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

[Johnny Engine]

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

Worth noting that Marek seems fine with the Rocket and open to Beliveau but completely dismissive of Howe in that transcript. I'm 50/50 on whether he has any consistent reasoning on why that would be.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I had Clarke 15th and Esposito 40th. I have Clarke's defensive value and his value as an elite 2 way player way ahead of Espo and his one dimensional play. I might be the highest of Clarke and the lowest on Espo during the original rankings. Also if the Selke was around before 1977 he could have 3 to 4 Selke's, instead of the one.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

I don't know about that. Nowadays, you still see a ton of general public types, people who have taken a short but not deep look, and the usual media person who knows lots about hockey today but nothing about the past, cite Mike Bossy as being way higher than he should be. It's obvious why - career goals per game and/or career points per game. You need to be 50 now, to have been the age of reason when Bossy was in his prime.

Fast forward 10 more years, and the next generations of those types of folks will have every reason to overrate Mario Lemieux, PLUS, they can watch highlights of him more easily.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

This is the kind of mental stretch that's so hard to make until it's too late. It's like the anecdote above about the Lidstrom fan who thought there couldn't possibly be improvement beyond the state of the game in 2002. Even today, that stance already looks really silly. Let alone with some more distance.

Part of what I'm getting at with Mario above isn't actually about Mario. It's about 15-year-olds watching a grainy YouTube video of him casually walking two North Stars defensemen and deking a goalie completely out of the net... and the 15-year-old's reaction is "so, were all the defensemen and goalies that bad, or were the ones who didn't make the Finals even worse?".

It seems completely believable that in 20 years, the game will be different in ways that will make the McDavid Era look like fundamentally unsound hockey. The trick is we don't have a clue what those differences will be...

Worth noting that Marek seems fine with the Rocket and open to Beliveau but completely dismissive of Howe in that transcript. I'm 50/50 on whether he has any consistent reasoning on why that would be.

TBH I'm not really sure why Marek's opinion is even relevant, other than his having a large platform to influence people. This reminds me of the recent NHL.com lists where one of the voters transparently took a list of all-time GP and interspersed a few familiar names, and called it a day.

 

[ted2019]

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?

I love Basketball history. Anyway you can get those websites for me?

 

[ted2019]

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.

I think you meant to say that there is more information out there now then there was in the past. New information can either help a player ( Frank Nighbor) or hurt a player ( Eddie Shore in this case).

 

[BadgerBruce]

I think most of the people posting in this thread are aware that I do not participate in the ranking projects. Yet, I have immense respect for many of the posters who do devote their time and energy to those projects, and I often follow along to learn more and to see which way the wind is blowing. I suppose I could delete all of that and just say “Thank You,” right?

Anyway, the subject under discussion in this thread is a bit complicated, but eventually I end up evaluating players primarily in terms of what was expected/ demanded of them during their specific time period.

So, as a for instance, we know that coaches at all levels, including the NHL, insisted that goaltenders stay on their feet until relatively recent times. If Johnny Bower had somehow become an early adopter of a butterfly style during the Leafs 1958 training camp, Imlach would have given him a one-way bus ticket back to Cleveland. Of course, that would have been preferable to a Springfield banishment, where Eddie Shore might have put a noose around Bower’s neck and tied the other end of the rope to the crossbar.

The point I’m making is simply that criticizing a player for doing what his bosses demanded of him at a particular point in time is just lame. When Bobby Hull took a 6 or 8 minute shift in the ‘71 finals against Montreal (as opposed to a 37 second sprint today’s forwards take), he didn’t refuse to come off the ice — No, Billy Reay wouldn’t let him come off.

Of course, there are players who adapt to changing philosophies and demands without really missing a beat. I remain utterly amazed by Gordie Howe’s capacity to thrive in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and even the very early 80s. I understand that the majority of today’s fans think of him as some prehistoric dinosaur, but my Lord, if Gordie had been King of the Dinosaurs, they’d still be walking the earth. Hell, I know that virtually all statistics require context, but in his very last season he picked up 26 helpers in 80 games (.325 per game), which placed him 144th in the league, and that’s with 3rd or 4th line minutes most nights. Looks rather pedestrian until you realize that there was an NHL winger last season who was 17 years younger than Howe and notched 19 assists in 68 games (0.279 per game), which placed him 217th in the league. Forget his name ...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think you meant to say that there is more information out there now then there was in the past. New information can either help a player ( Frank Nighbor) or hurt a player ( Eddie Shore in this case).

Pretty sure I didn't mean to say that.

 

[bobholly39]

We ranked Jaromir Jagr 16th on this list. Did he get a raw deal? I had him in my top 10, and feel he's too low.

His sustained peak (~5 years) is arguably the best outside of the big 4.
Longevity is there - among the best ever. Which also includes career numbers (2nd in points, etc).
He has the awards/trophies, does very well here against almost anyone.

