The Hockey News Top 100 Players

[reckoning]

I believe, in the days of the original six, teams were allowed territorial protection of players. Montreal and Toronto had a distinct advatntage by taking the players from the most populous area of Canada. I am not sure how the American teams territories were divided up but, Gordie Howe ended up in Detroit so, maybe the Red Wings had Saskatchewan?

Perhaps somebody familiar with that system can shed some light.

I`m sure someone else on this board could provide the details better than me, but it wasn`t territorial protection. Most minor league teams were sponsored by NHL teams, and those teams would sponsor junior teams. The scouts would find players and sign them to the junior teams and then they`d go up the system.

Montreal definitely had more quality players in their system, but it was because Frank Selke worked his butt off to find the talent, it wasn`t due to any unfair advantage. To put to rest a popular myth, Montreal didn`t have exclusive rights to all French-Canadian players. There were several future stars who ended up in other teams systems (i.e. Ratelle, Gilbert, Pilote)

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm surprised you think you know who the top 100 players in history are but you are wrong about this crucial fact.

I am surprised you can figure out how to turn on a computer.

 

[gary69]

While Ogopogo's rating system has it's merits, it definately determinates only NHL careers, not greatest players of all time of the whole world. Although naturally these are the same to a great extent, since the break up of the Soviet Union almost 100% resemblance.

As for limitations, while from today's perspective it's a valid view to concentrate only to a player's NHL career, that's not the case for earlier years, if you want to compare different players in different eras. Perhaps a better option in North America would be to consider those leagues whose representatives played for the Stanley cup. Even this leaves out some top quality players of their time in the early decades, since some still rather remained amateurs, either on principle or because there were financially better careers outside of hockey.

As other posters have stated previously, PCHA (1911-1924), has to be taken into account and also NHL's immediate predecessor NHA (1909-1917). Also in the 1920's WCHL (and it's merger league WHL with the previously mentioned PCHA). I don't think there should be to much argument on these cases based on their quality as compared to the NHL. They even had their post-season all star teams, and lot of those selected ended up being in HHOF.

As for earlier 10 years, the situation is more diversed. But I believe Eastern Canada had a major pro league (ECHA/CHA) for 5 years, others worth consideration are Ontario's league (OPHL), Maritime League (MPHL) and maybe Manitoba league (MHL). Maybe the first US pro league IHL also. Prior to 1904/05 season it was strictly amateur leagues but again those leagues who had teams playing for Stanley cup are worthy.

Before 1950's there probably was only a handful of players in Europe who would have made it in the NHL, but between 1950's -1970's there certainly were players capable, but there wasn't enough incentives for them, namely financially. E.G. Sweden's Sven Tumba Johansson comes to mind, he turned down offers to play in the NHL, because he wouldn't have been any better off financially.

 

[Paxon]

I am surprised you can figure out how to turn on a computer.

I am surprised you think a player who was possibly the best in the world at one point in time makes him better than all but 1-9 of the other players who were the best players in the world during their times just because your system says so.

Furthermore, if I started a sport today and got 20 people to play it with me and I was far and away the best at it, I fail to see how that would secure me a high spot on the all-time list of best players. As the game grew and matured, far better players would come into the mix. Players who grew up playing it, playing against others who grew up playing it, and were taught by coaches whose coaches grew up playing it. Players who picked up new moves from players who picked up moves from players who picked up moves. An increased awareness of--and desire to play--the sport, thus an expanded pool of players... thus a higher likelihood of a player with great talent and potential picking up the game at an early age... thus able to hone his skills and live up to that potential.

It is quite likely that a team of the best players from any random year in the 20's would get beat badly by any current NHL team.

Does being the best player in the world right now make you better than Super Mario who was the second-best player to Gretzky during his time? Is Naslund, Forsberg, or whatever forward you want to consider today's best better than him? Of course not.

Does Hasek or Roy being (whichever you consider) the second-best goalie of his time make him worse than the best of the proverbial "fat kids picked last" who ended up playing goalie back in the 20s because all of the desired positions on the ice were taken up by more athletic players? Of course not.

