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

[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.

I've seen a ton of people argue Lidstrom over Orr now. If they want a defense representative that doesn't surprise me that much.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've seen a ton of people argue Lidstrom over Orr now. If they want a defense representative that doesn't surprise me that much.

I’ve seen like... one person argue that. And it was on a very literal “which would you draft, 10 years or 20?” type basis.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I’ve seen like... one person argue that. And it was on a very literal “which would you draft, 10 years or 20?” type basis.

It's uniformed hockey circles but I have friends that think Lidstrom is better, I've seen it on Reddit, things like that. Uninformed opinions though.

 

[BadgerBruce]

It's uniformed hockey circles but I have friends that think Lidstrom is better, I've seen it on Reddit, things like that. Uninformed opinions though.

This isn’t unique to hockey.

A very close friend of mine is a basketball history buff, and he’s an active member of several history of basketball discussion groups.
Every day he gets more and more depressed as posters with thin knowledge of the sport’s history try to get their favourites into the Top 10 or 20, usually at the expense of the same usual suspects — Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Moses Malone.

The longer a player has been gone, the more vulnerable he is. Nobody ever tries to make room for, say, Kevin Durant by knocking down Kobe, Shaq or Duncan. Nope. Instead, the discussion always begins with, “let’s look at that Moses Malone guy from back in the day ... .” Malone died in 2015 at the age of 60, and he played for 9 different ABA and NBA teams over his 21 year career. You’d be hard pressed to create from scratch a more vulnerable all-time great in the year 2020.

Lidstrom retired in 2012, so every 25 year-old fan today grew up watching him. Orr has been gone from the game for over 40 years now, and 50 year-old fans today were just 8 years old when he finally called it quits. He’s vulnerable because Lidstrom is the best defenceman most fans saw in their lifetime.

When Bobby Orr gave us his swan song in the 1976 Canada Cup, Jeff Marek was just 7 years old. When Lidstrom broke into the NHL in 1991, Marek was 22 years old, and for the next 2 decades he saw him win 4 cups and bring home 7 Norris trophies. Nicklas Lidstrom was the music of his life. What could possibly be better than history he lived through?

 

[seventieslord]

As Gordie Howe aged and faded from public consciousness, the people who would see him ranked below Mario Lemieux all started to come out of the woodwork. Certainly by canon he was no worse than 3rd as of 1998, and Lemieux didn't change anything with his play from 2001-2005. Now Howe is dead and many of those same folks want to cut his head out of hockey's mount Rushmore, for the likes of Hasek, Crosby, Lidstrom and potentially Ovechkin?

It's nice they at least waited till he was dead, I guess.

I understand and even partially agree with the idea that we should give greater credit to more recent achievements, but we're not talking about players whose achievements are even arguably close to those of Mr. Hockey. Get back to me when Crosby or Ovechkin has, let's say, five Harts, or ten Hart finalist seasons. That's at least reasonably close and then we can talk about whether it's more impressive to do that in the modern age than to do what Howe did.

 

[BadgerBruce]

As Gordie Howe aged and faded from public consciousness, the people who would see him ranked below Mario Lemieux all started to come out of the woodwork. Certainly by canon he was no worse than 3rd as of 1998, and Lemieux didn't change anything with his play from 2001-2005. Now Howe is dead and many of those same folks want to cut his head out of hockey's mount Rushmore, for the likes of Hasek, Crosby, Lidstrom and potentially Ovechkin?

It's nice they at least waited till he was dead, I guess.

I understand and even partially agree with the idea that we should give greater credit to more recent achievements, but we're not talking about players whose achievements are even arguably close to those of Mr. Hockey. Get back to me when Crosby or Ovechkin has, let's say, five Harts, or ten Hart finalist seasons. That's at least reasonably close and then we can talk about whether it's more impressive to do that in the modern age than to do what Howe did.

Compare the Top 100 Lists from 2008 and 2018/19.

There are 2 new players in the most recent list’s top 10, Patrick Roy (#7) and Raymond Bourque (#10).

Who is now out of the Top 10 to fit them in? Eddie Shore and Howie Morenz, both of whom were born in 1902.

The 2 oldest guys got kicked out. Two guys born in the 1960s replaced them.

In 2030, a decade from now, a new Top 100 List will almost certainly lose the Rocket (born 1921 and clinging to the #9 position), and don’t be surprised to see Doug Harvey (born 1924) also drop out of the top 10. They’re the 2 oldest guys left inside the current Top 10,
and by 2030 voters will insist that room be created for Crosby and Ovechkin, the two generation-defining stars of the first quarter of the 21st century.

