Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

[Cole Caulifield]

Some factors that hurt the list IMHO :

-WW2
-The weight you put into intangibles
-Too much stock into regular season performances or not enough in playoffs ones

The biggest problem I have with the list though is the philosophy behind it. I simply do not have the same definition of what makes a player a great player as ogo.

Few would be ready to see guys like Yashin and Theodore as great players or players that had great careers.

I think longevity and overall quality of the career has to be taken into account as well in some ways.

An easy solution would be to weight down great season if the rest of the career is lackluster. Or weight up a player's great season if he had lots of good seasons to back his great season up. But the overall quality of the career has to be weighted in some ways rather than giving little to no weight to simply good seasons.

 

[MS]

A question for MS: you mentioned earlier half-weighting the WWII accomplishments. Would you suggest the same procedure for NHL players from about 1917 until the West Coast leagues died out? Because in the NHL's early days, many of hockey's top players played out west, not in the NHL. And I'd suggest that it was a greater portion of the game's top players outside the NHL in the early days than in the latter half of WWII.

The 1917-25 period is a really odd one, I agree. There are so many issues :

- as you say, scattered players across different leagues
- lack of major award voting/All-Star teams
- the assists situation - in 1923-24, 6 assists was good enough for 3rd in the league! Can register a 'dominant' season in that category almost by accident.
- general instablility in a new league in a developing sport

I disagree that it was as skewed as the 43-45 period - at that point only about 30% of the best players in the world were in the NHL. Seems to me (and I could stand to be corrected on this) that 60% or so of the best players in the world were in the NHL in the early '20s, with most of the rest in the PCHL.

I don't really know what to do with that period - the problems with the WW2 years are much more singularly cut-and-dried. Assists are a big problem - the standard deviation on samples that small is enormous, and I suspect this is how an average player like Prodgers makes the list (top-5 in assists a couple times while having <10 in a season).

I will say that misplacements don't jump out at me quite as much from that period as the WW2 guys - the era likely is underweighted somewhat by the lack of major awards to begin with. Cowley at #18 (great player, but probably should be 40-50) and Hollett, Cain, Carr ahead of clear-cut HHOF guys is the first and biggest thing that stands out for me.

__________

Agreed with your comments on postseason play. Needs to be factored in more.

The Hart trophy is also something that should be commented on. While it's pretty consistently been a 'most outstanding player' award since 1967, voting during the original 6 era often took the award's criteria very literally. The prime example is Al Rollins winning in 1953-54 as a token for his efforts behind a pitiful Blackhawk team. Or Ted Kennedy (one of the most misplaced players on the list at #20) winning it for his leadership in a year where he scored 10 goals. Neither would have come close to winning by the criteria on which the award his been voted in the past 40 years.

Result is that intangibles are completely ignored in some eras, but make it in through the side door in others.

 

[Vindel]

Man that must be the most inaccurate list I've ever seen.

Not only does it lack common sense, you also seem to measure players peaks instead of their "Careers"...


...I give credit anyway, because I realize that's your way of thinking and it surely must have taken a lot of your time.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The 1917-25 period is a really odd one, I agree. There are so many issues :

- as you say, scattered players across different leagues
- lack of major award voting/All-Star teams
- the assists situation - in 1923-24, 6 assists was good enough for 3rd in the league! Can register a 'dominant' season in that category almost by accident.
- general instablility in a new league in a developing sport

I disagree that it was as skewed as the 43-45 period - at that point only about 30% of the best players in the world were in the NHL. Seems to me (and I could stand to be corrected on this) that 60% or so of the best players in the world were in the NHL in the early '20s, with most of the rest in the PCHL.

I don't really know what to do with that period - the problems with the WW2 years are much more singularly cut-and-dried. Assists are a big problem - the standard deviation on samples that small is enormous, and I suspect this is how an average player like Prodgers makes the list (top-5 in assists a couple times while having <10 in a season).

I will say that misplacements don't jump out at me quite as much from that period as the WW2 guys - the era likely is underweighted somewhat by the lack of major awards to begin with. Cowley at #18 (great player, but probably should be 40-50) and Hollett, Cain, Carr ahead of clear-cut HHOF guys is the first and biggest thing that stands out for me.

__________

Agreed with your comments on postseason play. Needs to be factored in more.

