My HoH Top 50 Players Of All Time!

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Head to Head

Head to head competition in a team sport has great value beyond the W-L record. Using goalies to illustrate.

It allows the observer to see the respective puckhandling and zone management skills, how each plays the angles, manages rebounds communicates with teammates, etc since ice and rink conditions are constant.

Home and away it illustrates if results are match-up dependant.

For forwards and defencemen it is a more complex situation since there is more carryover from game to game.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
If you're legitimately the best goaltender in the world at a time when Patrick Roy and Kirk McLean are top-4 in Hart Voting and the only thing standing in your way is Jimmy Waite and an unsigned Ed Belfour, how do you end up in Indianapolis in the first place?

I'm not saying Hašek was actually the best goaltender in the world prior to 1994. But I think he could have been the best goaltender (or one of the best) and still end up in Indianapolis. It seems to me that the bafflement and irritation his unorthodox style used to cause doesn't always get enough recognition. Every time he made a save, he did it by violating the proven principles of hockey goaltending. Didn't Vladislav Tretyak call him uncoachable? Wasn't it said he did everything wrong except stopping the puck? Put yourself in the shoes of the Blackhawk's coaching staff. You've got a technical maverick flopping around the ice who refuses to change anything about his game... yes, he stops the puck, but is it sustainable? It can't be, that's what all the experience in the hockey world tells anyone who knows his goaltending 101. Our colleague Killion certainly belongs in that latter group of people and look what he had to say about prime (!) Hašek:

... with Buffalo?. All I saw was some Moron in the crease who wouldve looked better playing for Manchester United what with all the dypsomaniacal triangulations & just pure stunts he was pulling. As an "old goalie" myself, gotta tell ya, its a wonder that guy ever made it, that were discussing him at all. Absolute freak show.

So yes, it's possible Dominik Hašek got stuck in the IHL in the early 1990s despite being the best goaltender or one of the very best goaltenders in the world. But was that what actually was the case ? I don't know. It doesn't seem likely, but then, how likely did it seem back in 1990 or 1993 that Hašek could and would prove to be one of the greatest goalies of all time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Batis and Sentinel

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Oh, and Roy didn't just "lose" to Hasek in 98 and 02. He lost in such ways that will be FOREVER remembered by ANYONE who was alive in those years.

Talk about head-to-head, Hasek lost a starting job to Ed Belfour, surrendered 6 GA to Canada in 1991 with his head coach and free agent Ed Belfour counting dollar signs on the bench, lost a Stanley Cup Final to Ed Belfour, and was sub.-900 against Belfour's teams, including 177/205 against Dallas in the regular season from 1998-2002. And we can definitely find narratives to make Belfour vs. Roy shake out the same way, but the only interaction they're going to have with each other is a handshake in Spring because goalies don't shoot on each other. It's just noise to throw into an argument.

As for how well things get remembered, once you get to a certain point of consistent success, all of your low points are the cornerstone of someone else's VHS tape. Happened to 1986 Edmonton and 1993 Pittsburgh too. No one had a more imposing figure in pressure situations at that time than Roy, so of course those moments (as well as Neely, Brunette, etc) will be remembered. Positive or negative, there isn't a whole lot Patrick Roy can do that won't be FOREVER remembered, because he's arguably the most iconic goaltender there has been.


Hasek went from a back up to a best goaltender in the world, virtually overnight, at the age of thirty.

No, he was a good goaltender who was getting better when he took a starting role in 1992-93 (when he was also not the best goaltender in the world) until getting hurt. Even in 1993-94, he didn't start particularly well and didn't take off until he was removed from having to compete for his job by Grant Fuhr's injury.

The potential was always there to become what he became (Chicago knew this in 1987 too), but it took time and four opportunities to play for a starting role for him to reach it. Based on 1990-1993, the pizza wasn't ready to come out of the oven - and we can say the same for Ed Belfour (also older than Patrick Roy) who had a trial run in 1989 while Roy was winning his third Jennings, second post-season All-Star selection, and appearing in his second Stanley Cup Final.

Unless you're going to argue that Ed Belfour must have been the best goaltender in the world prior to 1990-91 too because he went from touring on the national team to Hart nominee virtually overnight.
 

threetimer*

Registered User
Aug 1, 2016
433
10
Ignoring Hasek's Czech or International background and performance has a certain convenience. Internationally he was on a roller coaster, posted upthread. He was 26 when he came over to North America. So effectively four years to rise thru the ranks in NA including the IHL not the higher AHL..

In this context his performance is no different than George Hainsworth, Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante, Johnny Bower, Frank Brimsek, lesser degree Ed Giacomin, and a few others.

Martin Brodeur, initially thru midget and junior, then The AHL he was underplayed, sharing the workload with a slight majority of games. Jacques Lemaire saw that he had a workhorse, franchise cornerstone. Quite similar to Hasek in the Czech league where he was basically a one goalie system.

The bolded=true.

