Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (Part 2)

[Johnny Engine]

How high up do people have Bergeron right now?

The separate but related ATD community drafted him 150th not too long ago.

He's got a lot in common with Dave Keon, who's 99th on this list, and Sid Abel, who's 100th, but also with Jonathan Toews and Anze Kopitar, contemporaries of Bergeron who are not on this list, just as Doug Gilmour and Ron Francis are missing.

Bergeron strongly resembles what I would call a "top-100" player, and had he played 20 years ago, he'd have a good shot at being comfortably inside anyone's list. For now, you'd pretty much have to be confident that he's the best of the above group (I'd be listening if you wanted to make the case) to get him into a list that takes in 130 years of hockey.

Pour one out for Aleksander Barkov and Sean Couturier, who likely don't get any shot at the list we make in 10 years even if they follow the same path.

 

[Trap Jesus]

The separate but related ATD community drafted him 150th not too long ago.

He's got a lot in common with Dave Keon, who's 99th on this list, and Sid Abel, who's 100th, but also with Jonathan Toews and Anze Kopitar, contemporaries of Bergeron who are not on this list, just as Doug Gilmour and Ron Francis are missing.

Bergeron strongly resembles what I would call a "top-100" player, and had he played 20 years ago, he'd have a good shot at being comfortably inside anyone's list. For now, you'd pretty much have to be confident that he's the best of the above group (I'd be listening if you wanted to make the case) to get him into a list that takes in 130 years of hockey.

Pour one out for Aleksander Barkov and Sean Couturier, who likely don't get any shot at the list we make in 10 years even if they follow the same path.

I think the case for Bergeron is one that is so difficult to argue in a historical context because so much revolves around defensive play, which people don't seem to put all that much emphasis into for forwards for lists like this. Like Fedorov is closer to the bottom of the top 100, Datsyuk/Brind'Amour aren't there, etc. Clarke would probably be the best example there of defense favorably impacting a forward's ranking, maybe Mikita.

Like you can only do so much to compare him to the Gainey's and the Carbonneau's of the world through Selke voting. His career did line up perfectly where you could point to the analytics to support the eye test and the reputation, but that only really comes into play when you're comparing him to his contemporaries, not guys that played decades earlier. I wonder if years and years down the road when we have more of a body of work to evaluate defensive forwards by if people will see more how impactful he's actually been and he'll start to slide up lists more.

I know there's more to Chara with those few dominant years in Ottawa before joining the Bruins, but I've always found Bergeron to be the superior player throughout their careers as Bruins, and he's completely separated himself in the last 6 seasons (obviously in large part due to Chara's age, but Bergeron has not slowed down whatsoever and has been increasing his offensive numbers in that time). I just think if Chara is up there at 89, I personally don't see how Bergeron can be far off. I know that's impossible to quantify and anecdotal though.

 

[wetcoast]

I think the case for Bergeron is one that is so difficult to argue in a historical context because so much revolves around defensive play, which people don't seem to put all that much emphasis into for forwards for lists like this. Like Fedorov is closer to the bottom of the top 100, Datsyuk/Brind'Amour aren't there, etc. Clarke would probably be the best example there of defense favorably impacting a forward's ranking, maybe Mikita.

Like you can only do so much to compare him to the Gainey's and the Carbonneau's of the world through Selke voting. His career did line up perfectly where you could point to the analytics to support the eye test and the reputation, but that only really comes into play when you're comparing him to his contemporaries, not guys that played decades earlier. I wonder if years and years down the road when we have more of a body of work to evaluate defensive forwards by if people will see more how impactful he's actually been and he'll start to slide up lists more.

I know there's more to Chara with those few dominant years in Ottawa before joining the Bruins, but I've always found Bergeron to be the superior player throughout their careers as Bruins, and he's completely separated himself in the last 6 seasons (obviously in large part due to Chara's age, but Bergeron has not slowed down whatsoever and has been increasing his offensive numbers in that time). I just think if Chara is up there at 89, I personally don't see how Bergeron can be far off. I know that's impossible to quantify and anecdotal though.