Your arguments about your system always seem to revolve around "he was the best in the world at the time". Even though this is likely given stats and awards, it does not instantly compare one to the best, second-best, or fifth-best of another time because the greats aren't evenly distributed throughout history in quotas.

For a backwards example of how hockey has come along, if you were making a list of history's greatest typewriter manufacturers, would you automatically put today's best in the top 5? Even though there is minimal interest in typewriters and many of the top companies in the business have sailed their ships to more navigable waters? This isn't to say that it automatically shouldn't be considered, because perhaps modern technology allows for a damn fine typewriter to be produced. However, it all has little to do with what is currently the best (or what was the best in 1920), it has to do with how that compares to what was the rest of the best of all-time.

 

[Paxon]

And for the record, I don't know just how good Denneny and his compadres were or weren't. However, I'd much rather resign myself to the fact that I don't know than say, "Well these guys won awards playing against each other so they're as good as these guys who later won similar amounts of awards playing against each other."

There is no doubting, however, that the general pool of talent increases greatly each decade. How top talent of two decades vastly separated by time compares can't solely be decided by how well they played against the good-to-average players of their times. This is because the good-to-average players get better and better each year. I don't see how you can look around this. It doesn't mean Cy Denneny wasn't great. It means the fact he did great against a few other great players and a whole lot of ones who wouldn't make today's AHL (or ECHL for all I know) doesn't make him great. Being that there is limited if any footage from this era, I don't see how I myself could ever feel comfortable comparing him with players who I could investigate.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I am surprised you think a player who was possibly the best in the world at one point in time makes him better than all but 1-9 of the other players who were the best players in the world during their times just because your system says so.

Furthermore, if I started a sport today and got 20 people to play it with me and I was far and away the best at it, I fail to see how that would secure me a high spot on the all-time list of best players. As the game grew and matured, far better players would come into the mix. Players who grew up playing it, playing against others who grew up playing it, and were taught by coaches whose coaches grew up playing it. Players who picked up new moves from players who picked up moves from players who picked up moves. An increased awareness of--and desire to play--the sport, thus an expanded pool of players... thus a higher likelihood of a player with great talent and potential picking up the game at an early age... thus able to hone his skills and live up to that potential.

It is quite likely that a team of the best players from any random year in the 20's would get beat badly by any current NHL team.

Does being the best player in the world right now make you better than Super Mario who was the second-best player to Gretzky during his time? Is Naslund, Forsberg, or whatever forward you want to consider today's best better than him? Of course not.

Does Hasek or Roy being (whichever you consider) the second-best goalie of his time make him worse than the best of the proverbial "fat kids picked last" who ended up playing goalie back in the 20s because all of the desired positions on the ice were taken up by more athletic players? Of course not.

Your arguments about your system always seem to revolve around "he was the best in the world at the time". Even though this is likely given stats and awards, it does not instantly compare one to the best, second-best, or fifth-best of another time because the greats aren't evenly distributed throughout history in quotas.

For a backwards example of how hockey has come along, if you were making a list of history's greatest typewriter manufacturers, would you automatically put today's best in the top 5? Even though there is minimal interest in typewriters and many of the top companies in the business have sailed their ships to more navigable waters? This isn't to say that it automatically shouldn't be considered, because perhaps modern technology allows for a damn fine typewriter to be produced. However, it all has little to do with what is currently the best (or what was the best in 1920), it has to do with how that compares to what was the rest of the best of all-time.

I don't believe that a player should be penalized for being born when they are.

Had Gretzky been born in 1900, he would have had the same advantages/disadvantages that Joe Malone, Reg Noble and Cy Denneny had. So, he couldn't possibly be considered great, look at the shambles the NHL was back then. Right?

If Dennney was born in 1965, he would have ripped up the 80s and 90s because he would have had all the advantages of that era.

It seems that you discount evolution. Of course players from the 20s would get beaten badly by today's players. Todays players would get beaten badly by players in 2050. That logic doesn't really make sense for comparison.

Is Edison an idiot because he lived so long ago? Einstein? Galileo? Heck, if we put them together with any of us on this board, we would blow them away with the knowledge we have. Does that mean they are morons and don't deserve to be considered among the greatest minds of all time?