The Hart trophy is also something that should be commented on. While it's pretty consistently been a 'most outstanding player' award since 1967, voting during the original 6 era often took the award's criteria very literally. The prime example is Al Rollins winning in 1953-54 as a token for his efforts behind a pitiful Blackhawk team. Or Ted Kennedy (one of the most misplaced players on the list at #20) winning it for his leadership in a year where he scored 10 goals. Neither would have come close to winning by the criteria on which the award his been voted in the past 40 years.

Result is that intangibles are completely ignored in some eras, but make it in through the side door in others.

I don't think that Teeder Kennedy is that misplaced. I would rate him in the top 50, because he was so damn good in the clutch. (I think he was No. 55 on the THN list). Go to the HHOF's retro Conn Smythe list. Kennedy has three. I don't put a ton of stock into it - it's nice and all, and a good research tool - but that's something that Richard, Beliveau, Howe, Shore, Harvey, etc. never pulled off.

You could make an excellent case for Kennedy as the greatest Leaf of all-time, and he's certainly in the top five.

Kennedy's a guy I wouldn't expect to find so high on this list. He won a Hart, but that was a tumultuous year, and Richard might have lost support due to the Richard Riot. Plus, Geoffrion had such a great year that season, so there might have been a vote split with Geoffrion and Richard, or voters might have punished them for playing on the same team. (Classic, pappy, mcphee or justsomeguy, can you help me with this one?)

Kennedy's a guy that I associate clutch play, all-round play and leadership with - not traits that are weighted heavily on Ogo's list. He didn't put up eye-popping numbers, but unless your name was Gordie Howe, nobody did in the late 40s/early 50s, when goal scoring dipped below five goals per game. Scoring a point-per-game was a very big accomplishment. I'm guessing that Teeder had a lot of seasons in which his all-round game and leadership earned him strong Hart support.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Or Ted Kennedy (one of the most misplaced players on the list at #20) winning it for his leadership in a year where he scored 10 goals.

In fairness to Kennedy, he won three retrospective Conn Smythe trophies, and I know Ogopogo takes those into account. Kennedy was also a three-time Hart finalist prior to winning it in his retirement year.
#20 is definitely too high, though.

Personally I'd probably rate Kennedy around #10-15 on the all-time centres list, roughly on par with Apps, Sakic, Yzerman and Schmidt.

 

[Sens Rule]

In fairness to Kennedy, he won three retrospective Conn Smythe trophies, and I know Ogopogo takes those into account. Kennedy was also a three-time Hart finalist prior to winning it in his retirement year.
#20 is definitely too high, though.

Personally I'd probably rate Kennedy around #10-15 on the all-time centres list, roughly on par with Apps, Sakic, Yzerman and Schmidt.

Where would you rate Kennedy in terms of all time Greatest Maple Leafs? (or anyone else on here where do you rate Kennedy as a Leaf?) I always think of him highly as he was my Uncle's favorite player and he talked about him quite a bit.

I have seen quite a few greatest Leaf lists in the last year or 2 here and Kennedy always seems to get shortchanged on them in my opinion. I don't know if Kennedy is the greatest Leaf ever but you could certainly make an very credible argument that he was the best Leaf ever. He certainly had a great deal of success as Captain.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Where would you rate Kennedy in terms of all time Greatest Maple Leafs? (or anyone else on here where do you rate Kennedy as a Leaf?)

I'd rank him somewhere in the top four along with Apps, Conacher and Kennedy. It's hard to compare Kennedy with Conacher and especially Horton because their styles are quite different. I'd probably have Horton 4th and I'm undecided for the top three.

Horton earned a spot on six all-star teams and was a 6-time Norris candidate (all with Toronto). He's arguably the greatest defensive defenseman ever and, incredibly, was 2nd in playoff scoring in 1962 when the Leafs won the Cup. He was a member of 4 Stanley Cup-winning teams and was probably the #1 defenseman for all of them.

Conacher led the league in goals five times, and won two Art Rosses. He led the playoffs in goals one year, and points another time. Conacher has a retrospective Conn Smythe, was a five-time all-star and won one Stanley Cup. He was a 2-time Hart finalist. All of these accomplishments came with Toronto. He used his considerable strength to overpower opponents, though he didn't fight much.

It's hard to compare a high-scoring power forward and a shutdown defensemen but Apps and Kennedy are very similar in style and accomplishments.

