Joe Pelletier's Top 100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[VMBM]

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.

Don't want to split hairs too much, as I think that what you say about his consistency might be true, but if we start from 1981...

From what I've seen, he was pretty good in the 1981 WC and okay in the 1982 WC, but not much more. Other than those, I can agree with the Star Wars analogy . But I'd still claim that generally, Team USSR was at their strongest in the early Eighties and USSR would've probably won all of those early 1980s tournaments even without him.

 

[VMBM]

Yeah, because the Russians missing Firsov equates to the Canadians missing the best player in the world and one of the very best to ever play the game. Yeah right!

No, it doesn't, and if you throw Bobby Hulls name there as well, it's obvious that Canadians can do a lot more name-dropping, as far as missing players go (in 1972). I don't mind, though, that sometimes also the Soviets' problems are being discussed, and it's not all that 'well-oiled machine' & 'robots' nonsense...

And no matter how ill-prepared Team Canada was in 1972, it's not like the future CAN vs USSR series' proved to be that much different, when Canadians were at least supposedly better-prepared and in much better condition. I've always said that the Soviets got better in many areas, but also Canada had clearly stronger teams post 1972; yet the two teams were nearly always neck and neck, and there was even one blowout win for USSR (1981). And Canadians don't like the mention of the 1979 Challenge Cup, but at least to me it proved that NHL'ers simply couldn't beat USSR in those kind of conditions anymore - those days were long over...

 

[Rhiessan71]

No, it doesn't, and if you throw Bobby Hulls name there as well, it's obvious that Canadians can do a lot more name-dropping, as far as missing players go (in 1972). I don't mind, though, that sometimes also the Soviets' problems are being discussed, and it's not all that 'well-oiled machine' & 'robots' nonsense...

And no matter how ill-prepared Team Canada was in 1972, it's not like the future CAN vs USSR series' proved to be that much different, when Canadians were at least supposedly better-prepared and in much better condition. I've always said that the Soviets got better in many areas, but also Canada had clearly stronger teams post 1972; yet the two teams were nearly always neck and neck, and there was even one blowout win for USSR (1981). And Canadians don't like the mention of the 1979 Challenge Cup, but at least to me it proved that NHL'ers simply couldn't beat USSR in those kind of conditions anymore - those days were long over...

Hey listen, I agree. Starting with '72. Canada was arrogant (and I don't just mean the players) and complacent in the way we approached the game. We thought we were the only ones that could play hockey at that level and that there was only one way to play it. That happens when one dominates something for 50-60 years.
The Russians brought us back down to Earth in a hurry and they showed that it wasn't just Canada's game anymore. Over the next decade or so, other Countries made huge strides as well.
And now we arrive at the way today's game is played, which is an amalgamation of all nations contributions and ideologies through the years.

I don't think anyone should downplay the importance of '72 like I have seen some suggest in this thread. It changed everything and not only that, downplaying it is nothing but an insult to the Russian's IMO. That was their coming out party to the World and even though they lost a close tourney, they were and should have been just as proud about what they accomplished as Canadian's were at the time.
It also forced Canada to re-evaluate it's approach and programs, we needed the push, we needed to evolve or be left behind and that's another point of pride for me to this day. We didn't roll over, we didn't remain set in our ways, we went through some bumps along the way but we still prevail as the reigning favourite and albeit not uncontested, the top Hockey power.

Either way, the whole reason this thread has even gone this way was because I said "30-40 years" and then someone myopically decided I was being unfair in that year range because clearly the Russians were on the board 40 years ago, not 30.
Just too bad we were talking about all Europeans and non-Canadians eh, not just the Russians.

 

[Sentinel]

Because your "30-40 years" statement is false, and until you acknowledge it, we'll be going around in circles. At least concede that Russian players being at the top level did occur overnight on the New Year's Eve of 1972, and that it took a good decade or two for the top end talent to develop.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because your "30-40 years" statement is false, and until you acknowledge it, we'll be going around in circles. At least concede that Russian players being at the top level did occur overnight on the New Year's Eve of 1972, and that it took a good decade or two for the top end talent to develop.

We do know that throughout the 1950s, the best Russians were about on par with Canadian amateur club teams. The big switch for the USSR seems to have occured in 1962 or 1963 when the first generation of Soviet players who grew up playing hockey came of age - the Firsovs and Starshinovs. After 1962 or so, the Soviets started whipping the Canadian amateurs.