I think the biggest complaint about him was playoffs. He has a lot of points and high scoring, but no real 'conn smythe worthy runs'. I remember a lot of arguments about how he's not the type of player you win with, or he wasn't very good in the playoffs.

If you look at this thread here - Jagr has 18 3rd period/OT game-tying or game-OT goals in the playoffs - good for 3rd all time since the 1980 season, behind Hull and Sakic. If you scroll down the thread to this post you'll see that he's actually first all time for points in that metric, with 39 points (above Hull, Messier & Gretzky). In terms of being 'clutch' in important situations in playoffs - that's almost as good as it gets, no?

I still say I would like to see Jagr further up the list. I see no reason why he can't get more serious consideration for being as high as #5 - but otherwise, top 10 or so. I'd definitely have him ahead of a few defensemen above him (Lidstrom, Shore) and I think he has a very strong case for being bumped all the way up to #2 for wingers, behind Howe.

Am I remembering right when I say playoffs were the biggest knock against Jagr - and does this data here change any of that? I don't remember these stats being posted during the discussion - but I could be wrong.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That was the biggest knock, and the Lemieux boogeyman...the reality is, a lot of those Penguins teams just weren't very good after '94...poor coaching, poor depth (worse the further you get from the '93 team), no defense (after Zubov especially), erratic goaltending...

For the people who dismiss what these five-game play-in series could be like with a Carey Price or a Patrick Kane in nothing-to-lose spots...see: Jagr singlehandedly and single-leggedly beats New Jersey in the 1999 ECQF. That's what it looks like. That's exactly what NHL staff fears.

Penguins defense, 1993-94 to 2001-02 (min. 150 GP):
Darius Kasparaitis (405 GP)
Ian Moran (264 GP, sometimes played forward) - Played from age 23 to 30, but wasn't a regular for any other organization.
Chris Tamer (253 GP) - Played from age 24-29, traded to NYR, but then only hung on because expansion Atlanta got him.
Jiri Slegr (252 GP)
Kevin Hatcher (220 GP)
Brad Werenka (213 GP) - Played three full seasons with Pittsburgh. Could not stick as a regular with four other orgs.
Michal Rozsival (184 GP)
Hans Jonsson (179 GP) - Only played in the NHL for Pittsburgh, went back to Sweden before the lockout.
Francois Leroux (165 GP, sometimes played forward) - lol, ok

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

We ranked Jaromir Jagr 16th on this list. Did he get a raw deal? I had him in my top 10, and feel he's too low.

His sustained peak (~5 years) is arguably the best outside of the big 4.
Longevity is there - among the best ever. Which also includes career numbers (2nd in points, etc).
He has the awards/trophies, does very well here against almost anyone.

I think the biggest complaint about him was playoffs. He has a lot of points and high scoring, but no real 'conn smythe worthy runs'. I remember a lot of arguments about how he's not the type of player you win with, or he wasn't very good in the playoffs.

If you look at this thread here - Jagr has 18 3rd period/OT game-tying or game-OT goals in the playoffs - good for 3rd all time since the 1980 season, behind Hull and Sakic. If you scroll down the thread to this post you'll see that he's actually first all time for points in that metric, with 39 points (above Hull, Messier & Gretzky). In terms of being 'clutch' in important situations in playoffs - that's almost as good as it gets, no?

I still say I would like to see Jagr further up the list. I see no reason why he can't get more serious consideration for being as high as #5 - but otherwise, top 10 or so. I'd definitely have him ahead of a few defensemen above him (Lidstrom, Shore) and I think he has a very strong case for being bumped all the way up to #2 for wingers, behind Howe.

Am I remembering right when I say playoffs were the biggest knock against Jagr - and does this data here change any of that? I don't remember these stats being posted during the discussion - but I could be wrong.

As I recall, his 3 year stint in Washington was also a knock. Jagr didn't fit there for some reason and he didn't seem to make an effort to change it.

I had him ranked 16th, he came in 16th. So yes, the ranking is suspect.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think every forward and goaltender that comes up in that #10-20 block is in for a bad time, because there are so many defensemen that people believe to be in such close proximity to each other, that it becomes easy to fall on the wrong side of five names. It’s especially tough since defensemen are less likely to have a statistical resume that people would find disagreeable. More than that, I don’t know that criticism of Lidstrom’s ESGA numbers really came up until Pronger was eligible, otherwise it’s possible Jagr would have held his position just above from their previous voting round.

 

[bobholly39]

As I recall, his 3 year stint in Washington was also a knock. Jagr didn't fit there for some reason and he didn't seem to make an effort to change it.

I had him ranked 16th, he came in 16th. So yes, the ranking is suspect.

yeah no question the Washington years were bad - especially 2003 - but I don't know that it should have a huge negative effect. If you take the 6 year stretch of 98 to 2003 - it's still Ross, Ross, Ross, Ross, Washington, Washington. That probably averages out to a better consecutive 6 year regular season stretch from pretty much....almost anyone in history minus a few, including many ranked above him. And he rebounded in a big way past Washington.

