Scotty Bowman's Top 100 Canadian Players

[Hawkey Town 18]

Well thankfully Bowman actually saw Richard play and doesn't need to simply look at a stat sheet and disregard players from older eras. I don't think it's difficult at all to see Orr, Howe and especially Richard as more fearless and complete players than Gretzky and Lemieux.
Also, the domination of stats (if the that's your criteria) are comparable relative to the other players in their eras. As are the number of seasons playing at a top level (except Orr unfortunately).

Richard never dominated statistically to the degree that the other 4 did.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Richard never dominated statistically to the degree that the other 4 did.

with the exception, arguably, of playoff goal scoring.

 

[charliolemieux]

From a special edition of Hockey Le Magazine. 9 other lists from longtime coaches, referees, and media members were also included. But I think Bowman's is the most interesting, considering his stature in the hockey world.

87. Wendel Clark

Lowest on:
Gretzky
Messier
Bowman
Yzerman
Brodeur
Dionne
Coffey
Trottier
Francis
Robitaille
Denis Savard
Shanahan
Gilmour
Hawerchuk
Nieuwendyk
Gartner
Oates
Iginla
McDonald
Turgeon
Fleury

Love seeing Clark at 87, but I'm a bit confused about Bowman being lower on Bowman?

 

[Czech Your Math]

I hope Bowman's list demonstrates, once and for all, the difficulty with using and arguing with the "eye test." How many posts have I seen to the effect of "I played in midget/juniors/whatever... had season tickets/NHL Center Ice for X years... so this contextual data you cite means nothing to me"? Well, if a man with the experience and success of Scotty Bowman can issue such a list, then it shows that no matter how much one knows and watches the game, the eye test can be faulty, at least in the "eyes" of others. Whether one wants to attribute it to faulty eyes, fuzzy memories, or bias (intentional or not), it seems obvious that the eyes don't always have it. I also hope it helps us appreciate that opinions can and often will differ quite a bit, depending on the evaluator and his/her criteria for ranking players.

 

[craigcaulks*]

Stan Fischler is starting to look reasonable.

Bowman was 4 when Morenz died. He must have really learned a lot in those 4 years to put him so high. Or maybe he just checked out lots of youtube videos of him, like most of HF.

 

[craigcaulks*]

brett hull was born in ontario, and spent good parts of his childhood in winnipeg and north vancouver. he was eight years old when the family left chicago for winnipeg. canada was where he was mostly trained until he went to university of minnesta-duluth, where he only stayed two years.

he is considered an american player because he holds dual citizenship and couldn't make the canadian WJC team when he was an overweight teenager.

I never saw him play in the BCJHL, but friends of mine who worked for the team said he was ridiculous in his 105 goal season.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Bowman was 4 when Morenz died. He must have really learned a lot in those 4 years to put him so high. Or maybe he just checked out lots of youtube videos of him, like most of HF.

You do realize one needn't have been alive for or have seen You Tube videos of a player to have an informed opinion on a player right? There's a bunch of studies in this section where pre-original 6 players are being ranked. See the Goaltender's Study.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I never saw him play in the BCJHL, but friends of mine who worked for the team said he was ridiculous in his 105 goal season.

i certainly didn't see it either, but looking at those stats, they are phenomenal. i would have loved to see it. do you have any stories of hull in those years from your friends?

the reality check is that this isn't exactly mario destroying the GPG mark in the Q at 17. i guess you'd have to take into account that hull was 19 years old that year (i.e., old enough to be in the AHL), playing against sub-CHL competition. i mean, guys we've never heard like jeff mclean and bill shibicky were putting up 160 point seasons in that league in the 80s (hull had 188). hull was outscored by cliff ronning (and four other guys that had 33 NHL games between them) in that league when he was 18. they were the same age.

here are the guys that canada took for the WJC team the year hull played for USA:

