I think there must be some kind of logical fallacy in the idea that only someone who posts his own list is allowed to critize the list of someone else. It's perfectly fine to claim player X as being better than player Y, hence deserving a higher spot on the existing list, and - at the same time - not being knowledgeable (or pretentious?) enough, or not having enough time, to create one's own complete list.
Joe Pelletier's Top 100 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter kmad
- Start date
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,541
- 27,078
There is a logical fallacy, and here it is: no one has said the bolded part. More clear?
In fact, in the post directly above yours, I said: "You're free to disagree with others' lists."
If you need me to state it again, I will - he's free to disagree with others' lists. And so are you.
Sentinel
Registered User
I did not dismiss Joe's entire list. Merely pointed out several (crucial) aspects on it.
I also agree with Rexor that one doesn't have to be able to lay eggs in order to judge the quality of an omelet. At some point, as per Killion's suggestion, I will draw up my own (short) list. But even in the absence of such list, it should not preclude one from being able to comment on the existing ones.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
From the little I've seen of Petrov, I think this could very well be true.
But I also think Krutov is vastly underrated because of his unfortunate time in the NHL. Through the 80s he looked every bit as good as Makarov in competition against Canada.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,541
- 27,078
You read Rexor's post (clearly), but you didn't read my post directly above it (just as clearly).
YOU ARE FREE TO DISAGREE WITH OTHER POSTERS' LISTS. This is a discussion forum, after all.
More clear to you now?
jcbio11
Registered User
You did not say that a person needs to have their own list before criticizing another, but you did imply it twice. See below. At least that's what a lot of people got from those two posts (including me - was thinking about posting something like what Rexor posted).
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,541
- 27,078
jcbio11
Registered User
As for the list -
I share a lot of sentiments that have already been discussed here.
Too Canada centric, I get the fact that it's sometimes difficult to compare players who were never confronted, but this is too much for my taste.
Jagr is way too low. The author even admits that based on talent alone, he is a top 10 player. So what is it that knocks him down? He's got the Cups, Olympic gold, World Championship, amazing individual and team success. Both incredible peak and longevity, character etc. According to author's proclaimed formula, he should be higher.
I don't like Roy over Hasek, but okay, this one is arguable and this is just me nitpicking. What is not okay is Hasek's position. Again too low.
My big gripe with this list is the Canada centrism. Call it an NHL list, if you will (yes, yes, I know the author included some token non NHLers), and I wouldn't say a word. In fact, that's what the HHOF should be called as well (NHL Hall of fame).
19 Canadians in the top 20? This stat alone implies that no one else in hockey history was close to producing the talent of Canada. We know for a fact that this isn't true. Give this list (with nationalities) to a person who's never heard about hockey and he'll tell you that Canada must be (and must have been) the run away best nation at hockey AINEC.
There is anti Euro bias, it might not be purposeful, but it exists in this list. It's only logical. If you grew up in North America, you focused on NHL, its players and stars. Information about the NHL is more readily available and accessible (in English).
I saw this person's post about more and more European players being comparable to top Canadians as time went on. This is because now it's easier to compare them, you see them in the NHL (1989), with the advent of internet, information about other leagues becomes more easily accessible as well.
My point is, we're all biased, whether we like to admit it or not.
I share a lot of sentiments that have already been discussed here.
Too Canada centric, I get the fact that it's sometimes difficult to compare players who were never confronted, but this is too much for my taste.
Jagr is way too low. The author even admits that based on talent alone, he is a top 10 player. So what is it that knocks him down? He's got the Cups, Olympic gold, World Championship, amazing individual and team success. Both incredible peak and longevity, character etc. According to author's proclaimed formula, he should be higher.
I don't like Roy over Hasek, but okay, this one is arguable and this is just me nitpicking. What is not okay is Hasek's position. Again too low.
My big gripe with this list is the Canada centrism. Call it an NHL list, if you will (yes, yes, I know the author included some token non NHLers), and I wouldn't say a word. In fact, that's what the HHOF should be called as well (NHL Hall of fame).
19 Canadians in the top 20? This stat alone implies that no one else in hockey history was close to producing the talent of Canada. We know for a fact that this isn't true. Give this list (with nationalities) to a person who's never heard about hockey and he'll tell you that Canada must be (and must have been) the run away best nation at hockey AINEC.
There is anti Euro bias, it might not be purposeful, but it exists in this list. It's only logical. If you grew up in North America, you focused on NHL, its players and stars. Information about the NHL is more readily available and accessible (in English).
I saw this person's post about more and more European players being comparable to top Canadians as time went on. This is because now it's easier to compare them, you see them in the NHL (1989), with the advent of internet, information about other leagues becomes more easily accessible as well.