If we ever reach a point where any of the Big Four are truly vulnerable, my guess is that Orr will be the first one targeted. 657 regular season games played is the obvious chink in his armour, and that number will be poked, prodded and exploited after he’s dead and gone.

Howe, on the other hand, is much harder to denigrate because of those incredible 30+ years. It’s a bit like Gretzky’s career assists total, one of those cold signature facts that just won’t go away. Lemieux and Orr don’t have any virtually bulletproof stats quite like Howe and Gretzky, both of whom are, in my view, safe for a long time to come.

 

[Staniowski]

Compare the Top 100 Lists from 2008 and 2018/19.

There are 2 new players in the most recent list’s top 10, Patrick Roy (#7) and Raymond Bourque (#10).

Who is now out of the Top 10 to fit them in? Eddie Shore and Howie Morenz, both of whom were born in 1902.

The 2 oldest guys got kicked out. Two guys born in the 1960s replaced them.

In 2030, a decade from now, a new Top 100 List will almost certainly lose the Rocket (born 1921 and clinging to the #9 position), and don’t be surprised to see Doug Harvey (born 1924) also drop out of the top 10. They’re the 2 oldest guys left inside the current Top 10,
and by 2030 voters will insist that room be created for Crosby and Ovechkin, the two generation-defining stars of the first quarter of the 21st century.

If we ever reach a point where any of the Big Four are truly vulnerable, my guess is that Orr will be the first one targeted. 657 regular season games played is the obvious chink in his armour, and that number will be poked, prodded and exploited after he’s dead and gone.

Howe, on the other hand, is much harder to denigrate because of those incredible 30+ years. It’s a bit like Gretzky’s career assists total, one of those cold signature facts that just won’t go away. Lemieux and Orr don’t have any virtually bulletproof stats quite like Howe and Gretzky, both of whom are, in my view, safe for a long time to come.

I think for the majority of people, Howe falls first, before Orr. You can see it with Friedman and Marek, and with the generations younger than them. I think Howe's era is viewed as pre-historic, and difficult to understand, by many.

And I think it's inevitable that most people will have Lemieux at #2.

 

[wetcoast]

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

The big 4 is only cut and dry because offense is looked at in absolute terms and without context.

I really think there is a big 3 in Gretzky, Howe and Orr then there is a drop to the next level where of course one has to put Mario but he wasn't an ice tilter.

Orr and Lemieux both played in basically the same number of games careers shortened by injury but there is no doubt about which player consistently titled the ice and which player was more surface statistical offensive dominance.

Much as Frank Neighbour is seen by many in the project for his overall impact that filter tends to get a bit blinded by the video game stats of mario and the evaluation of the total impact of Mario isn't evaluated IMO.

Similar to the Ovechkin fanbase that emphasizes goals over everything else.

Orr and Mario have relatively similar resumes in terms of longevity but there is no doubt on which of the two tilted the ice and ahd a greater impact in the games he played in.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Compare the Top 100 Lists from 2008 and 2018/19.

There are 2 new players in the most recent list’s top 10, Patrick Roy (#7) and Raymond Bourque (#10).

Who is now out of the Top 10 to fit them in? Eddie Shore and Howie Morenz, both of whom were born in 1902.

The 2 oldest guys got kicked out. Two guys born in the 1960s replaced them.

Kind of agree, but with one caveat: The lack of a single goaltender was visibly problematic. It remains problematic that it’s underrepresented throughout the list. That there was greater emphasis on the normalization of save percentage after 2008 and 2009 and one of the biggest benefactors of that moved up is somewhat expected.

Does that mean both Shore and Morenz should have been the ones to drop off? Perhaps not. Morenz was already on the bubble by 2009 (11th), and Shore had seen his gap over Bourque close in our 2009 and 2012 projects to the point that this was actually anticipated coming into the project - not because of anything different in Bourque’s resume (he was 11th in 2008 and 10th in 2009), but rather from more thorough analysis of Shore’s beyond the count of Hart Trophies.

If Shore’s decline in reputation on HOH coincided with a lack of discussion about Shore, then I would say we did his generation a disservice. But the decline came from us putting everything he did under the microscope. And it goes without saying that the player who gained the most in the new project was Frank Nighbor.

Personally, I would still have Shore in my top-10.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's also useful to flip the argument. If it's true that today's players are better than those of the past (larger talent pool, better training, equipment and tactics, etc) then it's highly probable that the players from, say, 2040, will be objectively better than the players from today.

