My HoH Top 50 Players Of All Time!

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
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.
So- I took the liberty of speculatively adding the four additional Russians in a manner generally in accordance with your apparent prescriptions, and came up with something like this:

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Maurice Richard
10. Ray Bourque
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek
16. Red Kelly
17. Jacques Plante
18. Stan Mikita
19. Denis Potvin
20. Martin Brodeur
21. Howie Morenz
22. Frank Nighbor
23. Cyclone Taylor
24. Phil Esposito
25. Slava Fetisov
26. Larry Robinson
27. Sergei Makarox
28. Guy Lafleur
29. Jaromir Jagr
30. Glenn Hall
31. Bryan Trottier
32. Bobby Clarke
33. Terry Sawchuk
34. Ken Dryden
35. Chris Chelios
36. Joe Sakic
37. Ted Lindsay
38. Alex Ovechkin
39. Bill Cook
40. Mike Bossy
41. Newsy Lalonde
42. King Clancy
43. Pierre Pilote
44. Steve Yzerman
45. Vladisav Tretiak
46. Earl Seibert
47. Henri Richard
48. Frank Boucher
49. Frank Mahovlich
50. Valeri Kharlamov


Well- at least it's here in easy-to-tweak form, standing by for your further adjustments.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
So- I took the liberty of speculatively adding the four additional Russians in a manner generally in accordance with your apparent prescriptions, and came up with something like this:

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Maurice Richard
10. Ray Bourque
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek
16. Red Kelly
17. Jacques Plante
18. Stan Mikita
19. Denis Potvin
20. Martin Brodeur
21. Howie Morenz
22. Frank Nighbor
23. Cyclone Taylor
24. Phil Esposito
25. Slava Fetisov
26. Larry Robinson
27. Sergei Makarox
28. Guy Lafleur
29. Jaromir Jagr
30. Glenn Hall
31. Bryan Trottier
32. Bobby Clarke
33. Terry Sawchuk
34. Ken Dryden
35. Chris Chelios
36. Joe Sakic
37. Ted Lindsay
38. Alex Ovechkin
39. Bill Cook
40. Mike Bossy
41. Newsy Lalonde
42. King Clancy
43. Pierre Pilote
44. Steve Yzerman
45. Vladisav Tretiak
46. Earl Seibert
47. Henri Richard
48. Frank Boucher
49. Frank Mahovlich
50. Valeri Kharlamov


Well- at least it's here in easy-to-tweak form, standing by for your further adjustments.

That's honestly about where I'd be with the Soviets. Could even see an argument for Fetisov and Makarov being slightly higher. Same with Tretiak who I think is underrated among goalies.

Obviously I'd also have Ovechkin much higher given his Cup win and Smythe and pace he's setting this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownPhilly

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Well you literally quoted Nighbor's career NHL GP and Points totals as a way of scoffing at IE putting him on the list, did you not?

... Not to mention, counting the 36 and 37 Y.O. seasons, and adding 71 games and 7 points, making the ratio look much worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Ok, since we're going to dance around the point...

Frank Nighbor's legacy includes 5 very productive seasons in the NHA and PCHA, and to suggest he's unworthy of a top-whatever list because of and only because of his career NHL numbers is to ignore those (non-NHL) seasons.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Ok, since we're going to dance around the point...

Frank Nighbor's legacy includes 5 very productive seasons in the NHA and PCHA, and to suggest he's unworthy of a top-whatever list because of and only because of his career NHL numbers is to ignore those (non-NHL) seasons.

For the record, I wasn't ignoring Nighbor's stats in the NHA and PCHA, I didn't know they existed

I was asked which players I would remove from the list, so I went to hockey reference to research some of the players I'm not that familiar with. Upon seeing Nighbor's NHL stats - the only stats I was aware of - I included Nighbor on my list of players I would remove

For some reason, this oversight on my part was interpreted by seventieslord as a bias against non-NHLers
 
Last edited:

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
For the record, I wasn't ignoring Nighbor's stats in the NHA and PCHA, I didn't know they existed

I was asked which players I would remove from the list, so I went to hockey reference to research some of the players I'm not that familiar with. Upon seeing Nighbor's NHL stats - the only stats I was aware of - I included Nighbor on my list of players I would remove

For some reason, this oversight on my part was interpreted by seventieslord as a bias against non-NHLers
If your method of gathering and processing information causes you to leave out or ignore an entire subset of history, that's a personal bias at work, and it doesn't make you antagonistic or untrustworthy in the way people keep using that word. ("I'm not biased, you're biased, no you are") The majority of biases at play in these kind of exercises involve a disparity in how complete our mental inventories are on these players (e.g. I might overrate a 90s Toronto Maple Leaf I liked relative to a 50s Soviet because I have all kinds of things to say about his complete game, but underrate a 90s Toronto Maple Leaf who annoyed me relative to the same guy, because I have few negative things to say about the guy I know less about.) The only way to avoid those disparities is to be completely omniscient, or completely ignorant across the board (I carry no biases over Australian Cricket legends as far as I can tell).

Seventies may have come on a little strong with his response, but bias was the correct word and it's nothing to be afraid of. The important thing is that you were pointed towards Nighbor's NHA and PCHA record and that's a positive thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
If your method of gathering and processing information causes you to leave out or ignore an entire subset of history, that's a personal bias at work, and it doesn't make you antagonistic or untrustworthy in the way people keep using that word. ("I'm not biased, you're biased, no you are") The majority of biases at play in these kind of exercises involve a disparity in how complete our mental inventories are on these players (e.g. I might overrate a 90s Toronto Maple Leaf I liked relative to a 50s Soviet because I have all kinds of things to say about his complete game, but underrate a 90s Toronto Maple Leaf who annoyed me relative to the same guy, because I have few negative things to say about the guy I know less about.) The only way to avoid those disparities is to be completely omniscient, or completely ignorant across the board (I carry no biases over Australian Cricket legends as far as I can tell).

Seventies may have come on a little strong with his response, but bias was the correct word and it's nothing to be afraid of. The important thing is that you were pointed towards Nighbor's NHA and PCHA record and that's a positive thing.

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair

There was no bias on my part, I simply wasn't aware he had played in the NHA and PCHA, and therefore, didn't think to look up his stats for those particular leagues
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair

There was no bias on my part, I simply wasn't aware he had played in the NHA and PCHA, and therefore, didn't think to look up his stats for those particular leagues
Biases don't have to be conscious, and the above doesn't say it has to be. To use the above wording, I think you'd agree that discounting Nighbor's pre-NHL play works "against one thing (Nighbor) compared with another (players who weren't right in the middle of their prime when the NHL was founded, say, Howie Morenz), in a way that is unfair (why does Nighbor get 5 years cut off and nobody else does)". I think many more people would be quick to call out the same argument used against Slava Fetisov ("192 points in 546 games, wtf"), but the reason for such bias would likely be the same - a gap in historical understanding.

So no, I don't believe you have a conscious bias in that case, but we all carry biases nonetheless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->