's close enough.
It is by no means a stretch to say that those players were basically a PpG player in those seasons.




Define Sakic's peak in consecutive seasons for me please.

1998-99 to 2003-04, though he slowed down a bit for some time after the 2002 Olympics. He was great outside those years, but I think he had a clear peak during this time that is often overlooked because overall league scoring plummeted.

 

[quoipourquoi]

1998-99 to 2003-04, though he slowed down a bit for some time after the 2002 Olympics. He was great outside those years, but I think he had a clear peak during this time that is often overlooked because overall league scoring plummeted.

Sounds about right. Kinda funny that he has five 100-point seasons outside of his peak and only one inside of it, but that's definitely when the perception of him was the highest.

But really, the guy was something special from start-to-finish. Whatever ground people make up on him in their best three or four seasons, Sakic gains back on his fifth-nineteenth best seasons. His career composition reminds me of a Nicklas Lidstrom or a Martin Brodeur.

But the funny thing is, he's also got some all-time great regular season (2001) and playoffs (1996) in addition to that longevity as a top-ten player. A player that will only look better as the years pass. I still think he falls a little short of Esposito, but when we were looking at every statistical measure starting from Round 2, his name kept popping up in unexpected places.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sounds about right. Kinda funny that he has five 100-point seasons outside of his peak and only one inside of it, but that's definitely when the perception of him was the highest.

But really, the guy was something special from start-to-finish. Whatever ground people make up on him in their best three or four seasons, Sakic gains back on his fifth-nineteenth best seasons. His career composition reminds me of a Nicklas Lidstrom or a Martin Brodeur.

But the funny thing is, he's also got some all-time great regular season (2001) and playoffs (1996) in addition to that longevity as a top-ten player. A player that will only look better as the years pass. I still think he falls a little short of Esposito, but when we were looking at every statistical measure starting from Round 2, his name kept popping up in unexpected places.

Except I'm not comparing him to just another average superstar, it's Steve freakin Yzerman, who matches him season for season and a little bit more.

If there's one thing I have noticed is that this the only place where Sakic is ranked ahead of Yzerman.
All other lists and publications have Stevie ahead of Sakic, never by much mind you but ahead none the less.

Usually when comparing the rankings here with outside sources and publications there's the usual variance where players will move around a bit between lists with some more in line with the HF rankings and some a little different. Except with Yzerman and Sakic, where only here is Sakic ahead.

I always have a ton of respect for the Rankings around here but this is one case where I have to disagree and say it's wrong.
Quite simply, Yzerman blows Sakic out of the water when comparing their first 6-7 seasons and then there's not much to choose between them for the rest but it's certainly not enough to make up for the first 6-7 year gap.


Like I asked earlier, if you had a choice between Yzerman or Sakic from ages 18-27, the answer is clearly Yzerman without debate, without hesitation.
Ask then who you would rather have between ages 28-41 and the answer is prolly Sakic...maybe. Point being is that that choice is going to carry a debate and there is going to be hesitation.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If there's one thing I have noticed is that this the only place where Sakic is ranked ahead of Yzerman.
All other lists and publications have Stevie ahead of Sakic, never by much mind you but ahead none the less.

ESPN ranked Sakic ahead of Yzerman on their Top 100 in 2004.

 

[Rhiessan71]

ESPN ranked Sakic ahead of Yzerman on their Top 100 in 2004.

Yeah, they had him at #16, a single spot ahead of Forsberg, 5 ahead of Jagr and only 2 and 3 behind Bossy and Lafleur.
Yzerman came in at #31
They also had Lemieux ahead of Howe.

Suffice to say...
100 Adam Oates
99 Dave Keon
98 Paul Kariya
97 George Hainsworth
96 Joe Mullen
95 Serge Savard
94 Michel Goulet
93 Darryl Sittler
92 Borje Salming
91 Luc Robitaille
90 Markus Naslund
89 Jarome Iginla
88 Glenn Anderson
87 Eric Lindros
86 Phil Housley
85 Mike Modano
84 Rod Langway
83 Dave Andreychuk
82 Jean Ratelle
81 Johnny Bower
80 Brendan Shanahan
79 Joe Malone
78 Dino Ciccarelli
77 Norm Ullman
76 Pat LaFontaine
75 Scott Niedermayer
74 Denis Savard
73 Joe Nieuwendyk
72 Doug Gilmour
71 Chris Chelios
70 Chris Pronger
69 Mike Gartner
68 Dale Hawerchuk
67 Jeremy Roenick
66 Bob Gainey
65 Pavel Bure
64 Mark Howe
63 Sid Abel
62 Brian Leetch
61 Dickie Moore
60 Newsy Lalonde
59 John Bucyk
58 Alexander Mogilny
57 Al MacInnis
56 Yvan Cournoyer
55 Bill Durnan
54 Brad Park
53 Bill Cook
52 Scott Stevens
51 Bernie Geoffrion
50 Dit Clapper
49 Max Bentley
48 Peter Stastny
47 Milt Schmidt
46 Gilbert Perreault
45 Tim Horton
44 Tony Esposito
43 Ken Dryden
42 Sergei Fedorov
41 Bob Clarke
40 Frank Mahovlich
39 Howie Morenz
38 Ron Francis
37 Henri Richard
36 Charlie Conacher
35 Red Kelly
34 Grant Fuhr
33 Paul Coffey
32 Marcel Dionne
31 Steve Yzerman
30 Nicklas Lidstrom
29 Jari Kurri
28 Martin Brodeur
27 Brett Hull
26 Phil Esposito
25 Larry Robinson
24 Glenn Hall
23 Denis Potvin
22 Dominik Hasek
21 Jaromir Jagr
20 Terry Sawchuk
19 Ted Lindsay
18 Stan Mikita
17 Peter Forsberg
16 Joe Sakic
15 Jacques Plante
14 Mike Bossy
13 Guy Lafleur
12 Ray Bourque
11 Mark Messier
10 Jean Beliveau
9 Doug Harvey
8 Patrick Roy
7 Eddie Shore
6 Maurice Richard
5 Bobby Hull
4 Gordie Howe
3 Mario Lemieux
2 Bobby Orr
1 Wayne Gretzky