I remember around 10 years ago there was one poster on the main board who kept on arguing that Lidstrom was the greatest defenseman of all-time, and was better than Orr. (It was obvious this person didn't have even a vague understanding of Orr's strengths and weaknesses, and you could have replaced Orr's name with literally any player from his era). Eventually I asked him if he'd agree that, following his logic, Lidstrom would be inferior to whoever the best defensemen of the 2030's and 2040's would be.

If he had agreed to that point, at least he would have been fair and logically consistent. Instead he started talking about how hockey players are peaking and will never improve much from where they are now. So, very conveniently, he gets to keep his favourite player ranked #1 all-time indefinitely.

That's the irony - he used the "stronger era" argument to promote his favourite player, without realizing that in 25 years, he'd be on the other side of the same discussion with someone from a younger generation using that exact argument against him!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Kind of agree, but with one caveat: The lack of a single goaltender was visibly problematic. It remains problematic that it’s underrepresented throughout the list. That there was greater emphasis on the normalization of save percentage after 2008 and 2009 and one of the biggest benefactors of that moved up is somewhat expected.

If Shore’s decline in reputation on HOH coincided with a lack of discussion about Shore, then I would say we did his generation a disservice. But the decline came from us putting everything he did under the microscope. And it goes without saying that the player who gained the most in the new project was Frank Nighbor.

Personally, I would still have Shore in my top-10.

Lets face it, Shore's drop was led by one participant who was able to sell his view.

Shore would still be in my top 10 also.

 

[wetcoast]

I’ve seen like... one person argue that. And it was on a very literal “which would you draft, 10 years or 20?” type basis.

I resemble that remark.....

That being said Orr and his peak and his ability to tilt the ice for his entire and too short career is unmatched in NHL history.

Lidstrom gets undervalued at times though.

 

[Staniowski]

The big 4 is only cut and dry because offense is looked at in absolute terms and without context.

I really think there is a big 3 in Gretzky, Howe and Orr then there is a drop to the next level where of course one has to put Mario but he wasn't an ice tilter.

Orr and Lemieux both played in basically the same number of games careers shortened by injury but there is no doubt about which player consistently titled the ice and which player was more surface statistical offensive dominance.

Much as Frank Neighbour is seen by many in the project for his overall impact that filter tends to get a bit blinded by the video game stats of mario and the evaluation of the total impact of Mario isn't evaluated IMO.

Similar to the Ovechkin fanbase that emphasizes goals over everything else.

Orr and Mario have relatively similar resumes in terms of longevity but there is no doubt on which of the two tilted the ice and ahd a greater impact in the games he played in.

The "Big Four" is a temporary thing. I think it's clear that Gordie's days in the top 4 are numbered. It would be hard to imagine that the majority of the hockey world doesn't have Crosby in the top 4 in a few more years (or in five years, or whatever). And Crosby might not be the only one.

And, again, it's likely most people are going to have Lemieux at #2. I didn't see the segment with Friedman and Marek, but it seems they pretty casually had Lemieux at #2 without any discussion, even. They certainly are not the only ones who feel this way.

And, actually, Lemieux might already be the consensus #2.

 

[Theokritos]

Lets face it, Shore's drop was led by one participant who was able to sell his view.

That's an exaggeration. Shore already dropped between the 2007/2008 Top 100 project (2nd among defencemen, 7th/8th overall) and the 2011 Defencemen project (4th among defencemen, overtaken by Harvey and Bourque).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lemieux was routinely listed second without anyone proclaiming order. But, more notably, Gretzky and Lemieux were the only two that weren't debated. Orr vs Lidstrom. Howe was never given consideration on one list. Richard wasn't given much consideration on another. 99 and 66 were untouchable the way it the discussion went...

 

[seventieslord]

Lemieux was routinely listed second without anyone proclaiming order. But, more notably, Gretzky and Lemieux were the only two that weren't debated. Orr vs Lidstrom. Howe was never given consideration on one list. Richard wasn't given much consideration on another. 99 and 66 were untouchable the way it the discussion went...

Just wait until the people who saw them become old fogeys and the analysts of the day think they "played too long ago".

 

[Michael Farkas]

Invariably, it will happen...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Espo > Clarke? Why?

It's not the be-all, end-all, but it should be noted that while Clarke did better than Esposito in Hart voting, Esposito did better in all-star voting.

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

Sid's prime is actually quite a bit longer than Hasek's.

And yes, playoffs were a factor too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Compare the Top 100 Lists from 2008 and 2018/19.

There are 2 new players in the most recent list’s top 10, Patrick Roy (#7) and Raymond Bourque (#10).