The rest dances circles not around but beyond / besides my point.
 

threetimer*

Registered User
Aug 1, 2016
433
10
Talk about head-to-head, Hasek lost a starting job to Ed Belfour, surrendered 6 GA to Canada in 1991 with his head coach and free agent Ed Belfour counting dollar signs on the bench, lost a Stanley Cup Final to Ed Belfour, and was sub.-900 against Belfour's teams, including 177/205 against Dallas in the regular season from 1998-2002. And we can definitely find narratives to make Belfour vs. Roy shake out the same way, but the only interaction they're going to have with each other is a handshake in Spring because goalies don't shoot on each other. It's just noise to throw into an argument.

This was just a noise to throw into an argument. Because no-one really argues Hasek over Belfour or Belfour over Hasek. It's pretty much settled. You gave an example of the context in which H2H really is futile, seemingly forever ignoring what we are talking about.

No, he was a good goaltender who was getting better when he took a starting role in 1992-93 (when he was also not the best goaltender in the world) until getting hurt. Even in 1993-94, he didn't start particularly well and didn't take off until he was removed from having to compete for his job by Grant Fuhr's injury.

The potential was always there to become what he became (Chicago knew this in 1987 too), but it took time and four opportunities to play for a starting role for him to reach it. Based on 1990-1993, the pizza wasn't ready to come out of the oven - and we can say the same for Ed Belfour (also older than Patrick Roy) who had a trial run in 1989 while Roy was winning his third Jennings, second post-season All-Star selection, and appearing in his second Stanley Cup Final.

Unless you're going to argue that Ed Belfour must have been the best goaltender in the world prior to 1990-91 too because he went from touring on the national team to Hart nominee virtually overnight.

Oh, the potential was always there, thanks for confirmation man. We thought it really was an overnight miracle after all.

It took four attempts not to give anyone even the slightest excuse to bench him again. Because this is what it really was.

He surrended 6 goals against Canada, but I have read even the Canadian commentators kept wetting themselves over his performance (and not only because he helped Canada to win.)

But hey, 25 years later, certain someone who has a way of using stuff can grab the six-goal stat and build a monster argument upon it, right.

I mean look at you, you're doing it still! Looking for every, even the slightest or the most twisted excuse to justify the fact he most likely was getting choked for a while.

He was lucky to run into Keenan instead of you :laugh:

As far as Eddie, the story is he never said "hi" to Hasek. He probably knew it first.

EDIT: And since all, or most of this stems from the fact I wrote something like "he probably just knew he was the best goalie in the world", please step outside your Roy fan bubble and note that I never really argued he objectively was the best goalie in the world. He was absolutely not, as he didn't even play. I suggested he himself knew he had it in him. That's all. You just overreacted like you always do when it comes to THIS.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
I'm hoping to have 51-75 updated by the end of August and then round out the top 100 by the end of September. This will include the insertion of the Russian greats where I believe them to be.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
I do think I was probably a bit bullish on Bathgate and maybe Mahovlich in retrospect but we'll see.
That's about where I have Bathgate. Mahovlich though? I got him about two dozen slots back of that...

Obviously, if you did a supplemental, you'd find space for Fetisov and Makarov. Would you add additional Soviets as well?

I see that Chelios and Sprague Cleghorn are absent, which I'll concede is quite defensible if you pass out demerits due to the "Filthy-Factor." Buttressing this supposition is the fact that you have Clarke lower than many (my compliments). However, if dirty play is an item of negative significance, what's Ted Lindsay doing in the mid-30s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
These lists constantly underscore goaltenders. All 4 of Gretzky's titles were on stacked teams while Roy won 2 essentially on his own and 96 Avs don't win without him either.

Hasek & Ovechkin too low.

But great work on write ups, I know this is very time consuming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
In the Holiday Spirit, I thought I'd look at the opening post and look at the unconventional placements with which I agree, rather than dog out the ones that I strenuously oppose...

As stated earlier, I have Bathgate in the top-50.
I'm about as high on Larry Robinson as you are.
I have Earl Seibert only a little lower than you do- but speculate that he'll alight in about the same place I got him once you retro-fit the deserving Soviets into your list.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Lidstrom at #12 is far too high for my liking, and conversely, I think Jagr is too low

At no point during their respective primes was Lidstrom considered better than Jagr

Furthermore, it just seems odd having a player who was never nominated for the Hart trophy among the top 12 players of all-time
 
Last edited:

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Lidstrom at #12 is far too high for my liking,
I don't know if I'd call that one "far too high." The current project has placed Lidström at 15. And (in keeping with my previous post), to the extent that having Lidström in the top-dozen could be considered an "unconventional" placing, it's an unconventional placing with which I agree.
and conversely, I think Jagr is too low.
I don't think we want to put another coin in that jukebox. We might not hear another tune all night!:eek:

Ultimately, it's for the Leadership Team to decide, but could I make the humble appeal to take the talk concerning THIS specific list to THIS specific thread, and not have musings concerning this list pepper the 'Top 100 Hockey Players of All-Time' thread(?)
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
That's about where I have Bathgate. Mahovlich though? I got him about two dozen slots back of that...