Shayne Corson 7 7 7 14
Joe Murphy 7 4 10 14
Jim Sandlak 7 5 7 12
Joe Nieuwendyk 7 5 7 12
Gary Roberts 7 6 3 9
Scott Mellanby 7 5 4 9
Al Conroy 7 4 4 8
Luc Robitaille 7 3 5 8
Peter Douris 7 4 2 6
Mike Stapleton 7 3 3 6
Alain Cote 7 1 4 5
Derek Laxdal 7 1 4 5
Sylvain Cote 7 1 4 5
Jeff Greenlaw 7 3 1 4
Terry Carkner 7 0 4 4
Dave Moylan 7 1 2 3
Emanuel Viveiros 7 1 1 2
Selmar Odelein 7 0 1 1

even luc robitaille, a guy who no one thought would make a dent in the NHL, made that team, which goes to show how low BCJHL play was considered. and while hull was drafted earlier than robitaille, the flames have a history of using later picks to take guys who would sell tickets for their minor league affiliate (theo fleury being the other big example).

all that said, i would have loved to see hull score at will in that league. by his own account, hull could barely keep up at that level, skating-wise. but his off-the-charts offensive vision allowed him to dominate that league, and obviously what a shot. there's this great anecdote from hull's autobiography where bobby hull visits the dressing room before a game and one of his teammates laughs, "hullie, your dad is 45 years old and he looks like an adonis. you look like the pillsbury doughboy. how did you turn those genes into this? [points to his stomach]"

 

[craigcaulks*]

You do realize one needn't have been alive for or have seen You Tube videos of a player to have an informed opinion on a player right? There's a bunch of studies in this section where pre-original 6 players are being ranked. See the Goaltender's Study.

Sure, one needn't have ever seen a player to have a useful comparative opinion to others. I am a better hockey player than you.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Sure, one needn't have ever seen a player to have a useful comparative opinion to others. I am a better hockey player than you.

You're claiming to agree, but it seems like you really don't. Do you understand what's done in the History section in general?

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Richard never dominated statistically to the degree that the other 4 did.

Which is why he benefits from the aura that surrounds certain players and boosts their overall ranking. Great player, no doubt, but is he really top 10? I am not arguing against or for his top 10 ranking, just throwing it out there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Sure, one needn't have ever seen a player to have a useful comparative opinion to others. I am a better hockey player than you.

Let us know your playing history -- league, position, basic stats -- and it shouldn't be too hard to verify that claim.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I hope Bowman's list demonstrates, once and for all, the difficulty with using and arguing with the "eye test." How many posts have I seen to the effect of "I played in midget/juniors/whatever... had season tickets/NHL Center Ice for X years... so this contextual data you cite means nothing to me"? Well, if a man with the experience and success of Scotty Bowman can issue such a list, then it shows that no matter how much one knows and watches the game, the eye test can be faulty, at least in the "eyes" of others. Whether one wants to attribute it to faulty eyes, fuzzy memories, or bias (intentional or not), it seems obvious that the eyes don't always have it. I also hope it helps us appreciate that opinions can and often will differ quite a bit,depending on the evaluator and his/her criteria for ranking players.

If we could say "The numbers never lie" then I would agree. But that's not true either.

Seems like you are presuming that because Bowman's list isn't like ours that its a bad list. I wouldn't be so sure that is correct.

Last sentence is an excellent one. Criteria is huge (do we really know Bowman's?).

And I didn't play whatever, but did have season tickets for 14 years and Center Ice for 10. Though the memory is fuzzy, I am clearly the least biased poster here (or anywhere).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Sure, one needn't have ever seen a player to have a useful comparative opinion to others. I am a better hockey player than you.

No doubt you are: I don't know how to skate after all. But that's neither here nor there as neither you nor I will be talked about on a hockey forum 50 years hence. Guys like Morenz and Richard are and will be and there is plenty of good scholarship in this section to make reasonable conclusions of how good they were as players.

