So after 09-10, are Crosby and Ovie in the HoH top 100 yet?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Guy Lafleur commentary got me thinking - how far are Crosby and Ovechkin actually behind Lafleur?

Lafleur is rated a top 20 player because of his amazing 6 year peak - what he did outside the peak adds very little to his value. He's rated so highly because he is widely considered the best player. the NHL's true superstar, between Orr and Gretzky.

Well... Ovechkin and Crosby have been stars for 5 years now. And for several years now, they are widely considered the best two players in the league.

They lack Lafleur's playoff success, but their individual numbers are very comparable.

This is why I'd love for the final Top 100 list to only include players who played games before the lockout - it's simply too hard to rate Crosby and Ovechkin objectively at this point.

 

[Epsilon]

The Guy Lafleur commentary got me thinking - how far are Crosby and Ovechkin actually behind Lafleur?

Lafleur is rated a top 20 player because of his amazing 6 year peak - what he did outside the peak adds very little to his value. He's rated so highly because he is widely considered the best player. the NHL's true superstar, between Orr and Gretzky.

Well... Ovechkin and Crosby have been stars for 5 years now. And for several years now, they are widely considered the best two players in the league.

They lack Lafleur's playoff success, but their individual numbers are very comparable.

This is why I'd love for the final Top 100 list to only include players who played games before the lockout - it's simply too hard to rate Crosby and Ovechkin objectively at this point.

Personally I think players who are in the primes of their careers, or even in the relatively early stages, can be ranked against other players, but it requires being very careful about how they are measured. PPG numbers are obviously useless, and projecting (like THN did with their now embarrassing ranking of Lindros) has to be a big no-no. Basically what you need to weigh is raw numbers, accomplishments (trophies, rankings, championships, etc.), and relative play against their peers (which includes trying to estimate relative strength of era).

 

[Xavier Laflamme*]

I thought one of Crosby's wingers (Iginla) did 90% of the work on Crosby's OT goal. I honestly don't give Crosby too much credit for the 2010 Olympics, when he invisible for pretty much the entire tournament, until Iginla fed him a pass that left him basically alone in front.

Sid produced at a PPG during the olympics but you're right, for Crosby standards, it was pretty average.

As far as the goal he scored, it was Sid who entered the zone, poke checked the puck from the defender along the boards and then you could hear him hollar as plain as day for the pass and put in a nice quick shot fivehole that beat Miller.

But yeah, Crosby and Ovechkin are both out of this world talents, you can obviously make a case for both and shouldn't be put down for taking one over the other. I personally like Sid's all around game compared to OV but that's just me.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The Guy Lafleur commentary got me thinking - how far are Crosby and Ovechkin actually behind Lafleur?

Lafleur is rated a top 20 player because of his amazing 6 year peak - what he did outside the peak adds very little to his value. He's rated so highly because he is widely considered the best player. the NHL's true superstar, between Orr and Gretzky.

Well... Ovechkin and Crosby have been stars for 5 years now. And for several years now, they are widely considered the best two players in the league.

They lack Lafleur's playoff success, but their individual numbers are very comparable.

This is why I'd love for the final Top 100 list to only include players who played games before the lockout - it's simply too hard to rate Crosby and Ovechkin objectively at this point.

It would definitely be a smart idea to put a wait time on ranking anyone in the list or maybe a minimum games played.. something along those lines.

 

[seventieslord]

No. All you have to do is pretend his career ends today. Then ask - Has he done enough yet to outweigh the accomplishments of the guy in the 100th spot who had a longer but less spectacular career? What about the guy in 99th? 98th? and so on.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No. All you have to do is pretend his career ends today. Then ask - Has he done enough yet to outweigh the accomplishments of the guy in the 100th spot who had a longer but less spectacular career? What about the guy in 99th? 98th? and so on.

The biggest reason for the waiting period is to make sure that you don't have your contemporary glasses on when comparing said players.