I think it would be more accurate to talk about European hockey being relevant for 40-50 years (depending on what you think of the 1963-1972 generation), but it doesn't change the fact that hockey was relevant in North American for long before Europe was competitive. I mean, if you're looking for a 50/50 split between Canada/non-Canada over the last 40-50 years, you're still going to have a list that is 75% Canadian - basically what seventieslord said in post 57.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Because your "30-40 years" statement is false, and until you acknowledge it, we'll be going around in circles. At least concede that Russian players being at the top level did occur overnight on the New Year's Eve of 1972, and that it took a good decade or two for the top end talent to develop.

Nope.
By the late 60's/early 70's is when the Russians were becoming known as good hockey players. That's part of the reason the Summit series came about in the first place. Russia had something to prove and Canada was sick of hearing about how good the Russian had become and wanted to stomp them out so to speak.

Either way, as Devil just pointed out, it wasn't until the early 60's that the Russians were beating our amateur clubs so if one were to say 50 years, that would be factually wrong.
It's closer to 40. The Russians took their first steps toward that top level in the early 60's but the final step didn't come to fruition until around 1970ish.
Then over the next decade or so the rest of the countries as we know them today followed in Russia's wake.

So when I make the statement that other countries have only been at Canada's level for the last 30-40 years or so I am FACTUALLY correct whether your OPINION agrees with it or not.

Time to move on.

 

[Zine]

The biggest disadvantage of all for the Canadains was their arrogance and inability to take the Russians seriously.
There is no down playing how much that hurt Canada.
They/we didn‘t go into that tourny with wide eyes innosence, we went in wide eyed stupid.

And you can attempt to downplay the Russian teamwork and familiarity all you want but it was still miles ahead of what Canada came in with.

Maybe, maybe not. But after game 1, Canada fully knew who they were up against.

Regardless, VMBM makes a good point. In following years when Canada was supposidly better prepared (with many of the same players) it made no difference. The teams were still neck and neck.

 

[Zine]

Because your "30-40 years" statement is false, and until you acknowledge it, we'll be going around in circles. At least concede that Russian players being at the top level did occur overnight on the New Year's Eve of 1972, and that it took a good decade or two for the top end talent to develop.

Nope.
By the late 60's/early 70's is when the Russians were becoming known as good hockey players. That's part of the reason the Summit series came about in the first place. Russia had something to prove and Canada was sick of hearing about how good the Russian had become and wanted to stomp them out so to speak.

Either way, as Devil just pointed out, it wasn't until the early 60's that the Russians were beating our amateur clubs so if one were to say 50 years, that would be factually wrong.
It's closer to 40. The Russians took their first steps toward that top level in the early 60's but the final step didn't come to fruition until around 1970ish.
Then over the next decade or so the rest of the countries as we know them today followed in Russia's wake.

So when I make the statement that other countries have only been at Canada's level for the last 30-40 years or so I am FACTUALLY correct whether your OPINION agrees with it or not.

Time to move on.

The TRUTH is somewhere in the middle.

The early 1970s is when the Soviets developed the depth to defeat Canada's best on a regular basis. However that doesn't mean certain 1960s Soviets weren't as good as upper tier Canadians. Nothing suggests Firsov, Ragulin, Starshinov, etc. were any worse than Canada's best.......they easily were on par with 1970s-era Soviet players when their careers overlapped.

I'd say mid/late-1960s Soviets were on a level of modern day Slovakia.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The TRUTH is somewhere in the middle.

The early 1970s is when the Soviets developed the depth to defeat Canada's best on a regular basis. However that doesn't mean certain 1960s Soviets weren't as good as upper tier Canadians. Nothing suggests Firsov, Ragulin, Starshinov, etc. were any worse than Canada's best.......they easily were on par with 1970s-era Soviet players when their careers overlapped.

I'd say mid/late-1960s Soviets were on a level of modern day Slovakia.

That's why I said 40ish. It was closer to 40 years than it was to 50 when the Russians "arrived" and could truly challenge Canada's best.

And I would agree with your assessment of the mid/late 60's Russians with modern Slovakia in relation to today.
Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Russians in the 60's had anyone of the level of a Hull or Howe or even Beliveau and not even close to a Bobby Orr in the late 60's.