I think Chara has been the better Bruin but part of his resume is 10 top 8 Norris finishes in a 11 year period.

The off year was in 05-06 after the lockout when Chara still had a good season, it's just his team was so poor that he wasn't going to finish any higher than the 20th spot that he did.

Back to Begeron I think there is a solid case that he is as good as Dave Keon ever was and I think after Begeron's career is over and there is some time for reflection this will become more clear.

But then again this missed playoffs, if they are missed might take some of the icing that Begeron has on his already solid cake.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In the prelim round, I had Bergeron on my list. I don't know how many else did. But he belongs in the conversation. Anywhere that Datsyuk is talked about, Bergeron shouldn't be too far behind. Datsyuk was better offensively by a tier, Bergeron was/is better defensively by a tier...

 

[seventieslord]

Clarke would probably be the best example there of defense favorably impacting a forward's ranking, maybe Mikita.

Definitely not Mikita. He's not even ranked as high as his offense suggests he should be, never mind his defense.

The off year was in 05-06 after the lockout when Chara still had a good season, it's just his team was so poor that he wasn't going to finish any higher than the 20th spot that he did.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean 05-06 because Chara's team was anything but poor that season.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think wetcoast meant 2006-07, which was a 20th place finish wedged between four All-Star selections.

Chara’s ESGA jumped up to 78 (it was 60 and 61 in his next two seasons, the latter being a Norris win), while his ESGF couldn’t off-set it at 57 (the next few years were 74 and 84) as the Bruins ascended from 25th and 29th in GF/GA to 24th/11th and 2nd/1st. And with that, his -21 climbs up to a more Norris respectable +23.

I think a lot of opinions about defensemen (particularly with the media - and subsequently by those relying on the media’s evaluation) are influenced too strongly by how the team performed rather than the individual.

Dan Boyle, a 2nd Team All-Star in 2006-07, was on the ice for 87 ESGA - 9 more than Chara - but Tampa Bay could largely out-score their problems in a way that the Bruins couldn’t just yet and the way Ottawa had previously (1st in GF in 2003-04 and 2005-06 - Chara’s first All-Star selections).

I don’t know if I’m necessarily arguing Chara was underrated in 2006-07 or overrated in the surrounding years (or a little bit of both), but I do think the quality of the team is something to take into serious consideration with defensive All-Star selections - especially the team’s even-strength offense.

In a league this size, I think the only way we see defensemen sweep All-Star selections throughout their career is if they’re on a top offensive team for 10-15 years. Forwards, it’s almost irrelevant how the team performs. Goaltenders practically benefit from being on bad offensive teams. But defensemen almost need high-GF numbers to stay afloat in awards races.

 

[wetcoast]

Definitely not Mikita. He's not even ranked as high as his offense suggests he should be, never mind his defense.



I'm pretty sure you don't mean 05-06 because Chara's team was anything but poor that season.

you are right on both counts, I meant 06-07 my lack of proper sleep is showing.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think Chara has been the better Bruin but part of his resume is 10 top 8 Norris finishes in a 11 year period.

The off year was in 05-06 after the lockout when Chara still had a good season, it's just his team was so poor that he wasn't going to finish any higher than the 20th spot that he did.

Back to Begeron I think there is a solid case that he is as good as Dave Keon ever was and I think after Begeron's career is over and there is some time for reflection this will become more clear.

But then again this missed playoffs, if they are missed might take some of the icing that Begeron has on his already solid cake.

You are correct, there is a case for Bergeron over Keon.

However, I think that would only be made by those who didn't see Keon play. Bergeron is one of my favorite player, but I'd still place Keon ahead at this point.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Definitely not Mikita. He's not even ranked as high as his offense suggests he should be, never mind his defense.

I feel like Mikita has some kind of reputation for defense because of his mythical faceoff ability. So many associate faceoffs as a major quality of defense for some reason.

 

[seventieslord]

I feel like Mikita has some kind of reputation for defense because of his mythical faceoff ability. So many associate faceoffs as a major quality of defense for some reason.