Apps and Kennedy were good playmakers but Apps was the better scorer overall. He was runner-up for the Art Ross three times and finished in the top ten 6 times. Kennedy peaked at 4th and was in the top ten 4 times. Apps led the league in assists twice, Kennedy did it once.

Both recieved a fairly impressive number of awards. Apps was a five-time finalist for the Hart trophy (finishing in 2nd place three times and in 3rd place twice). Kennedy won one Hart trophy (though it was almost certainly a political selection) and was a finalist in three other years. Apps was a five-time all-star (two first-team selections); Kennedy was a three-time all-star (all on the second-team). Apps also has a Calder and a Byng, but I don't think those are very relevant.

Both were known as good defensive players and leaders. Kennedy was rougher and more physical, but Apps was known as a very strong player who wouldn't back down to anyone. Kennedy was a much better checker. Both led their teams to considerable playoff success. The Leafs won more Stanley Cups with Apps as a captain (3-2) but more Cups with Kennedy overall (5-3).

Both were top playoff performers. Apps has one retrospective Conn Smythe trophy, and Kennedy has three (tying Roy for the most all-time). Apps led the playoffs in goals, assists and points once each (all in different years). He finished in the top five in goals 5 times, assists 3 times and points 4 times. Kennedy led the playoffs in goals twice, assists once and points once (in three different years). He finished in the top five in goals 4 times, assists 4 times and points 5 times.

Overall, Kennedy and Apps are roughly equal to each other. Apps has slightly more regular season hardware and was a better scorer, but Kennedy's toughness, 2 extra Conn Smythes and better defense nearly offset that. Both rank extremely high in leadership and playoff scoring. Apps and Kennedy are nearly equals to each other, and to Horton and Conacher. All deserve serious consideration as the greatest Leaf of all-time.

It would be interesting to hear Leaf Lander's perspective on this.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If you were to compile a list of the best players without a ring, say, the top 10, the vast majority of them reached their prime before the expansion to 21 teams in 1979. Park, Dionne and Giacomin - likely the best at their respective positions without a ring - reached their peak in the 70s. Ratelle would be in the top 10, too. Others, like Doug Bentley, Ullman, Gadsby and Quackenbush, who are likely in the top 10 without a ring, (the top three would definitely be in the top 10) played in the Original 6.

It's harder to build a dynasty now than it was 40-50 years ago. Thank the draft, increased trade activity and UFA status at 27 for the fact we may never see another dynasty in the NHL.

But it's likely easier for a player to win a Cup now than it was 50 years ago, because of that increased player movement. During the Original 6 era, if you weren't on Montreal or Toronto, you likely weren't going to win a ring. And Toronto, and especially Montreal, didn't make many trades. So if you weren't on Toronto or Montreal from the start of your career, you likely wouldn't win a ring. For every Andy Bathgate - a veteran traded to Toronto late in his career and won a ring - there are many more Bill Gadsby's.

Some interesting points, but I'd still say it's more likely for a star player to be left ring-less since the 1979 expansion than it is for a star from the original 6 era. Just off the top of my head you had Stastny, Hawerchuk, Goulet, Neely, D. Wilson, M. Howe, Langway, Liut, Middleton, Kerr, Propp, Lafontaine, and others from the 80s and early 90s, not to mention the large number of stars (not neccesarily all-time greats) from the past few years who haven't yet won. Guys like Oates, Lindros, Kariya, Roenick, Sundin, and Bure. Back in the 6 team league, if you got into the playoffs it was as though you were already in the conference final. Nobody ever did manage to knock off Montreal, Toronto, or Detroit for the Cup (save for the '61 Hawks), but no upstarts managed to knock off New Jersey, Detroit, or Colorado in the last decade either.

When listing the top-10 guys without a Cup, they may mostly be from past eras, but I would speculate that if the list were expanded to top-50 or top-100, there would be a lot more guys from the past 30 years filling it up.

 

[Ogopogo*]

the easiest thing to point out?

It's easier to be top 10 in scoring when there are 6 teams and say 120 players versus when there are 30 teams and what 800 guys?

It's easier to win the Hart and the scoring title in those situations.

There are some people with good points in this thread, this is not one of those situations.

How exactly is it easier to win the Hart or the scoring title with less teams in the NHL? That is completely absurd. If being the best hockey player in the NHL was a lottery from season to season and the Hart trophy was simply like a random draw, that would make sense.