My point is, we're all biased, whether we like to admit it or not.
Kale Makar
Lets go Aves?
I like the list (especially Roy at 10
) but how can you justify putting Crosby at #29, I mean come on...
) but how can you justify putting Crosby at #29, I mean come on...
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I like the list (especially Roy at 10
On this forum, we tend to view active players as if their careers ended today, in which case, that would be too high for Crosby. But outside this forum, it's not uncommon to do a little future projection - to project a natural career curve on a player.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Well lets see, the HISTORY of hockey. That's since what, around 1910, so around 100 years.
Other Nationalities have only really started competing on the same level as Canada for the last 30-40ish years.
So why does it always seem to come as a shock to some people that there are so many Canadians in the alltime lists
Kale Makar
Lets go Aves?
I can see that, but predicting he will be the 29th best hockey player of all time is a not a "little" prediction...
I mean, I can see someone putting him in the 80s or 90s, but 29th? I just think it is a little over the top...
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
But Sentinel didn't really do that. He specifically said "Makarov should be in the Top 10, Tretiak and Fetisov in the Top 20." To make such a statement, one would have to - at least in a very rough sense - have an idea of which players would comprise a top-10 or top-20 list.
I mean, I could tell you that I consider Glenn Hall to be a top-20 player (Joe Pelletier has him as #44 - well behind Vladislav Tretiak), but if I wasn't prepared to give him an idea of who I considered to be in Hall's range (Guy Lafleur and Phil Esposito), exactly how constructive is my criticism?
For a long time, I would have - and did - say that I considered Steve Yzerman to be a top-20 player. Once I made a list, however, guess who didn't quite make the cut? If Sentinel did the same, perhaps he'd recognize that Makarov isn't necessarily a shoe-in for top-10 and wouldn't be so adamant that Pelletier underrated him by not placing him there.
There's a lot of truth to this. I had an argument with a friend about Mark Messier's place on an all-time list. He insisted he was a top 10 player of all time, I wasn't so sure. We sat down together and finally hammered out a list. Messier placed outside the top 10, and my friend agreed that that's where he belonged.
A lot of times we say someone is something, but we haven't given proper thought as to where everyone else is too. If you include Dmen and goaltenders, a top 10 list gets pretty crowded pretty quickly.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Indeed. Until you actually go through & perform the exercise yourself.... Personally, I cant do it without complete separation of position & era. Top Goaltenders, Top Defenceman, Top Left Wingers & so on. If we were to compile a Top International Players List All Time (and International play quite a bit different from NHL & NA hockey on several levels), I think the only fair way to do it would be to base it all on International Play, Olympics, World Championships, Izvestias' & Canada Cup's. Limited exclusively to players who played for their countries & completely disregard their bona-fides in league play be it Russia, Sweden, the US or Canada. For sure you'd see guys like Seth Martin, Bill Cleary, Bobrov, Dzurilla, Kuhnhackl & many others not only up for consideration but more than making the list Im sure.
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
In a sense, I have to disagree with this. Did he really have to stand on his head in the 1980s at all? He was excellent in the 1981 CC, and in some other tournaments (e.g. 1984 Olympics), but his team(s) were stronger and more consistent in the 1980s than in the 1970s, and USSR probably would've won every one of those tournaments, Tretiak or no Tretiak. Of course, USSR lost some of their 'edge', when they lost him...
Might be. He doesn't seem to get much credit for his intangibles. And in the last ATD, for example, I learned that he was a softie & pushover who ran away from fighting
*exaggerating slightly*
Last edited:
Sentinel
Registered User
I dunno, man. FIVE TIMES MVP of the Soviet Championship! Over all those other established superstars.
As for Petrov: I'm still not sure where to place him. 5X scoring leader and excellent two-way play, but his career tailed off worse than Mikhailov's, he didn't have the peak of Kharlamov, and he wasn't as clutch as Firsov or Yakushev.
Like we said, it's more about the placement. By having only one Euro in the top 20, you are saying that Europe simply NEVER produced talent equal to Canada. Which is, of course, not true. But the quantity is also an issue to me. There were plenty of Europeans playing top end hockey at the time of Dionne and Robitaille.
Last edited:
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,715
- 4,870
Not taking a stand on wether a person should complete a list or not, but I would highly suggest it.
Not because it somehow makes ones opinion more valid, but cause it will probably skew your personal rating. I remember being quite sure about players that were underrated/under-represented in a lot of list's before I tried to compile my own list.
When you sit down and start to put names on paper, you will find yourself maybe in the middle of top-20 when realizing that you have missed one or two names. At first I had the names I thought were underrated, a lot higher than the usual listing did. But the longer I took time to put the list together the more I found myself lowering the "underrated" players ranking and saw myself getting closer and closer to same kind of rankings you usually see.