 

[Big Phil]

I hope Bowman's list demonstrates, once and for all, the difficulty with using and arguing with the "eye test." How many posts have I seen to the effect of "I played in midget/juniors/whatever... had season tickets/NHL Center Ice for X years... so this contextual data you cite means nothing to me"? Well, if a man with the experience and success of Scotty Bowman can issue such a list, then it shows that no matter how much one knows and watches the game, the eye test can be faulty, at least in the "eyes" of others. Whether one wants to attribute it to faulty eyes, fuzzy memories, or bias (intentional or not), it seems obvious that the eyes don't always have it. I also hope it helps us appreciate that opinions can and often will differ quite a bit, depending on the evaluator and his/her criteria for ranking players.

This is why I think debating players is a melting pot of tools. One of them is certainly the eye test. The other is numbers, the other is comparing them with their peers. To only use one or the other is faulty. We have plenty of video to choose from this day and age we should be able to assess a player using everything at our disposal when necessary. There are people who relied far too much on raw stats and numbers and others who rely too much on "I saw him play and this is how I remember it". Bowman seems to fall on the latter.

 

[Darth Joker]

Crisp's list is pretty flawed, but at least:

1. His Top 20 isn't too bad. The most eyebrow raising thing there is Coffey as 2nd defensemen. But I think that's explained by...

2. Crisp clearly puts a high emphasis on pure offense. That doesn't explain everything on this list, but it probably helps explain some things (like Pronger and Shore being that far behind Niedermayer). So I like that there's at least some internal consistency to Crisp's list. Basically, this is a list that proponents of firewagon hockey might find pleasing.


Some noticeable patterns with all these lists:

1. Playoff success means a helluva lot (maybe that's part of the reason why Bowman has Crosby ahead of Bourque). While I also think that playoff success should count for a lot, I think it's getting a touch overrated on these lists.

2. You can see the effects that a media echo chamber might be having here. Niedermayer really is getting overrated across the board. These experts are still just human - If they read or hear fellow hockey experts saying great things about certain players all the time it might start to skew their ratings a bit.

3. With 2 in mind, I think having played for a Canadian team helps. I honestly think that's helping Nieuwendyk, Andreychuk, Linden, Lowe, and Babych amongst some others (and as a Habs fan, I'll admit Red is showing some heavy homerism here). Roy and Pronger might be getting "punished" for "betraying" Canadian teams (Habs and Oilers respectively).

 

[Nalens Oga]

Ooh, interesting omission from all the lists we've seen so far. Are there any others who might be borderline cases (no pun intended)?

I noticed Ted Lindsay isn't on there on that alternative, more deserving than Brett Hull imo. Obviously that list is a bit messed up, take out the Nieuwendyk's and Billy Smiht's, add a few O6 players and a couple Russians (I personally think all pre-O6 lists should be separate so I won't comment on them).

Also from the top 20, Hasek is too far behind Roy/Brodeur but maybe not if you value the playoffs and gap between Yzerman/Sakic is too large.

I also have a huge issue with Doughty being on Bowman's list based on the criteria "what if he retired today." Let's see what he's done, one Norris nomination for a great season in 09-10, an Olympic Gold that season, and a good PLAYOFF but not regular season perfromance in 11-12 leading to a cup in 11-12. To me that's not enough, other dmen have had as good if not better peaks. So now you factor in what he WILL accomplish in his career assuming his play is not as consistent as it was in the playoffs last season but better than it was during the regular season. Based on this it's still borderline and you can then make the argument that Alex Pietrangelo or Karlsson or whatever other young dman whose potential you like (I think Myers will get back on track assuming no injury or mini-slump like last season) should be on the list. I'm fine with Crosby, I wouldn't even care if they put Crosby top 20 based on how much he's dominated but I can't put Doughty there based on one season/olympic plus one playoff.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I noticed Ted Lindsay isn't on there on that alternative, more deserving than Brett Hull imo. Obviously that list is a bit messed up, take out the Nieuwendyk's and Billy Smiht's, add a few O6 players and a couple Russians (I personally think all pre-O6 lists should be separate so I won't comment on them).