And not to give into the whole bias thing we've been through recently but to be fair, the omission of Fetisov, Tretiak and Makarov while Fedorov is the highest ranking Russian and there are only 2 others in the entire list in Mogilny and Bure...yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't give this list a whole lot of respect heh


I have The Hockey News Top-10 coffee table book right in front of me, printed 2012.
Top-10 Centers

1-Gretzky
2-Lemieux
3-Beliveau
4-Messier
5-Morez
6-Mikita
7-Esposito
8-Yzerman
9-Clarke
10-Sakic

 

[sr edler]

100 Adam Oates
99 Dave Keon
98 Paul Kariya
97 George Hainsworth
96 Joe Mullen
95 Serge Savard
94 Michel Goulet
93 Darryl Sittler
92 Borje Salming
91 Luc Robitaille
90 Markus Naslund
89 Jarome Iginla
88 Glenn Anderson
87 Eric Lindros
86 Phil Housley
85 Mike Modano
84 Rod Langway
83 Dave Andreychuk
82 Jean Ratelle
81 Johnny Bower
80 Brendan Shanahan
79 Joe Malone
78 Dino Ciccarelli
77 Norm Ullman
76 Pat LaFontaine
75 Scott Niedermayer
74 Denis Savard
73 Joe Nieuwendyk
72 Doug Gilmour
71 Chris Chelios
70 Chris Pronger
69 Mike Gartner
68 Dale Hawerchuk
67 Jeremy Roenick
66 Bob Gainey
65 Pavel Bure
64 Mark Howe
63 Sid Abel
62 Brian Leetch
61 Dickie Moore
60 Newsy Lalonde
59 John Bucyk
58 Alexander Mogilny
57 Al MacInnis
56 Yvan Cournoyer
55 Bill Durnan
54 Brad Park
53 Bill Cook
52 Scott Stevens
51 Bernie Geoffrion
50 Dit Clapper
49 Max Bentley
48 Peter Stastny
47 Milt Schmidt
46 Gilbert Perreault
45 Tim Horton
44 Tony Esposito
43 Ken Dryden
42 Sergei Fedorov
41 Bob Clarke
40 Frank Mahovlich
39 Howie Morenz
38 Ron Francis
37 Henri Richard
36 Charlie Conacher
35 Red Kelly
34 Grant Fuhr
33 Paul Coffey
32 Marcel Dionne
31 Steve Yzerman
30 Nicklas Lidstrom
29 Jari Kurri
28 Martin Brodeur
27 Brett Hull
26 Phil Esposito
25 Larry Robinson
24 Glenn Hall
23 Denis Potvin
22 Dominik Hasek
21 Jaromir Jagr
20 Terry Sawchuk
19 Ted Lindsay
18 Stan Mikita
17 Peter Forsberg
16 Joe Sakic
15 Jacques Plante
14 Mike Bossy
13 Guy Lafleur
12 Ray Bourque
11 Mark Messier
10 Jean Beliveau
9 Doug Harvey
8 Patrick Roy
7 Eddie Shore
6 Maurice Richard
5 Bobby Hull
4 Gordie Howe
3 Mario Lemieux
2 Bobby Orr
1 Wayne Gretzky

The back 50 on this list looks very strange. It's like someone got bored and only threw the names in. Gartner in front of Pronger, Chelios & Gilmour? Nieuwendyk in front of Modano? Mogilny at 58 but no Selänne? Lindros squeezed in between Housley & Anderson?

 

[quoipourquoi]

And not to give into the whole bias thing we've been through recently but to be fair, the omission of Fetisov, Tretiak and Makarov while Fedorov is the highest ranking Russian and there are only 2 others in the entire list in Mogilny and Bure...yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't give this list a whole lot of respect heh

You said that this is the only place that holds Sakic above Yzerman and that none of the publications list Sakic above Yzerman.

That was not accurate.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You said that this is the only place that holds Sakic above Yzerman and that none of the publications list Sakic above Yzerman.

That was not accurate.

That is honestly the first and only one I have seen and Joe at 16th and Forsberg at 17th is...ridiculous!

I guess I should have said respectable sources and publications

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That is honestly the first and only one I have seen and Joe at 16th and Forsberg at 17th is...ridiculous!

I guess I should have said respectable sources and publications

I think that as we get farther and farther away from the 1980s and more and more people realize that the high scoring of that era was a product of the era, rather than a product of better players, that more and more publications and sources will start to rank player who excelled during the "dead puck era" right along with the best of the 1980s (Gretzky/Lemieux excepted of course)

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think that as we get farther and farther away from the 1980s and more and more people realize that the high scoring of that era was a product of the era, rather than a product of better players, that more and more publications and sources will start to rank player who excelled during the "dead puck era" right along with the best of the 1980s (Gretzky/Lemieux excepted of course)

Oh, that's how you see that list eh?
That Sakic and Forsberg are ranked so high because they did a lot during the DPE?

Remind me again who was THE best player during the DPE...oh yeah, the guy they ranked at 21rst