Was World War I a complete waste of time because they rode horses and didn't have nukes? Should it be swept under the rug as a "fringe" war. We are much more sophisticated now, WWI is a joke. Right?

I guess that any sprinter of today is far superior to Jesse Owens? His four gold medals in 1936 must be complete crap, they didn't have today's training techniques or steroids. Let's marginalize Owens because the Olympics was "fringe" compared to the games of today.

People in sports and life are compared to how they dominated their era of history. Why people want to discount the stars of the 20s I don't know. Probably because they never saw them play and they are too lazy to do a little research.

Facts are facts. Edison, Einstein and Galileo were brilliant - even if they couldn't turn on a PC. World War I was a major life changing event - even if they rode horses and didn't have nukes. Owens is equally great as any four gold athlete in any Olympics. And, players like Denneny, Noble and Malone were the best that the NHL had to offer in the 20s, they deserve their due.

Just saying that there are better athletes today is wrong. Today's athletes are a joke compared to what we will have in 100 years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

And for the record, I don't know just how good Denneny and his compadres were or weren't. However, I'd much rather resign myself to the fact that I don't know than say, "Well these guys won awards playing against each other so they're as good as these guys who later won similar amounts of awards playing against each other."

There is no doubting, however, that the general pool of talent increases greatly each decade. How top talent of two decades vastly separated by time compares can't solely be decided by how well they played against the good-to-average players of their times. This is because the good-to-average players get better and better each year. I don't see how you can look around this. It doesn't mean Cy Denneny wasn't great. It means the fact he did great against a few other great players and a whole lot of ones who wouldn't make today's AHL (or ECHL for all I know) doesn't make him great. Being that there is limited if any footage from this era, I don't see how I myself could ever feel comfortable comparing him with players who I could investigate.

The bottom line is, if you put Gretzky, Lemieux and Yzerman in the 20s, they would be the same slow skating, short, unskilled bums that people believe NHLers of the 20s to be. They were the best players of the time. If there were better training techniques, they would have used them. If there was better equipment, they would have used it. It is called evolution, society as a whole gets bigger, faster and stronger every single decade.

So, if we are to say that today's athletes are the best and the athletes of 80 years ago should be discounted, why not just say that Gretzky, Yzerman and Lemieux are not that good because in 100 years we are going to have some amazing players? This argument makes no sense.

Why remember history if it doesn't matter. The president in 1920 is not automatically written off as a bum. The Olympic gold medalists from 1920 are not automatically considered inferior. Brilliant scienteists of the 20s are not written off as irrelevant. But, hockey players are.

I think it is just laziness. People have never heard of Cy Denneny and they are too lazy to really check out what he did. His scoring ability was equal to that of Jaromir Jagr, Jean Believeau and he was slightly behind Bobby Hull. The man was a dominant scorer in the 20s. Just writing off the 20s as "fringe" is very wrong.

Denneny was the best of what the NHL could offer. How is that different from Guy Lafleur and Phil Esposito in the 70s? The WHA was in full force, the Russian league was going strong and the Czech league had many great players as well.

What about Gretzky and Lemieux? There are no players from China in the NHL. What if China takes hockey very seriously at the 2010 Winter Olympics and starts developing some amazing players. Does that mean Gretzky and Lemiuex really didn't accomplish anything? After all, China is a 1 billion person untapped talent market.

The best in the NHL is the best in the NHL. It makes no difference when that was. You compete against the best the league has to offer, if you are the best of that group, that is the same as being the best NHLer any year. It is not a player's fault if Russians, Chinese or Western Canadians chose not to be in the league. We could marginalize every single season the NHL every had if we really wanted to.

 

[norrisnick]

I don't believe that a player should be penalized for being born when they are.

Had Gretzky been born in 1900, he would have had the same advantages/disadvantages that Joe Malone, Reg Noble and Cy Denneny had. So, he couldn't possibly be considered great, look at the shambles the NHL was back then. Right?

If Dennney was born in 1965, he would have ripped up the 80s and 90s because he would have had all the advantages of that era.

It seems that you discount evolution. Of course players from the 20s would get beaten badly by today's players. Todays players would get beaten badly by players in 2050. That logic doesn't really make sense for comparison.