Who is now out of the Top 10 to fit them in? Eddie Shore and Howie Morenz, both of whom were born in 1902.

The 2 oldest guys got kicked out. Two guys born in the 1960s replaced them.

In 2030, a decade from now, a new Top 100 List will almost certainly lose the Rocket (born 1921 and clinging to the #9 position), and don’t be surprised to see Doug Harvey (born 1924) also drop out of the top 10. They’re the 2 oldest guys left inside the current Top 10,
and by 2030 voters will insist that room be created for Crosby and Ovechkin, the two generation-defining stars of the first quarter of the 21st century.

If we ever reach a point where any of the Big Four are truly vulnerable, my guess is that Orr will be the first one targeted. 657 regular season games played is the obvious chink in his armour, and that number will be poked, prodded and exploited after he’s dead and gone.

Howe, on the other hand, is much harder to denigrate because of those incredible 30+ years. It’s a bit like Gretzky’s career assists total, one of those cold signature facts that just won’t go away. Lemieux and Orr don’t have any virtually bulletproof stats quite like Howe and Gretzky, both of whom are, in my view, safe for a long time to come.

Maybe you are right in the short term, but in the long term, I think Lemieux is the most likely to drop out of the "Mount Rushmore." Mainly because 'the eye test" is such a big part of his case. Partly because now you have a lot of people who saw his prime, without seeing the primes of the others, partly because he really did look that great.

In 50 years, people looking at history will probably see Lemieux as a similar but lesser Gretzky, while Orr and Howe have different merits.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe you are right in the short term, but in the long term, I think Lemieux is the most likely to drop out of the "Mount Rushmore." Mainly because 'the eye test" is such a big part of his case. Partly because now you have a lot of people who saw his prime, without seeing the primes of the others, partly because he really did look that great.

In 50 years, people looking at history will probably see Lemieux as a similar but lesser Gretzky, while Orr and Howe have different merits.

I tend to agree. With Mario it’s almost entirely an eye test. It took me the longest time to appreciate what Gretzky did, because Mario just looked so much better doing it. Hell, he’s probably still the best player with the puck I’ve ever seen. But if I’d never laid eyes on him, I’d throw him overboard without much thought. I think that’s due to happen on an entire generational level about 15 years from now.

Howe has the massive career totals and a “golden age” reputation. That makes him somewhat less vulnerable than Mario, though he’s clearly more vulnerable than Gretzky and Orr.

Gretzky is protected by easy-to-grasp counting stats. A bit like Babe Ruth, he’ll be on the list as long as 200-point seasons are meaningful.

Orr has three things going for him: he’s a defenseman, he played in a pre-Gretzky generation, and he was physical. I think we’ll get to a point where he represents all of those categories in the consensus top-4, so people calling themselves hockey fans aren’t stuck with a bunch of soft recent forwards as their Rushmore.

That leaves Mario and Howe on the chopping block. I think Mario’s closer to the edge. And unless one of these other candidates does something REALLY unexpected, I think it’s likely to end up as a Gretzky/Orr tier (representing the highest potential achievable in the sport) followed by a broader tier that includes half a dozen players. And our debate question becomes “who’s in your top tier after the Big 2?”

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I tend to agree. With Mario it’s almost entirely an eye test. It took me the longest time to appreciate what Gretzky did, because Mario just looked so much better doing it. Hell, he’s probably still the best player with the puck I’ve ever seen. But if I’d never laid eyes on him, I’d throw him overboard without much thought. I think that’s due to happen on an entire generational level about 15 years from now.

Howe has the massive career totals and a “golden age” reputation. That makes him somewhat less vulnerable than Mario, though he’s clearly more vulnerable than Gretzky and Orr.

Gretzky is protected by easy-to-grasp counting stats. A bit like Babe Ruth, he’ll be on the list as long as 200-point seasons are meaningful.

Orr has three things going for him: he’s a defenseman, he played in a pre-Gretzky generation, and he was physical. I think we’ll get to a point where he represents all of those categories in the consensus top-4, so people calling themselves hockey fans aren’t stuck with a bunch of soft recent forwards as their Rushmore.

That leaves Mario and Howe on the chopping block. I think Mario’s closer to the edge. And unless one of these other candidates does something REALLY unexpected, I think it’s likely to end up as a Gretzky/Orr tier (representing the highest potential achievable in the sport) followed by a broader tier that includes half a dozen players. And our debate question becomes “who’s in your top tier after the Big 2?”

I think you're right about the general public.