Obviously, if you did a supplemental, you'd find space for Fetisov and Makarov. Would you add additional Soviets as well?

I see that Chelios and Sprague Cleghorn are absent, which I'll concede is quite defensible if you pass out demerits due to the "Filthy-Factor." Buttressing this supposition is the fact that you have Clarke lower than many (my compliments). However, if dirty play is an item of negative significance, what's Ted Lindsay doing in the mid-30s?

I always said Fetisov should probably be around or slightly above Larry Robinson. Somewhere in the early 20's. Makarov just a hair beyond him. I'd also be interested in adding Tretiak in retrospect. Ball park, about 40-45. Maybe Kharlamov.

Chelios is at 33 actually! Big fan of his.

Cleghorn is absent. I think his problem is along the lines of Shore. How much did his insane, violent temper get him into trouble and how much did it affect his team in the long run. Dude was nearly banned from hockey. Different times, yes, but most people, even then, weren't being charged with assault haha.

As for Lindsay. I think, while he could be dirty, was the type of guy who, unlike Clarke, didn't need others to do his heavy lifting. Lindsay had no problem scrapping with anyone, and Ted was a small man. Lindsay played on the edge, but I think the bulk of his play wasn't viscous. And right or wrong, I think Lindsay deserves some credit for putting his career in jeapordy to help formulate the players union. He was on the front lines, while a player, fighting for more benefits and pay. Pretty sad what folks like Jack Adams tried to do to him.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Gaak! Oversight on my part re: Chelios.:oops: By my reckoning, I think I'll wind up having him around mid-30s. Again, pretty close to you, once accounting for the addition of Fetisov & Makarov.

Yup, I've got Tretiak and Kharlamov in my top-50.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Two notable players born after 1972 that had their legacy affected by injuries are Lindros and Forsberg. If they were more healthy, they'd be in top 50 for sure. McDavid is just a matter of time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
I personally have Forsberg in my top 50, by the way, but can see the arguments against it. Lindros, when he lost his wrecking ball style of play wasn't on the same level IMO. Forsberg had a truly elite hockey IQ, Lindros didn't if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I personally have Forsberg in my top 50, by the way, but can see the arguments against it. Lindros, when he lost his wrecking ball style of play wasn't on the same level IMO. Forsberg had a truly elite hockey IQ, Lindros didn't if you ask me.

Fair, objective comment. Agree. Lindros's approach? Wrecking Ball. Idiot pulled out the Sledgehammer when a Flyswatter wouldve been far more effective... and I did actually tell him precisely that to his face one drunken night as we shared cottage property not far from one another. If you want to scare, frighten people, make room for yourself... do it through "implied violence, hurt & pain". Targets mind do far more damage to the being than you ever will or could, might want to... Sadly, fell on deaf ears. I was neither the first nor last from whom he'd heard it but tell ya what..... it took Scott Stevens to actually flick that switch of illumination & it was a one time thing. Switch flicked, game over Baby. Eric knew that by the time he got nailed. Been hearing it, warned about it for years. Like he was on a Suicide Mission. Absolutely bizarre given all of that & the manner in which his own brothers career ended. His father as well, very tough Senior hockey player but fatally, soft melon. And he was a Fighter... until he'd been dropped with one punch one too many times and that was that... until he had kids... somehow forgot to tell them the 1st LAW of Hockey; Keep your Head UP Kid. Size doesnt matter if youve got your head down. Moron.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,209
17,566
Connecticut
I always said Fetisov should probably be around or slightly above Larry Robinson. Somewhere in the early 20's. Makarov just a hair beyond him. I'd also be interested in adding Tretiak in retrospect. Ball park, about 40-45. Maybe Kharlamov.

Chelios is at 33 actually! Big fan of his.

Cleghorn is absent. I think his problem is along the lines of Shore. How much did his insane, violent temper get him into trouble and how much did it affect his team in the long run. Dude was nearly banned from hockey. Different times, yes, but most people, even then, weren't being charged with assault haha.

As for Lindsay. I think, while he could be dirty, was the type of guy who, unlike Clarke, didn't need others to do his heavy lifting. Lindsay had no problem scrapping with anyone, and Ted was a small man. Lindsay played on the edge, but I think the bulk of his play wasn't viscous. And right or wrong, I think Lindsay deserves some credit for putting his career in jeapordy to help formulate the players union. He was on the front lines, while a player, fighting for more benefits and pay. Pretty sad what folks like Jack Adams tried to do to him.

Lindsay was top 5 in PIMs ten times. Seven times top 3. I got the impression he was very dirty. And , yes, he deserves credit for his work on the union. But that has nothing to do with his ranking as a player in this project.

Can't see how anyone would love Chelios. Respect him, perhaps. But he did some truly despicable things on the ice (and off).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->