Is Edison an idiot because he lived so long ago? Einstein? Galileo? Heck, if we put them together with any of us on this board, we would blow them away with the knowledge we have. Does that mean they are morons and don't deserve to be considered among the greatest minds of all time?

Was World War I a complete waste of time because they rode horses and didn't have nukes? Should it be swept under the rug as a "fringe" war. We are much more sophisticated now, WWI is a joke. Right?

I guess that any sprinter of today is far superior to Jesse Owens? His four gold medals in 1936 must be complete crap, they didn't have today's training techniques or steroids. Let's marginalize Owens because the Olympics was "fringe" compared to the games of today.

People in sports and life are compared to how they dominated their era of history. Why people want to discount the stars of the 20s I don't know. Probably because they never saw them play and they are too lazy to do a little research.

Facts are facts. Edison, Einstein and Galileo were brilliant - even if they couldn't turn on a PC. World War I was a major life changing event - even if they rode horses and didn't have nukes. Owens is equally great as any four gold athlete in any Olympics. And, players like Denneny, Noble and Malone were the best that the NHL had to offer in the 20s, they deserve their due.

Just saying that there are better athletes today is wrong. Today's athletes are a joke compared to what we will have in 100 years.

I do believe you were so excited to bring out this tired argument again, that you entirely missed the point of the post you quoted. Read it again slowly.

One point that I'll toss out there for you. Greatness is not something you can measure empirically. At least not in as simplistic manner as you are doing.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I do believe you were so excited to bring out this tired argument again, that you entirely missed the point of the post you quoted. Read it again slowly.

One point that I'll toss out there for you. Greatness is not something you can measure empirically. At least not in as simplistic manner as you are doing.

I think that too many people overcomplicate things like this. Just because it is a simple concept that does not have to mean it is wrong. Many times the simple answer is the right answer.

I have not heard anything to change my view on this. I do appreciate the input but, I still don't see a reason to doubt my system.

 

[norrisnick]

I think that too many people overcomplicate things like this. Just because it is a simple concept that does not have to mean it is wrong. Many times the simple answer is the right answer.

I have not heard anything to change my view on this. I do appreciate the input but, I still don't see a reason to doubt my system.

Ok look at it this way.

Year A. There are 5 really great players.
Year B. There are 20 really great players. Players that are really great and could dominate any other year are blocked out by a handful of players that happen to be even greater.

It is folly to assume that the 5 players of Year A automatically are greater than players 6-20 from Year B.

Just because you'd like it to be that simple doesn't mean it is.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ok look at it this way.

Year A. There are 5 really great players.
Year B. There are 20 really great players. Players that are really great and could dominate any other year are blocked out by a handful of players that happen to be even greater.

It is folly to assume that the 5 players of Year A automatically are greater than players 6-20 from Year B.

Just because you'd like it to be that simple doesn't mean it is.

I tend to disagree with what you are saying. I really don't think you can determine that there are more good players in a league during one decade than another. You would have to take players out of their era and travel through time to make the comparison. A lot of people like to think that the 80s had the greatest concentration of talent ever. People are fooled by the big point totals. It was the most offensive era of all time that does not necessarily mean that the players were better than in the 60s. People also think that goaltenders are much better today than they were in the 80s. Large equipment and the trap helps to perpetuate that belief.

How do you know that Jesse Owens only had to beat one great sprinter for the gold and Donovan Bailey had to beat 5? There is no way to know that. The only way to determine how great an athlete is, is to look at him in comparison to his peers.

How do we know that the players of the 20s were not greater athletically than players in the 80s? In the 80s there were lots of options in Canada. Basketball, baseball, football etc. In the 20s, there was no NBA, the NFL didn't exist until 1924 so it was hockey or baseball. Canada being a winter nation, I suspect the best athletes played hockey rather than baseball - the number of Canadian major leaguers tells us that is true. So, it could be said that the players of the 20s had more competition than the players of the 80s. There is no way to know for sure. The answer to your argument cannot be found short of time travel.

So, with that in mind, we have to assume that the best player in 1920 and the best player in 1990 are equals. We have to assume that there is only one leading NHL scorer every year and that is the same as any other year. There is no way to prove otherwise and, in my opinion, trying to is splitting hairs. It is akin to saying that there is no way to compare anybody so there is no point in trying.