Also from the top 20, Hasek is too far behind Roy/Brodeur but maybe not if you value the playoffs and gap between Yzerman/Sakic is too large.

I also have a huge issue with Doughty being on Bowman's list based on the criteria "what if he retired today." Let's see what he's done, one Norris nomination for a great season in 09-10, an Olympic Gold that season, and a good PLAYOFF but not regular season perfromance in 11-12 leading to a cup in 11-12. To me that's not enough, other dmen have had as good if not better peaks. So now you factor in what he WILL accomplish in his career assuming his play is not as consistent as it was in the playoffs last season but better than it was during the regular season. Based on this it's still borderline and you can then make the argument that Alex Pietrangelo or Karlsson or whatever other young dman whose potential you like (I think Myers will get back on track assuming no injury or mini-slump like last season) should be on the list. I'm fine with Crosby, I wouldn't even care if they put Crosby top 20 based on how much he's dominated but I can't put Doughty there based on one season/olympic plus one playoff.

What makes you think this is part of Bowman's criteria?

 

[Big Phil]

1. Playoff success means a helluva lot (maybe that's part of the reason why Bowman has Crosby ahead of Bourque). While I also think that playoff success should count for a lot, I think it's getting a touch overrated on these lists.

I'll even go further here............on what basis is Crosby a better all-time playoff performer than Bourque? If we look at Bourque's career and see that he didn't win a Cup until his 22nd season then I guess it is safe to assume he wasn't a great playoff performer. Except that it's incorrect. Bourque was almost always the best and most important Bruin in their playoff runs. Crosby has not been the better playoff performer.

 

[overpass]

Love seeing Clark at 87, but I'm a bit confused about Bowman being lower on Bowman?

Heh. I obviously mistyped that one - not sure who I meant and can't be bothered to go back and check now.

In the big picture, I think the lists posted here show that not everyone is as consensus-driven as some folks around here who like to post lists are. These hockey personalities have their own point of view and opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that. Individual lists should be defensible but they can't be neatly divided into "right" and "wrong" rankings.

Also, I think it shows that while posters in this section may not have the first-hand experience with players that these hockey personalities do, we have put a lot more thought into how to build lists of hockey players and how to rank players of different eras against each other.

 

[Nalens Oga]

What makes you think this is part of Bowman's criteria?

It's not but it's a criteria I generally see here and agree with to most extent. Either you go with that or his potential which is less accurate but like I said if you go with his potential then there are other dmen you can place there. I'd rather go with Shea Weber for example based on what Weber's done in the past few yrs and will do in the next few, I see Weber as a more imposing and dominant + consistent dman.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'll even go further here............on what basis is Crosby a better all-time playoff performer than Bourque? If we look at Bourque's career and see that he didn't win a Cup until his 22nd season then I guess it is safe to assume he wasn't a great playoff performer. Except that it's incorrect. Bourque was almost always the best and most important Bruin in their playoff runs. Crosby has not been the better playoff performer.

Not all time yet but at the same stage of their careers Sid is way ahead in both regular season and playoff performance.

But looking at Scotty's list it's really hard to see what his criteria was.

 

[Big Phil]

Not all time yet but at the same stage of their careers Sid is way ahead in both regular season and playoff performance.

But looking at Scotty's list it's really hard to see what his criteria was.

Same stage is regardless. Bourque played more than 7 NHL seasons. The criteria for these lists should be the same for any other list. Who was the better player plain and simple.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Same stage is regardless. Bourque played more than 7 NHL seasons. The criteria for these lists should be the same for any other list. Who was the better player plain and simple.

I agree but it's pretty obvious with Sid, Jonathan and Drew on Scottys list, he must be using some projection here don't you think?

 

[toob]

can someone please scan the other lists?