And listen, not to make excuses because it's just the simple truth, that if Orr plays in '72, it changes everything.
IMO, Henderson is not in HHoF today because there wouldn't have been a need for his heroics late in the tourney. It would have already been decided by the end of game 6 at the latest.

 

[Holkoun]

And you're saying this based on..? Can you name another player who lead his league in points nine times, was named to the six-man IIHF Centennial Team, was equal to the challenge against every North American team he ever faced, had the highest shooting percentage in a totally different league past his prime, and scored more goals than anybody his age and over? Even in the creativity department the man was every bit as creative as Lemieux (I'm not exaggerating, watch his highlights). Let me give you a hint: it wasn't Mike Bossy (as much as I love Bossy).


I have more of a problem with your placing of the European players rather than sheer number (1 Euro out of Top 20 is ridiculous), but some of your omissions are simply staggering. Seriously, man, how in the WORLD could you omit Firsov (named "The Best Hockey Player Never Played in NHL" by The Hockey News), Bobrov (#4 on that list), Yakushev (#7, the best clutch player in Soviet history), and Petrov (five time scoring leader in the Soviet league)? All of them were better than Dionne and Robitaille!

Makarov is absolutely underrated here due to his post-peak career in NHL

Strange, because I can think of at least several Russians who were better.

Of course, Joe probably values the contextual aspects of Larionov's career. The time and the place and Larionov's role as ambassador of Russia's game.

On a related note, maybe the most underrated player of all-time has to be Vladimir Petrov.

Then name them...but exclude his line-mates You will find very few of them... Larionov was still great even during his NHL days which were already far beyond his peak.

 

[Holkoun]

I think Makarov has a case to be rated alongside Trottier and the rest. Outstanding in the 80s.

Not totally sold about the other two to be slotted so high. Tretiak was a little overrated in the 70s, but was worth his weight in gold in the 80s (wish he hadn't retired in '84, while in his peak).

What hurts the reputations of guys like Fetisov, Makarov, Krutov, etc are their relative struggles when crossing to play in the NHL (Makarov made the smoothest transition). They faced such a difficult and almost impossible task to fit in and live up to expectations, all the while being treated poorly and with little understanding by NHL coaches who knew next to nothing about their styles.

Thank goodness for Scotty Bowman.

some team should simply take all 5 guys of that line I believe they would be great even on different size of the ring

 

[Holkoun]

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.

Their line clicked so greatly together that it is really difficult to say, who was the best of them. Krutov, Larionov, Makarov? Fetisov? Kasatonov? They gelled so well, they were matching together so well, the chemistry was immense... I have not seen better line in my life...

 

[Holkoun]

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.

that is why I think, with all respect to Joe´s work, that many feel it is "North America Biased" (no matter if by purpose or not), and also present NHLers are ranked much higher than they should be... Crosby at 29 is just ridiculous, with all respect to him (I am not his lover that is true, but I can admit that he is a huge talent)

 

[Sentinel]

That's why I said 40ish. It was closer to 40 years than it was to 50 when the Russians "arrived" and could truly challenge Canada's best.

{Mod} That logically assumes the best Russian players developed between 1973 and 1983. Which is nonsense.

And I would agree with your assessment of the mid/late 60's Russians with modern Slovakia in relation to today.

I certainly do not agree with this assessment. Last time Slovakia iced a competitive team was in the 2010 Olympics and they all were past their prime, by their own admission. I don't see that team going 3-4-1 against Canada's Olympic squad in an eight-game series. What we know is that the 60's Russian stars compared well against 70's Russian stars when their careers overlapped (Firsov, Almetiev, Alexandrov, Ragulin, etc.). The 70s heroes did not come out of nowhere.

And stop bringing Orr into this! Canada iced the roster it iced. Or, like I said, dismiss the result of the 1976 and 1984 Canada Cups. Kharlamov was not there in 76 and Fetisov in 84. Which Canadian superstar was missing in 1981?

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Russians in the 60's had anyone of the level of a Hull or Howe or even Beliveau and not even close to a Bobby Orr in the late 60's.

OK, I'll give you that. But in the 70s Joe has 10 people from the Canadian squad and 2 Soviets. Cournoyer is on that list, but not Yakushev. No disrespect to Yvon, but some parity here is definitely warranted.