My system still makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Or you could look at the expanding population of Canada. You have no evidence to base your opinion on. There are no real records of Denneny, and Mallone, and the like and yet you profess to be an expert on their skills, and the game that they played. You fail to account for other factors such as the other leagues, the number of players playing the game, the significant changes to the game (completely different game). You are using old records which we don't even know are accurate or not, and then suplimenting those with the trophys that a player won and trying to make judgements off of that. Hell you are basically ignoring the possibility that the level of tallent in the league fluxuates. Look at the current NHL is there a player that right now you could point at as being a top 10 player all time that is performing well. The tallent and that includes the top tallent does not remain static as you think it does.

Hell I bet you know nothing about Denneny past his statistics, and that somehow makes you an accurate judge of the player that he was.

Edit: You stated the only reason that people think goaltenders are better is the equipment, and while this may be true you can't ignore the fact (or maybe you can) that the position has gone through a major transformation from the days in which the goaltender was the pudgy player on the team. Hell back in the 20s as I am sure you know goaltenders were not allowed to leave their feet. They didn't have the technique that the goaltenders of today or even the 50s and 60s had. It seems as though once again your system is nothing more than a glorified coding scheme which doesn't go deeper than the surface.

 

[norrisnick]

I tend to disagree with what you are saying. I really don't think you can determine that there are more good players in a league during one decade than another. You would have to take players out of their era and travel through time to make the comparison. A lot of people like to think that the 80s had the greatest concentration of talent ever. People are fooled by the big point totals. It was the most offensive era of all time that does not necessarily mean that the players were better than in the 60s. People also think that goaltenders are much better today than they were in the 80s. Large equipment and the trap helps to perpetuate that belief.

How do you know that Jesse Owens only had to beat one great sprinter for the gold and Donovan Bailey had to beat 5? There is no way to know that. The only way to determine how great an athlete is, is to look at him in comparison to his peers.

How do we know that the players of the 20s were not greater athletically than players in the 80s? In the 80s there were lots of options in Canada. Basketball, baseball, football etc. In the 20s, there was no NBA, the NFL didn't exist until 1924 so it was hockey or baseball. Canada being a winter nation, I suspect the best athletes played hockey rather than baseball - the number of Canadian major leaguers tells us that is true. So, it could be said that the players of the 20s had more competition than the players of the 80s. There is no way to know for sure. The answer to your argument cannot be found short of time travel.

So, with that in mind, we have to assume that the best player in 1920 and the best player in 1990 are equals. We have to assume that there is only one leading NHL scorer every year and that is the same as any other year. There is no way to prove otherwise and, in my opinion, trying to is splitting hairs. It is akin to saying that there is no way to compare anybody so there is no point in trying.

My system still makes a lot of sense to me.

It is the law of averages. The more hockey players you have total. The more great hockey players you have.

Take a look at 1920 and 1990. Malone scored more than twice as many points as the number 10 scorer. Not so true with Gretzky and number 10 Oates. I'd wager if you go even further down the scoring lists it is a hell of lot steeper decline in the 20's than in the 90's. Is Didier Pitre's 10th place finish as impressive as Adam Oates'?

In 1918 Malone scored more than 3 times the number of points as the number 10 Eddie Gerard.

The level of competition wasn't there in the early years. Wayne Gretzky managed to distance himself from the pack as well, but he's a freak. There was a massive drop from 1 to 2, but from there it's a hell of a lot more steady than the dropoff back in the day.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It is the law of averages. The more hockey players you have total. The more great hockey players you have.

Take a look at 1920 and 1990. Malone scored more than twice as many points as the number 10 scorer. Not so true with Gretzky and number 10 Oates. I'd wager if you go even further down the scoring lists it is a hell of lot steeper decline in the 20's than in the 90's. Is Didier Pitre's 10th place finish as impressive as Adam Oates'?

In 1918 Malone scored more than 3 times the number of points as the number 10 Eddie Gerard.