The good thing in having your own list thought out, is that you have to challenge your own opinions and line of thinking. Thinking all the players through and listing them will most likely have you changing your own idea on who is underrated and who is overrated.
Not because it somehow makes ones opinion more valid, but cause it will probably skew your personal rating. I remember being quite sure about players that were underrated/under-represented in a lot of list's before I tried to compile my own list.
When you sit down and start to put names on paper, you will find yourself maybe in the middle of top-20 when realizing that you have missed one or two names. At first I had the names I thought were underrated, a lot higher than the usual listing did. But the longer I took time to put the list together the more I found myself lowering the "underrated" players ranking and saw myself getting closer and closer to same kind of rankings you usually see.
The good thing in having your own list thought out, is that you have to challenge your own opinions and line of thinking. Thinking all the players through and listing them will most likely have you changing your own idea on who is underrated and who is overrated.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,306
- 6,640
I am basing my opinion on my viewings of him in several tournaments and the NHL tours. Tretiak just looked better positionally, more consistent, more dominant.
Granted, this probably had a bit to do with the overall evolution in goaltending - there was a rapid improvement in goaltenders throughout the 80s. I suspect that Tretiak was instrumental in ushering new techniques.
He seemed athletic and inconsistent to me throughout the 70s, and a jedi master in the 80s. So smooth and collected.
And it's not just the Canada cup and Olympics talking. Tretiak's overall body of work in the 80s is stellar. '81-'84 in particular.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,306
- 6,640
Even if Petrov is worse than these guys (debatable), one has to admit that the guy is quite underrated for someone who routinely outscored the big names in the Soviet league and international events.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
And again, like I said, Euro's and Yanks have only been competing on a level with Canada for about 30-40 years now.
What part of only 30-40 years out of 100+ do you not understand exactly?
Also, last I checked, Canada STILL provides 50-55% of NHL talent.
2013/14
Canada 52%
USA 23.5%
Sweden 8.1%
Czech 4.4%
Other 4.1%
Russia 3.3%
Finland 3.1%
Slovakia 1.5%
Soooo, conslusion: should it really come as a surprise that Canadian's dominate most lists when they were not only uncontested for more than half of the history of hockey but also that Canada still continues to provide more than half the talent.
So the simple answer to your question of whether other countries are capable of producing talent equal to Canada so far is a statistical no they are not.
Some argue for Jagr in the top 10. He doesn't make my top 10 but that's me. I def have him in the top 20 though and he is my #1 Euro with Hasek #2 and Lidstrom my #3 and Lidstrom just makes it into my top 20. Now, out of all the remaining Euro's you're talking about, how many can you honestly put ahead of Jagr, Hasek and Lidstrom to crack the top 20?
Hell, if anyone should be complaining it should be the Yanks. Not sure I have even 1 in my top 30.
Nuff said.
Last edited:
jcbio11
Registered User
30 - 40 years? You've said it twice now, are you absolutely sure you want to go on record with that? So only since 1973, maybe even 1983?
Composition of today's NHL has very little relevance, because most NHL bottom liners are from Canada, thus making that stat completely irrelevant. The European players which would make it in the NHL as 3rd and 4th liners, back up goalies, bottom pairing Dmen simply don't come over anymore.
Last edited:
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Prove me wrong then.
Show me how Europeans were producing world class hockey players prior to the 70's or how the Yanks were prior to the 80's.
Again, prove it!
Last season, 12 of the top 20 were Canadian, that's 60% btw
30 years ago, 16 of the top 20 were Canadian, that's 80%. Wanna guess what the League's Canadian population was in 82/83? Yeah, that's right, 81.1%.
Just coincidence I'm sure
OR...how come when I go to this site http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php if I change the criteria from # of players to amount of points, very little changes?
If what you say were true, that Canadian's only have a high % of players because they're on the 3rd and 4th lines while only the top Euro's are coming over, then when one changes the criteria to points, the Euro's should all jump noticeably. Funny how that doesn't happen hmmmmm....
Last edited:
Sentinel
Registered User
In 1972 (40 years ago), USSR was quite on the level of NHL stars. Do you really think that they developed their star power overnight? Well, they didn't. FYI, Soviets thoroughly dominated the 60s decade. Firsov and Starshinov were world class players. Just because they didn't have a chance to play against NHL stars, doesn't mean they weren't as good as the ones that came in the 70s.
The bottom tiers are always bottom tiers. We are talking about top end talent.
Your league composition stats are meaningless, as the other poster noted. With KHL's emergence, all those people that otherwise would have filled NHL teams' bottom two lines are now playing in Russia (plus a star or two, like Jagr and Kovalchuk). And your last paragraph doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry.