It is very easy to bias yourself when one player is still playing and fresh in your memory and you are comparing to a player who you never even saw.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No. All you have to do is pretend his career ends today. Then ask - Has he done enough yet to outweigh the accomplishments of the guy in the 100th spot who had a longer but less spectacular career? What about the guy in 99th? 98th? and so on.

This is definitely doable. The problem is that right now, Crosby and Ovechkin are probably going to slot in somewhere in the 70s or 80s. But in a few years, they very well could be in Lafleur territory and their position on the list will look silly.

On another note, we really need to start up that list again.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is definitely doable. The problem is that right now, Crosby and Ovechkin are probably going to slot in somewhere in the 70s or 80s. But in a few years, they very well could be in Lafleur territory and their position on the list will look silly.

On another note, we really need to start up that list again.

This why I don't think they should be included yet.

Slotting them on their accomplishment so far means I'll be ranking them behind many players that I know couldn't carry their straps.

 

[seventieslord]

The biggest reason for the waiting period is to make sure that you don't have your contemporary glasses on when comparing said players.

It is very easy to bias yourself when one player is still playing and fresh in your memory and you are comparing to a player who you never even saw.

If anything, I have been biased against modern players, but I am trying to change that.

This is definitely doable. The problem is that right now, Crosby and Ovechkin are probably going to slot in somewhere in the 70s or 80s. But in a few years, they very well could be in Lafleur territory and their position on the list will look silly.

On another note, we really need to start up that list again.

It would definitely look silly, but of course anyone seeing it would know that it was done at a certain point in time. I'm not interested in "predictive" ranking, not that I think you are, either.

I'll PM FF right now - he must not have seen my post.

 

[unknown33]

It is very easy to bias yourself when one player is still playing and fresh in your memory and you are comparing to a player who you never even saw.

Leads to bias towards the older player more often imo.

 

[SidGenoMario]

I definitely think you guys should vote Crosby and Ovechkin in next time. Obviously, don't project, but I think what they've already accomplished at this point in time is enough to get them on the list.

I think someone said they'd be uncomfortable with putting them on the list because they'd be ranked low, and would be obviously better players than the ones higher than them. But that's how it should work. We rank players based on what they accomplished, not just their peak. That's why Crosvechkin should be in the 80's-90's, and that's why Lindros, one of the most dominating players of all-time, isn't even on the list.

And to the guy who said it would lucky silly in future years, with them ranked so low, the only people seeing this list will be us, and we will all understand the circumstances of the voting. And besides, that scenario has been done before with a player like Lidstrom. I'm not sure where you guys had him whenever you started this, but at that time you probably didn't think of him as a top 5 defensemen like you do now.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Context is everything and we can only judge what both players have done to date, looking back if a poll had been done in 1983 and Gretzky wasn't in the top 10 or even top 50 (or whatever number he would have been placed at then) at that point but had only been in the league for 4 years and no Stanley Cups until the next season.

That's why it is better to include players after they have finished playing but the truly great ones creep into the top 100 list long before they are done, that's one of the reasons great players are considered great IMO.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Context is everything and we can only judge what both players have done to date, looking back if a poll had been done in 1983 and Gretzky wasn't in the top 10 or even top 50 (or whatever number he would have been placed at then) at that point but had only been in the league for 4 years and no Stanley Cups until the next season.

That's why it is better to include players after they have finished playing but the truly great ones creep into the top 100 list long before they are done, that's one of the reasons great players are considered great IMO.

If Gretzky in 1983 was the 50th most accomplished player in hockey history, then that's where he should have been rated at that time. I don't see why you would ignore active players if you are confident about their place on the list. The 2003 Top 100 list isn't the be-all, end-all list for the best players of all-time, it's the top 100 players of all-time, AS OF 2003. So I think active players should be included, just as long as you make sure not to include future projections.

 

[jcbio11]

The Guy Lafleur commentary got me thinking - how far are Crosby and Ovechkin actually behind Lafleur?

Lafleur is rated a top 20 player because of his amazing 6 year peak - what he did outside the peak adds very little to his value. He's rated so highly because he is widely considered the best player. the NHL's true superstar, between Orr and Gretzky.