Think of it this way, in 1982, Wayne Gretzky scored 212 points to win the scoring title and he also captured the Hart Trophy.

So, if we added a bunch more teams - let's say we expanded the NHL to 50 teams - then you are saying Gretzky may not have won the scoring title? How exactly would it be more difficult for the best player on the planet to win the scoring title if we added 600 minor leaguers to the NHL?

Same with Gordie Howe. He won the scoring title in 1952. What if the NHL doubled in size that year and added 6 expansion teams? Suddenly Howe would finish third in scoring? Simply because 120 AHLers was added to the league?

Not a chance.

That argument is simply absurd. Adding hundreds of mediocre players to the league will never lessen the chance of the best players on the planet of competing for a scoring title.

 

[Ogopogo*]

But what about the statistical dominance of a Cam Neely, who is ultimately penalized because his absolute totals are truncated by injuries? 50 goals in 49 games would work out to a lot more goals. And as others have mentioned, what of players who achieve high point totals with a balanced combination of G and A?

Injuries are life. Should we start handing out Stanley Cups to teams that lost key players at the beginning of the playoffs. "Sorry, tough break. Here's the cup you would have won if your team was healthy"

I don't give players credit they don't earn.

If you believe in your injury theory, where should Normand Leveille be on the all time list?


Players who have high point totals that are balanced goals and assists do very well in my system. You are looking at one extreme example and drawing some wrong conclusions because of it.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I dont know if its drugs ur taking or drugs you need to be taking but please do something. This has to be the worse list i've ever seen on these boards.

Your intelligent comments are always appreciated.

 

[seventieslord]

so many flaws so little time

the easiest thing to point out?

It's easier to be top 10 in scoring when there are 6 teams and say 120 players versus when there are 30 teams and what 800 guys?

It's easier to win the Hart and the scoring title in those situations.

Hell, it's easier to win the Stanley Cup.

Does that mean I'm suggesting current players are better than old ones? No, but I am saying if things like those accomplishments are all ranked by some kind of statistical equation, how could it possibly be a fair system?

It can't. That's why there is no statistical data available that could ever fairly rate the quality of a player now vs. a player then. It's all speculation. A statistically formula is frankly absurd.

You still had to be the best player in the world to win the hart... just like now. You still had to score the most points in the best hockey league in the world to win the art ross.... just like now. You still had to be the best goalie while facing most of the best talent in the world to win the vezina... just like now.

 

[Stephen]

Injuries are life. Should we start handing out Stanley Cups to teams that lost key players at the beginning of the playoffs. "Sorry, tough break. Here's the cup you would have won if your team was healthy"

I don't give players credit they don't earn.

If you believe in your injury theory, where should Normand Leveille be on the all time list?


Players who have high point totals that are balanced goals and assists do very well in my system. You are looking at one extreme example and drawing some wrong conclusions because of it.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today.

Neely's 50 goals in 49 games stands as a remarkable achievement in and of itself, and this in addition to his career with the Bruins as the prototypical modern power forward, his multiple trips to the cup finals and his 89 playoff points in 93 games should tell you he's better than at least a quarter of the players on your randomly generated list.

50 goals in 49 games is worth a lot more than Alexei Yashin's 40 odd goals in 1999. His 89 playoff points and point a game playoff scoring pace and the playoff success the Bruins achieved means a hell of a lot more than Alexei Yashin's 0.5 points per game rate in the playoffs and 2 playoff round victories.

The more you try to justify these calculations, the more you demonstrate that they're counter intuitive, non sensical and completely devoid of meaning and probably a huge waste of time.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today.

I am done with you. The ignore function comes in handy once in a while.

 

[barfy2000]

The main difference between Kurri and Naslund is that Naslund was near the top of the Hart Trophy balloting each of those three seasons. Kurri never had any consideration for the Hart. That makes Naslund's top three seasons superior to Kurri's in my book.

What makes this tough to say is, I hate the Canucks and Kurri is my 2nd favorite player of all time!

Ok, now I realize that the Hart and Pearson was a big factor, and I realize that this is representative of the way you have formulated the rankings, but don't you, at some point step back, and take a look at something like this and realize that something is amiss?

Anyone who has watched the game and seen both of the two play will instantly tell you that Kurri has had the better career. So I guess what I'm asking, is, do you plan on changing this (if at all) to at least mediate what seems like a no brainer?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ok, now I realize that the Hart and Pearson was a big factor, and I realize that this is representative of the way you have formulated the rankings, but don't you, at some point step back, and take a look at something like this and realize that something is amiss?