The level of competition wasn't there in the early years. Wayne Gretzky managed to distance himself from the pack as well, but he's a freak. There was a massive drop from 1 to 2, but from there it's a hell of a lot more steady than the dropoff back in the day.

That is partially the reason I only use the top 7 scorers. Beyond 7th place a player isn't really dominant. But, he still is the 7th best scorer in the NHL. 7th in 1918 is the same as 7th today in my book. A drop off from one to two is much more impressive than one to ten.

It doesn't matter if there are 300 good NHLers today vs. 20 good NHLers in 1918. There was still a best, a second best and a third best. Being the best in the NHL is the same thing no matter when it happened. You are just trying to say that human evolution is a reason to throw away history. I completely disagree.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Or you could look at the expanding population of Canada. You have no evidence to base your opinion on. There are no real records of Denneny, and Mallone, and the like and yet you profess to be an expert on their skills, and the game that they played. You fail to account for other factors such as the other leagues, the number of players playing the game, the significant changes to the game (completely different game). You are using old records which we don't even know are accurate or not, and then suplimenting those with the trophys that a player won and trying to make judgements off of that. Hell you are basically ignoring the possibility that the level of tallent in the league fluxuates. Look at the current NHL is there a player that right now you could point at as being a top 10 player all time that is performing well. The tallent and that includes the top tallent does not remain static as you think it does.

Hell I bet you know nothing about Denneny past his statistics, and that somehow makes you an accurate judge of the player that he was.

Edit: You stated the only reason that people think goaltenders are better is the equipment, and while this may be true you can't ignore the fact (or maybe you can) that the position has gone through a major transformation from the days in which the goaltender was the pudgy player on the team. Hell back in the 20s as I am sure you know goaltenders were not allowed to leave their feet. They didn't have the technique that the goaltenders of today or even the 50s and 60s had. It seems as though once again your system is nothing more than a glorified coding scheme which doesn't go deeper than the surface.

Goaltenders today are better because of evolution, rule changes and better equipment. That really does not play into my argument.

Saying that you don't know if the records from the 20s are accurate is the same as questioning the records from the 70s. Why are 70s numbers real while 20s numbers are not?

The hard stats and people who voted for awards are the real evidence of what players like Denneny and Eddie Shore accomplished. If you throw out the stats from the 20s, just throw it all out. Why would anybody believe Gretzky's numbers when they are thumbing through the 2055-56 NHL guide and record book? We are uncivilized hicks compared to them.

People who vote on awards eyewitnessed the players that they voted for. They have an idea of who was great and who was not. Discounting that piece of evidence is sheer folly.

Denying something just because it happened long ago is foolishness.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Foolish or realistic, if you knew anything about hockey you would realize it was not organized at the time. hell it actually would be foolish to think that significant mistakes were not made over the course of a game in terms of recording points and goals. This would be magnified through the fact that the season was shorter... and you know what, I won't bother. Enjoy your life within your little bubble, I am sure you will be quite content with your statistics books that you can create flawed lists out of.

 

[norrisnick]

That is partially the reason I only use the top 7 scorers. Beyond 7th place a player isn't really dominant. But, he still is the 7th best scorer in the NHL. 7th in 1918 is the same as 7th today in my book. A drop off from one to two is much more impressive than one to ten.

I agree a drop off from one to two is more impressive than one to ten, but you have to take into account that after the first handful of players there was utter crap skating around in the early years. Harry Hyland was tied for 8th in scoring in 1918. That's all he ever did.

Dominance is also where you get hung up. If there is a ton of talent you can be blocked out of the accolades you count even if the players would dominate in other years. Yzerman scored 155 pts in '89. A feat only two other players have ever accomplished. Both of those players happened to do it that very year as well, dropping a dominant year to 3rd place.

Greatness isn't simple.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I agree a drop off from one to two is more impressive than one to ten, but you have to take into account that after the first handful of players there was utter crap skating around in the early years. Harry Hyland was tied for 8th in scoring in 1918. That's all he ever did.

Dominance is also where you get hung up. If there is a ton of talent you can be blocked out of the accolades you count even if the players would dominate in other years. Yzerman scored 155 pts in '89. A feat only two other players have ever accomplished. Both of those players happened to do it that very year as well, dropping a dominant year to 3rd place.