Well... Ovechkin and Crosby have been stars for 5 years now. And for several years now, they are widely considered the best two players in the league.

They lack Lafleur's playoff success, but their individual numbers are very comparable.

This is why I'd love for the final Top 100 list to only include players who played games before the lockout - it's simply too hard to rate Crosby and Ovechkin objectively at this point.

Also, it was a lot easier to have playoff success during Lafleur's playing years than it is now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also, it was a lot easier to have playoff success during Lafleur's playing years than it is now.

Especially if you were drafted by the Canadiens in the 1970s!

 

[FDBluth]

Definitely agree. Sid's been fast enough, but he doesn't blitz past people like he did in '06-'07.

He said he was going to work on his step this off-season though, so if history's any indication...

Sid has better top-end speed now than he did in his first few years in the league. The main difference to me is that his quickness and elusiveness isn't quite as good as it once was. I think a large part of that had to do with him gaining weight and getting bigger.

 

[Up the Irons]

i would say they are both in the top 100 already. Isn't Dave Keon in there. Or Jean Ratelle. If they in the they both have Hart trophies, that pretty much gets you in there (with the exception Jose Theodore).

but why all this Cros/Ov comparisons? how many Olympic MVPs and Conn Smythes do either of them have? There is someone else who won both just a few months ago. there are a few other guys who get to be in the 'best player in the world' debate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i would say they are both in the top 100 already. Isn't Dave Keon in there. Or Jean Ratelle. If they in the they both have Hart trophies, that pretty much gets you in there (with the exception Jose Theodore).

but why all this Cros/Ov comparisons? how many Olympic MVPs and Conn Smythes do either of them have? There is someone else who won both just a few months ago. there are a few other guys who get to be in the 'best player in the world' debate.

Listen, I love Toews, but there's no way he deserves to be in the conversation for Top 100 players any more than Bill Ranford does. Ranford won a Conn Smythe and Canada Cup MVP within a 2 year period.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Listen, I love Toews, but there's no way he deserves to be in the conversation for Top 100 players any more than Bill Ranford does. Ranford won a Conn Smythe and Canada Cup MVP within a 2 year period.

i love Toews as well but frankly i can't even see him projected out as ever getting into the top 100 list unless he ups his regular season production or does something crazy good in the playoffs for a long time and I think the latter will be really hard in the current cap era.

He is going to be a good to very good player but lets look at him in 10 years or so.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The Guy Lafleur commentary got me thinking - how far are Crosby and Ovechkin actually behind Lafleur?

Lafleur is rated a top 20 player because of his amazing 6 year peak - what he did outside the peak adds very little to his value. He's rated so highly because he is widely considered the best player. the NHL's true superstar, between Orr and Gretzky.

Well... Ovechkin and Crosby have been stars for 5 years now. And for several years now, they are widely considered the best two players in the league.

They lack Lafleur's playoff success, but their individual numbers are very comparable.

This is why I'd love for the final Top 100 list to only include players who played games before the lockout - it's simply too hard to rate Crosby and Ovechkin objectively at this point.

Guy Lafleur's playoff success elevates him to another level. He was the unquestioned best player on a team that some regard as the best team ever assembled. His skill level, his creativity, his flair, his big-game mentality, his skating ability, his puck skills, his ability to dominate in all aspects of the offensive game - there was nothing like him. For six years, he was seemingly unstoppable from the first game of the regular season until the final second of the playoffs, 1980 playoffs excluded. (Most years, that final second was followed by the Habs hoisting the Cup).

When you star talking about the best players of a dynasty, you're talking about very exclusive and very elite company. Lafleur's in that group. Combine that with his big-game mentality and his dazzling abilities, you understand why he's a top 20 player ever.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is definitely doable. The problem is that right now, Crosby and Ovechkin are probably going to slot in somewhere in the 70s or 80s. But in a few years, they very well could be in Lafleur territory and their position on the list will look silly.

I don't think it would look silly at all. If anything, it would be a nice step toward establishing an objective, universal standard for players in all eras.