For us self-appointed "hockey historians," I just think it'll be tough to knock Gordie Howe out of the top tier, simply because he was the best player of competitive hockey's first 75 or so years by a clear and convincing margin.

I mean, it would be one thing to not have the first 75 years of hockey history represented if there were no consensus as to whom the best player of that era was. Sort of like how Morenz and Shore both just missed our top 10, largely because there was a debate as to whom should rank higher. But there really is little debate as to whom the best pre-1967 expansion player was - it's Howe by a wide margin. And I think that will remain the case.

 

[bobholly39]

I think you guys are exaggerating when you say Lemieux/Ovechkin/Crosby will be similarly forgotten by new generations 50 years from now.

There's a ton of hockey footage from tv games in the 90s - most of that is available online too. With Crosby/Ovechkin - the internet age - it's even that much more readily available.

I think that's something that's hugely lacking from looking at guys like Shore and Morenz. Even in Howe's era - there are some games, but it's low quality black and white often.

I don't think Gretzky/Lemieux - and much moreso Crosby/Ovechkin will ever suffer much from that

I suppose if the speed or look of the game changes drastically - 50 years from now people could look back and say 'wow, that's so slow, those goalies suck it's much easier to score', a bit like some do now about the 80s. It's hard to imagine the game getting much quicker though.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think you're right about the general public.

For us self-appointed "hockey historians," I just think it'll be tough to knock Gordie Howe out of the top tier, simply because he was the best player of competitive hockey's first 75 or so years by a clear and convincing margin.

I mean, it would be one thing to not have the first 75 years of hockey history represented if there were no consensus as to whom the best player of that era was. Sort of like how Morenz and Shore both just missed our top 10, largely because there was a debate as to whom should rank higher. But there really is little debate as to whom the best pre-1967 expansion player was - it's Howe by a wide margin. And I think that will remain the case.

That makes sense. Maybe more like a consensus "Big 3" with three distinct eras represented, and then a tier that includes Mario, Hasek, Crosby, Rocket, etc. I don't think Marek represents any kind of consensus for cutting Howe out of the picture... more just that he's the next guy on the chopping block after Mario, if we're talking about choosing between him and Gretzky and Orr. It may be that the consensus just stays at 3.

I agree Mario is quite likely to slip out of the picture in the next generation. You really had to see him to get it... otherwise the numbers don't quite make enough of a case. And based on experiences of people watching old highlight reels, they don't capture the magic at all. Between the poor quality of transfer from film to digital, people's inability to get over the way the game used to be played, and the fact that a 5-second clip doesn't translate to seeing him dominate 10 shifts in a row... people aren't going to get it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's probably a little bit more about game evolution than you're giving it credit for...

We have tape of Adam Oates, we can't decide where he belongs defensively (to cite a recent thread)...it's not so much about going back and watching, because not enough time is spent doing that anyhow...it's about game evolution. The game has never been faster (skilled-fast, not over-clocked fast, there's a difference) and has never been less physical. We just introduced another hyperspeed superstar (McDavid) who is different than the first one we had (Crosby)...he's faster. He's not the same style of "grinder", so to speak. I'm not easily impressed, this is an impressive organic-rush offense player. That happened within 10 years of Sid. There's some interesting prototypes out there: Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin...if he keeps up his pace, Draisaitl (a completely different style in his own right) may open up another country to us (already, Stutzle is probably the most technically skilled player in this draft, he ought to go #2)...you can get a run going, you can't really foresee rule changes, there's a lot of unknowns that don't involve CBC taping over our Beliveau games here...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think you guys are exaggerating when you say Lemieux/Ovechkin/Crosby will be similarly forgotten by new generations 50 years from now.

There's a ton of hockey footage from tv games in the 90s - most of that is available online too. With Crosby/Ovechkin - the internet age - it's even that much more readily available.

I think that's something that's hugely lacking from looking at guys like Shore and Morenz. Even in Howe's era - there are some games, but it's low quality black and white often.

I don't think Gretzky/Lemieux - and much moreso Crosby/Ovechkin will ever suffer much from that

I suppose if the speed or look of the game changes drastically - 50 years from now people could look back and say 'wow, that's so slow, those goalies suck it's much easier to score', a bit like some do now about the 80s. It's hard to imagine the game getting much quicker though.

I think the video footage is a good point about a differentiation, though I expect hockey to look different enough in some regard to where it absolutely will be held against some players.

I think if the next generation has an all-time level goaltender who adapts to the game in a new way and puts some distance between himself and the league average (or two or three goaltenders who do so, since they seem to always come in clusters), people might actually look back at this generation similar to how they do the 1980s.