Anyone who has watched the game and seen both of the two play will instantly tell you that Kurri has had the better career. So I guess what I'm asking, is, do you plan on changing this (if at all) to at least mediate what seems like a no brainer?

If you have been reading the thread, I have said on more than one occasion that I am expanding things to include the top 20 players from each season. That should change things somewhat.

But, one thing that probably will always be true is that people underrate what Naslund did from 2002-2004. That was one of the great 3 year stretches in NHL history - better than any 3 year stretch Kurri had.

 

[arrbez]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today.

Neely's 50 goals in 49 games stands as a remarkable achievement in and of itself, and this in addition to his career with the Bruins as the prototypical modern power forward, his multiple trips to the cup finals and his 89 playoff points in 93 games should tell you he's better than at least a quarter of the players on your randomly generated list.

50 goals in 49 games is worth a lot more than Alexei Yashin's 40 odd goals in 1999, more than the talent diluted dominance of WWII era players, and certainly better than Naslund's Hart 'worthy' seasons.

I think you just need to realize that this list is based on hard evidence, and not "what if's" (and I don't mean that in a bad way...I'm a big subscriber to what-if theories). And for listing the greatest careers, that may be a valid method. If it were a list of top 100 greatest players ever, then I would have issue with it.

I feel Eric Lindros was a top-50 player, but I also realize that he did not have a top-50 career. There is a difference, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the word "career" is in the title.

 

[arrbez]

Ogo, what's the goalie info that you're trying to get from the NHL? I'm just racking my brain trying to find anything significant that isn't already available...

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogo, what's the goalie info that you're trying to get from the NHL? I'm just racking my brain trying to find anything significant that isn't already available...

There is no published information on historical voting records for the all star teams beyond who was elected 1st and 2nd team. It exists for recent years but, when you go earlier than the 70s, it does not exist. For me to have a fuller, more accurate goaltender rating system, I require the data that will tell me who was voted the third, fourth and fifth best goaltender each year.

The head statistician in NY thus far has not returned my calls or email. I think I will resort to a letter writing campaign.

 

[lemieux32*]

If you have been reading the thread, I have said on more than one occasion that I am expanding things to include the top 20 players from each season. That should change things somewhat.

But, one thing that probably will always be true is that people underrate what Naslund did from 2002-2004. That was one of the great 3 year stretches in NHL history - better than any 3 year stretch Kurri had.

You think this three year stretch is one of the greats in NHL history???

2001-02 Vancouver Canucks NHL 81 40 50 90 50
2002-03 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 48 56 104 52
2003-04 Vancouver Canucks NHL 78 35 49 84 58

and you think it is better then this stretch?

1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 52 61 113 14
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 73 71 64 135 30
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 78 68 63 131 22

 

[shawnmullin]

You still had to be the best player in the world to win the hart... just like now. You still had to score the most points in the best hockey league in the world to win the art ross.... just like now. You still had to be the best goalie while facing most of the best talent in the world to win the vezina... just like now.

But that wasn't really true back then. First of all, the Europeans wern't in the game at all. Secondly, for much of the early years of the NHL there were other pro leagues stealing away some of the best talent. Thirdly, you're competing with far fewer players for the top 10. If there are 200 NHLers or 600, it's easier to make the top 10 with 200. Especially the way the best talent in the world used to be spread out in different non-NHL leagues.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You think this three year stretch is one of the greats in NHL history???


and you think it is better then this stretch?

Yes. Let's analyze:

You think this three year stretch is one of the greats in NHL history???

Quote:
2001-02 Vancouver Canucks NHL 81 40 50 90 50 5th G, 4th A, 2nd Pts, 5th Hart Balloting
2002-03 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 48 56 104 52 2nd G, 8th A, 2nd Pts, 2nd Hart Balloting
2003-04 Vancouver Canucks NHL 78 35 49 84 58 7th G, 9th A, 4th Pts, 5th Hart Balloting

and you think it is better then this stretch?

Quote:
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 52 61 113 14 5th G, - A, 7th Pts, - Hart
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 73 71 64 135 30 2nd G, 9th A, 2nd Pts, - Hart
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 78 68 63 131 22 1st G, 9th A, 4th Pts, - Hart


(- means out of top 10)


Kurri was the better goal scorer, Naslund was the better playmaker, and Naslund was better in overall points. The clincher is that Naslund was seriously considered for three Hart Trophies and Kurri was never considered for any.