No, Mikita has a reputation for defense because in the second half of his career he is frequently cited as being very good defensively.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Espo > Clarke? Why?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Espo > Clarke? Why?

Shattering scoring records, perhaps? Summit Series?

Voted 27 & 29, I'd say they are virtually on the same level.

 

[seventieslord]

Espo > Clarke? Why?

It's not my opinion (I think I'd have Clarke a handful of spots ahead), but it's at least defensible. I think even if one does perfectly reasonable mental adjustments to his offensive resume thanks to the Orr effect, Esposito has an offensive record matched by perhaps ten forwards ever.

 

[Kranix]

I'm surprised Sid beat Hasek. What was the edge,his ppg, and the double Smythes?

 

[Michael Farkas]

For me, I'm not someone that values goaltending as much as he devalues bad goaltending. What was my first goalie on my initial list? Like 17 or 19 or something? It was not a widely-held belief by the group, to be fair. But I also can't speak for all of them. But for me, this was no contest.

If you're looking for an edge, Hasek's playoff performances have some pretty weak goals mixed in there at really bad times...without adjusting for scoring environments, Hasek surrendered a 3rd period lead more often than Brodeur. To be fair, he did it less often than Roy (even if you take just dead puck era Roy...though, that is end of career Roy, still...you'd expect better from him probably)...

For his career, a larger percentage of his goals against were untimely. Goals that surrendered a 3rd period lead or surrendered a 3rd period/OT tie make up more than 20% of his playoff GA. The highest among: Roy, Brodeur, Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Dryden, Esposito.

Look no further than his final goal against as a Sabre...

Obviously, outstanding goalie...one of the best of all time...but was he a guy you could get a little bit of a pre-scout on and take advantage of? Yeah, maybe...or maybe if he was just consistently unlucky...that's for the viewer to decide...

 

[Sentinel]

Espo > Clarke? Why?

Espo should've been much, much higher.

 

[Thenameless]

I'm surprised Sid beat Hasek. What was the edge,his ppg, and the double Smythes?

Hasek peak is definitely way higher. It could be that Sid was strong out of the gate right away at 18 and has more or less maintained best player status (with some Ovechkin and Malkin exceptions), until McDavid came along.

 

[bobholly39]

Hasek peak is definitely way higher. It could be that Sid was strong out of the gate right away at 18 and has more or less maintained best player status (with some Ovechkin and Malkin exceptions), until McDavid came along.

A career is a marathon and not a sprint. Crosby started earlier than most - and especially started elite earlier than most - and even moreso, hasn't let his foot off the gas pedal all along. Consistency at an elite level through the age of 32 and counting. I think this is a differentiator - and will continue to be until his retirement.

So far - McDavid is doing very much the same. Will be interesting to see if he can keep it up as long/longer though. Ultimately - you don't need to peak higher, so long as you peak high and are consistently elite longer and more often than others.

Bourque has a similar career path too - but as a defenseman, there are some differences of course.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Eliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek touched on some historical stuff on the last 31 Thoughts.

Asked for Mount Rushmore...

Friedman...
99, 66, 4, 9 (in order). Said Crosby is his #5. Inferring that he took Maurice Richard's spot. "Ovechkin may be there soon" followed something about him breaking the goals record.

Marek...
99, 66, Richard, "back and forth on Orr and Lidstrom on who takes precedence", Beliveau.

Gordie Howe? "No." (Flatly)

"Normally the top 5 is some combination of 99, 66, 4, 9, and Rocket...I think Crosby is there now."

Marek: What about Hasek? Friedman was reluctant, but stated he didn't have a problem.

Friedman scaled it down to top 3 that "can't be beat"...99, 66, 4 (some combination). Marek shot back, "you don't have any consideration for Lidstrom in there?"

Friedman was non-committal of Hasek being "his goalie". Peak, yes. Overall, no. (Shot Roy out there).

"Ovechkin is knocking on the door." - Friedman

 

[Trap Jesus]

Eliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek touched on some historical stuff on the last 31 Thoughts.

Asked for Mount Rushmore...