 

[Hardyvan123]

some team should simply take all 5 guys of that line I believe they would be great even on different size of the ring

Well the Canucks and Devils each took 2 of them and the results were hardly world class.

The 5 man unit seems to ahve amde the whole greater than the wum of it's parts, at least to some degree.

 

[thom]

Im glad Joe has Peter Stasney pretty high he was a great player.And what he had togo through to get to Canada should be made in a James Bond Film.He was a great european and a great nhler.On my list hes somewhere from 50-70

 

[Rhiessan71]

You didn't say "40ish." You said "30-40." That logically assumes the best Russian players developed between 1973 and 1983. Which is nonsense.

ACTUALLY, what I said was 30-40 years or so.
And AGAIN, I'm really not sure how you are not understanding the context of that statement that I was referring to all non-Canadians and not just the Russians.
(MOD)

 

[VMBM]

Makarov is absolutely underrated here due to his post-peak career in NHL

Huh? In a recent poll on HoH (vs. Kharlamov), Makarov beat Kharlamov clearly. I believe that nowadays he is considered the best Russian forward here. And I don't think his NHL career has hurt him in any way, as it has been pointed out here that he did very well in the NHL considering his age and the cultural shock.

Then name them...but exclude his line-mates You will find very few of them... Larionov was still great even during his NHL days which were already far beyond his peak.

If his linemates and Fetisov don't count, well: (Kharlamov), Firsov, Mikhailov, Vasiliev, and I would even consider Petrov (AINEC, statistically) and Starshinov. Balderis was not Russian, but if we're talking about USSR, then him too. Yakushev is close.

I don't think Larionov was 'great' in his NHL days nor do I think he was 'great' in Soviet Union. 'Very good' maybe. I don't even remember Larionov having any great peak. When talking about peak, IMO he isn't even in the top 20 Russians of all-time. For me, the most impressive things about him were his longevity and adaptability (his hockey IQ helped in that).

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think Larionov was 'great' in his NHL days nor do I think he was 'great' in Soviet Union. 'Very good' maybe. I don't even remember Larionov having any great peak. When talking about peak, IMO he isn't even in the top 20 Russians of all-time. For me, the most impressive things about him were his longevity and adaptability (his hockey IQ helped in that).

Larionov didn't have a great peak. But career-wise, there are very few Russian centers who can measure up to him: probably only Fedorov. And since we are evaluating "great," not "best" players, a case can be made for him making the list. Besides, his achievements transcended hockey, so I'd be inclined to raise him up a few spots (just like Clarke's and Messier's "achievements" would make me lower them a few).

 

[Rhiessan71]

(just like Clarke's and Messier's "achievements" would make me lower them a few).

I know I'm going to regret this but what do you mean?

 

[Sentinel]

I know I'm going to regret this but what do you mean?

Oh, come on, do we have to go in there? See "unsportsmanlike conduct" in Wikipedia, I'm sure it has Clarke's photo in it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Oh, come on, do we have to go in there? See "unsportsmanlike conduct" in Wikipedia, I'm sure it has Clarke's photo in it.

Ahh so I guess Howe should be knocked out of the top 3 because he threw an elbow here and there and wasn't always a "nice guy" on the ice?

Or what about an Ulf Samuelsson? Would he be ranked higher if he was a "nice guy"? Not a chance! His physicality and dirty play is what made him as effective as he was, made him a premier top pairing shut down guy. As a "nice guy" he's a decent 3-4th Dman and that's it.

IMO, one can add to a player for being clean or one can take away from a player for being dirty but one does not do both.
Or should we just redo the entire top-100, we move every nice guy up a few spots and move every player that played with an edge down a few spots

One thing I will say though is that I absolutely refuse to knock Messier down because of the way he played. He was a better player playing with an edge and even more importantly, his teams were better because of it.
Messier was one of the most intimidating players in the League for a long, long time and he and his teams won a lot of games because of it. How many more games did Larionov's teams win because he was a nice guy?

You may not respect Messier or Clarke as players but you have to respect the results whether you like it or not.

 

[Hammer Time]

No, it doesn't, and if you throw Bobby Hulls name there as well, it's obvious that Canadians can do a lot more name-dropping, as far as missing players go (in 1972). I don't mind, though, that sometimes also the Soviets' problems are being discussed, and it's not all that 'well-oiled machine' & 'robots' nonsense...