You can't take point totals at face value - you need perspective. Players from the 80s will always have higher totals, that was the way hockey was played back then. When you look at the real impact of Naslund's 2002-2004 vs Kurri's 84-86 it is clear that Naslund had the better three year stretch.

 

[ered7]

Yes. Let's analyze:

You think this three year stretch is one of the greats in NHL history???

Quote:
2001-02 Vancouver Canucks NHL 81 40 50 90 50 5th G, 4th A, 2nd Pts, 5th Hart Balloting
2002-03 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 48 56 104 52 2nd G, 8th A, 2nd Pts, 2nd Hart Balloting
2003-04 Vancouver Canucks NHL 78 35 49 84 58 7th G, 9th A, 4th Pts, 5th Hart Balloting

and you think it is better then this stretch?

Quote:
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 52 61 113 14 5th G, - A, 7th Pts, - Hart
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 73 71 64 135 30 2nd G, 9th A, 2nd Pts, - Hart
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 78 68 63 131 22 1st G, 9th A, 4th Pts, - Hart


(- means out of top 10)


Kurri was the better goal scorer, Naslund was the better playmaker, and Naslund was better in overall points. The clincher is that Naslund was seriously considered for three Hart Trophies and Kurri was never considered for any.

You can't take point totals at face value - you need perspective. Players from the 80s will always have higher totals, that was the way hockey was played back then. When you look at the real impact of Naslund's 2002-2004 vs Kurri's 84-86 it is clear that Naslund had the better three year stretch.

I still think listing the players that just missed the list might be useful for the sake of the discussion. Observationally, I would suggest that it's helpful for people to see how quality players with quality numbers, that missed the list, stack up against players that made it. I'm not convinced that all variables are or can be fully adjusted for, such as: equipment changes, style of play, level of competition, expansion, etc...There are factors beyond just production that contribute to the statement "greatest career" that may or may not be evident in the list methodology. These factors may or may not be easily quantifiable.

How does one balance playing on a good team with productive teammates? Does that hurt a player or help player? Is it even possible to assume production for a player had they not played with the team and teammates they did? As I said, a lot goes into production, not just the raw numbers a player's stat sheet shows. Line position, pp time, and the offensive system played all play a role in a player's productivity. That's just scratching the surface. Factor in level of competition or the level of opposing goaltenders faced, and really the issue becomes a lot more complicated.

 

[seventieslord]

But that wasn't really true back then. First of all, the Europeans wern't in the game at all. Secondly, for much of the early years of the NHL there were other pro leagues stealing away some of the best talent. Thirdly, you're competing with far fewer players for the top 10. If there are 200 NHLers or 600, it's easier to make the top 10 with 200. Especially the way the best talent in the world used to be spread out in different non-NHL leagues.

you're not grasping it. the best 10 players in the world were almost always in the NHL, with minor exceptions. It was still the best league in the world. These players were still the best players in the best league in their time. As european hockey caught up as the 70's approached, this became less true, but by then there were 12-17 teams so you wouldn't consider that an era affected by this.

 

[pnep]

Where would you rate Kennedy in terms of all time Greatest Maple Leafs? (or anyone else on here where do you rate Kennedy as a Leaf?) I always think of him highly as he was my Uncle's favorite player and he talked about him quite a bit.

I have seen quite a few greatest Leaf lists in the last year or 2 here and Kennedy always seems to get shortchanged on them in my opinion. I don't know if Kennedy is the greatest Leaf ever but you could certainly make an very credible argument that he was the best Leaf ever. He certainly had a great deal of success as Captain.

Player | Pos| "HHOF Monitor" Pts
Walter "Turk" Broda | G| 1960,00
C.J. Syl "Slippery Syl" Apps | C| 1950,00
Charlie "Big Blue Bomber" Conacher| RW| 1872,00
Cecil "Babe" Dye | RW| 1664,00
Ted "Teeder" Kennedy | C| 1627,50
Johnny "China Wall" Bower | G| 1525,50
Frank "Big M" Mahovlich | LW |1391,00
Tim "Superman" Horton | D| 1344,85
Harvey "Busher" Jackson | LW| 1325,50
Dave Keon | C| 1323,50