Friedman...
99, 66, 4, 9 (in order). Said Crosby is his #5. Inferring that he took Maurice Richard's spot. "Ovechkin may be there soon" followed something about him breaking the goals record.

Marek...
99, 66, Richard, "back and forth on Orr and Lidstrom on who takes precedence", Beliveau.

Gordie Howe? "No." (Flatly)

"Normally the top 5 is some combination of 99, 66, 4, 9, and Rocket...I think Crosby is there now."

Marek: What about Hasek? Friedman was reluctant, but stated he didn't have a problem.

Friedman scaled it down to top 3 that "can't be beat"...99, 66, 4 (some combination). Marek shot back, "you don't have any consideration for Lidstrom in there?"

Friedman was non-committal of Hasek being "his goalie". Peak, yes. Overall, no. (Shot Roy out there).

"Ovechkin is knocking on the door." - Friedman

Hockey Mount Rushmore is like the most unarguable thing ever. It's so cut and dry.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Eliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek touched on some historical stuff on the last 31 Thoughts.

Asked for Mount Rushmore...

Friedman...
99, 66, 4, 9 (in order). Said Crosby is his #5. Inferring that he took Maurice Richard's spot. "Ovechkin may be there soon" followed something about him breaking the goals record.

Marek...
99, 66, Richard, "back and forth on Orr and Lidstrom on who takes precedence", Beliveau.

Gordie Howe? "No." (Flatly)

"Normally the top 5 is some combination of 99, 66, 4, 9, and Rocket...I think Crosby is there now."

Marek: What about Hasek? Friedman was reluctant, but stated he didn't have a problem.

Friedman scaled it down to top 3 that "can't be beat"...99, 66, 4 (some combination). Marek shot back, "you don't have any consideration for Lidstrom in there?"

Friedman was non-committal of Hasek being "his goalie". Peak, yes. Overall, no. (Shot Roy out there).

"Ovechkin is knocking on the door." - Friedman

Like an old photograph, the image of Mr. Hockey fades.

 

[tarheelhockey]

"back and forth on Orr and Lidstrom
...
Marek shot back, "you don't have any consideration for Lidstrom in there?"

Am I missing something here? I've never heard anyone suggest Lidstrom as a top-4 player and Marek seems awfully convinced he should be in the conversation.

 

[Staniowski]

These things change significantly from generation to generation. It used to be that Howe, Orr and Gretzky were basically tied. Now, few of the people who are currently ranking players, actually saw Howe or Orr (or Rocket, Beliveau, etc.) play. Younger generations, now, just seem to accept that Gretzky is automatically #1, even if they've never seen any of these guys play.

It seems clear that the younger generation are very high on certain players, especially Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Hasek. So, increasingly, these guys are going to be in many people's top-10.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Am I missing something here? I've never heard anyone suggest Lidstrom as a top-4 player and Marek seems awfully convinced he should be in the conversation.

The only thing I would get is if you want to define it by era with minimal overlap. Still think you have to have Howe regardless though. Howe for O6, Orr for expansion, Gretzky to close the century and then Crosby after the lockout/21st century, even though Lemieux is objectively better.

 

[seventieslord]

Eliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek touched on some historical stuff on the last 31 Thoughts.

Asked for Mount Rushmore...

Friedman...
99, 66, 4, 9 (in order). Said Crosby is his #5. Inferring that he took Maurice Richard's spot. "Ovechkin may be there soon" followed something about him breaking the goals record.

Marek...
99, 66, Richard, "back and forth on Orr and Lidstrom on who takes precedence", Beliveau.

Gordie Howe? "No." (Flatly)

"Normally the top 5 is some combination of 99, 66, 4, 9, and Rocket...I think Crosby is there now."

Marek: What about Hasek? Friedman was reluctant, but stated he didn't have a problem.

Friedman scaled it down to top 3 that "can't be beat"...99, 66, 4 (some combination). Marek shot back, "you don't have any consideration for Lidstrom in there?"

Friedman was non-committal of Hasek being "his goalie". Peak, yes. Overall, no. (Shot Roy out there).

"Ovechkin is knocking on the door." - Friedman

Disgusting