And no matter how ill-prepared Team Canada was in 1972, it's not like the future CAN vs USSR series' proved to be that much different, when Canadians were at least supposedly better-prepared and in much better condition. I've always said that the Soviets got better in many areas, but also Canada had clearly stronger teams post 1972; yet the two teams were nearly always neck and neck, and there was even one blowout win for USSR (1981). And Canadians don't like the mention of the 1979 Challenge Cup, but at least to me it proved that NHL'ers simply couldn't beat USSR in those kind of conditions anymore - those days were long over...

I still think you're underestimating the impact of chemistry.

The fact is, between 1981 and 1984, the Soviets played the following tournaments as a national team:
1981, 82, 83 Izvestia
1982, 83, 84 WC
1984 Olympics
(and I believe the Swedes and Czechs were also hosting annual tournaments at the time ... the ones that later became EHT)

Canada's national team (the professional one, not the amateur one they sent to the WC and Olympics) had not played a single competitive game in those same 3 years.

Regardless of the physical condition of the two teams, I think you have to say the Soviets were more familiar with playing as a national team.

That's a significant advantage which I think counters the impact of North American refs and ice size in the Canada Cup games.

 

[Hammer Time]

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.

Half the teams in the NHL have European #2 goalies:

Lack, Ramo, Fasth, Greiss, Enroth
Lehner, Markstrom, Lindback, Budaj, Vokoun
Mazanec, Gustavsson, Neuvirth, Khabibulin, Backstrom

15/30
On some of their teams, the second backup goalie is also European (Mrazek, Andersen, Raanta for instance).

Current 3rd pairing defencemen from Europe: (source NHL.com ice time ... I was picking the 5th and 6th highest TOI among regular D-men)

Vatanen, Tallinder, Ritsolainen, Roszival, Nikitin
Gonchar, Kindl, Belov, Emelin, Ekholm
Larsson, Volchenkov, Gustafsson, Niskanen, Maatta
Polak, Sustr, Urbom

18/60

Bottom 6 players from Europe: (using dailyfaceoff.com as a source, since it's often hard to draw the line between 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners with ice time alone)

S. Koivu, Soderberg, Girgensons, Backlund, Lindholm
Kruger, Roussel, J. Andersson, Tatar, Samuelsson
Joensuu, Goc, Bergenheim, Konopka, Spaling
Loktionov, Josefson, Grabner, Regin, Zuccarello
Raffl, Boedker, Havlat, Sobotka, Tarasenko
Paarjavi, Palat, Panik, Kulemin, Erat
Frolik

31/180

Total: 64/270 = 24% of depth players are European. 25% of all NHLers are European. There really isn't a big difference between core and depth players' nationalities.

 

[seventieslord]

Half the teams in the NHL have European #2 goalies:

Lack, Ramo, Fasth, Greiss, Enroth
Lehner, Markstrom, Lindback, Budaj, Vokoun
Mazanec, Gustavsson, Neuvirth, Khabibulin, Backstrom

15/30
On some of their teams, the second backup goalie is also European (Mrazek, Andersen, Raanta for instance).

Current 3rd pairing defencemen from Europe: (source NHL.com ice time ... I was picking the 5th and 6th highest TOI among regular D-men)

Vatanen, Tallinder, Ritsolainen, Roszival, Nikitin
Gonchar, Kindl, Belov, Emelin, Ekholm
Larsson, Volchenkov, Gustafsson, Niskanen, Maatta
Polak, Sustr, Urbom

18/60

Bottom 6 players from Europe: (using dailyfaceoff.com as a source, since it's often hard to draw the line between 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners with ice time alone)

S. Koivu, Soderberg, Girgensons, Backlund, Lindholm
Kruger, Roussel, J. Andersson, Tatar, Samuelsson
Joensuu, Goc, Bergenheim, Konopka, Spaling
Loktionov, Josefson, Grabner, Regin, Zuccarello
Raffl, Boedker, Havlat, Sobotka, Tarasenko
Paarjavi, Palat, Panik, Kulemin, Erat
Frolik

31/180

Total: 64/270 = 24% of depth players are European. 25% of all NHLers are European. There really isn't a big difference between core and depth players' nationalities.

Good research.