Greatness isn't simple.

What that tells me is that Yzerman's 155 point effort was not that dominant. 4 players scored 150 points or more that season so, being among them is nowhere near as dominant as scoring 130 and second place being 100. The offense was up league wide and Yzerman benefitted from it. The truth is he was the 3rd best scorer that year the same as 3rd best any other year.

Again, saying that the competition was bad in 1918 is like saying that the competition is bad today. 100 years from now, the talent pool will probably be 10 times what it is now. People in 2105 will laugh at Gretzky and Lemieux because they played with such weak competition.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Foolish or realistic, if you knew anything about hockey you would realize it was not organized at the time. hell it actually would be foolish to think that significant mistakes were not made over the course of a game in terms of recording points and goals. This would be magnified through the fact that the season was shorter... and you know what, I won't bother. Enjoy your life within your little bubble, I am sure you will be quite content with your statistics books that you can create flawed lists out of.

If it has the name NHL stamped on it, it is as legitimate as last season. The best in the NHL any year is the still the best NHL player.

Feel free to piss all over history. I guess Edison was a complete moron because there were no other brilliant scientists/inventors in his day.

 

[norrisnick]

It doesn't matter if there are 300 good NHLers today vs. 20 good NHLers in 1918. There was still a best, a second best and a third best. Being the best in the NHL is the same thing no matter when it happened. You are just trying to say that human evolution is a reason to throw away history. I completely disagree.

The number of good NHLers DOES matter. That's the whole point. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc... means a hell of a lot more with greater competition. Pavel Bure was Florida's scoring leader with 59 goals and 92 points in '00-'01. Viktor Kozlov had a massive 37 points for #2. Is that as great of an achievment as Brendan Shanahan leading Detroit's stacked team of '01-'02? 7 Wings besides Shanny scored more than 37 points that year. Hell, 3 others had 30+ goals.

Greatness isn't as easy as 1, 2, 3.

 

[norrisnick]

What that tells me is that Yzerman's 155 point effort was not that dominant. 4 players scored 150 points or more that season so, being among them is nowhere near as dominant as scoring 130 and second place being 100. The offense was up league wide and Yzerman benefitted from it. The truth is he was the 3rd best scorer that year the same as 3rd best any other year.

Again, saying that the competition was bad in 1918 is like saying that the competition is bad today. 100 years from now, the talent pool will probably be 10 times what it is now. People in 2105 will laugh at Gretzky and Lemieux because they played with such weak competition.

If that happens, they'd be right to do so.

If players manage to break free as they(Wayne and Mario) did, in an era of much greater competition and talent. They would full well deserve to be placed ahead of Wayne and Mario on the all-time greats list.

If the CBA mess kills the league and the 'PA scatters across the globe, I wouldn't consider Crosby the best ever if the manages to win 15 consecutive scoring titles in a league that went from NHL talent to AHL talent overnight. Your system would.

 

[chooch*]

Why would anybody believe Gretzky's numbers when they are thumbing through the 2055-56 NHL guide and record book?

You believe them now?

 

[Ogopogo*]

If that happens, they'd be right to do so.

If players manage to break free as they(Wayne and Mario) did, in an era of much greater competition and talent. They would full well deserve to be placed ahead of Wayne and Mario on the all-time greats list.

If the CBA mess kills the league and the 'PA scatters across the globe, I wouldn't consider Crosby the best ever if the manages to win 15 consecutive scoring titles in a league that went from NHL talent to AHL talent overnight. Your system would.

I understand what you are saying but, I still hold strong to my beliefs. The best player in the NHL is the best player in the NHL no matter what season.

If the PA scatters, I will have to see how it plays out before determining what I would do with the system.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You believe them now?

Yes. Why?

 

[pei fan]

Seriously, the way Cy Denneny dominated the 20s, not having him on a top 100 list - in the top 20 - tells me that people are not doing their homework on these things. I am sure there are other glaring omissions and mistakes but, I just took a quick scan.

Some other glaring omissions I noticed-How about BRYAN TROTTIER,SYL APPS,
and ANDY BATHGATE.That's a RIDICULOUS list.Way too many modern players
too high.