So knock him down a bit for 1-2 bad years in his prime, sure, that's fine. But I think rest of his resume makes up for it.

I feel as though it's mostly playoffs that hurt him a lot during discussion. And I remember showing how he was scoring at a higher clip than both Forsberg and Sakic in their best playoff years - he just didn't quite have the team to back him. With the new insight in how instrumental he was in clutch goals/assists - I think it reinforces the notion that his playoffs are actually pretty great.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

yeah no question the Washington years were bad - especially 2003 - but I don't know that it should have a huge negative effect. If you take the 6 year stretch of 98 to 2003 - it's still Ross, Ross, Ross, Ross, Washington, Washington. That probably averages out to a better consecutive 6 year regular season stretch from pretty much....almost anyone in history minus a few, including many ranked above him. And he rebounded in a big way past Washington.

So knock him down a bit for 1-2 bad years in his prime, sure, that's fine. But I think rest of his resume makes up for it.

I feel as though it's mostly playoffs that hurt him a lot during discussion. And I remember showing how he was scoring at a higher clip than both Forsberg and Sakic in their best playoff years - he just didn't quite have the team to back him. With the new insight in how instrumental he was in clutch goals/assists - I think it reinforces the notion that his playoffs are actually pretty great.

I think many people view Jagr as a top 10 talent but not a top 10 player.

 

[bobholly39]

I think many people view Jagr as a top 10 talent but not a top 10 player.

That's a bit of an odd statement for Jagr - considering how much longevity he has. His career is more complete than a majority of players in history barring just a few.

Such a statement for Forsberg (and instead of top 10, say top 20 or 30) would be fine - super talented, but injuries/missed opportunities and he didn't accomplish as much as he could. Don't see how Jagr suffers from that. Unless you meant it in a different way.

 

[Staniowski]

We ranked Jaromir Jagr 16th on this list. Did he get a raw deal? I had him in my top 10, and feel he's too low.

His sustained peak (~5 years) is arguably the best outside of the big 4.
Longevity is there - among the best ever. Which also includes career numbers (2nd in points, etc).
He has the awards/trophies, does very well here against almost anyone.

I think the biggest complaint about him was playoffs. He has a lot of points and high scoring, but no real 'conn smythe worthy runs'. I remember a lot of arguments about how he's not the type of player you win with, or he wasn't very good in the playoffs.

If you look at this thread here - Jagr has 18 3rd period/OT game-tying or game-OT goals in the playoffs - good for 3rd all time since the 1980 season, behind Hull and Sakic. If you scroll down the thread to this post you'll see that he's actually first all time for points in that metric, with 39 points (above Hull, Messier & Gretzky). In terms of being 'clutch' in important situations in playoffs - that's almost as good as it gets, no?

I still say I would like to see Jagr further up the list. I see no reason why he can't get more serious consideration for being as high as #5 - but otherwise, top 10 or so. I'd definitely have him ahead of a few defensemen above him (Lidstrom, Shore) and I think he has a very strong case for being bumped all the way up to #2 for wingers, behind Howe.

Am I remembering right when I say playoffs were the biggest knock against Jagr - and does this data here change any of that? I don't remember these stats being posted during the discussion - but I could be wrong.

Jagr is one of the players who the younger generations are very high on, and I don't think there is any doubt that he will move up rankings in the coming years.

He has a lot going for him, including the fact that his accomplishments occurred in a very deep period for talent.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's a bit of an odd statement for Jagr - considering how much longevity he has. His career is more complete than a majority of players in history barring just a few.

Such a statement for Forsberg (and instead of top 10, say top 20 or 30) would be fine - super talented, but injuries/missed opportunities and he didn't accomplish as much as he could. Don't see how Jagr suffers from that. Unless you meant it in a different way.

More about all around play.

Jagr is a complete possession player. His game is getting the puck and holding on to it until he can make his play. Leads to longer shifts and appears more individualistic than team oriented. Kind of like Esposito but with better wheels. Not known as a two-way player. Also the fact that he went so long without winning a Cup.

Like many of the great players, circumstances play a huge part in perception of them. I don't think Jagr's circumstances were always beneficial to him.

 

[Staniowski]

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.

I dont think you're doing a very good job of describing what is happening.

The people who are not as high on Howe are not starting to come out of the woodwork, nor have they waited until Gordie died.

To back up a little....the fall of Gordie Howe in the public consciousness has been going on for multiple decades now, and you can see it, in one sense, in how far below Gretzky he now is for the vast majority of people.

Change is inevitable, younger generations always think differently.

The fact that younger generations haven't seen Howe play is a big problem. And that's not going to change.

Lemieux, on the other hand, is the most recent truly dominant player. How long will it be before we see another player of Lemieux's caliber.

The younger generations are very high on Lemieux, and this will only become more prominent.

 

[Staniowski]

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.

You really think Lemieux is going to "slip out of the picture in the next generation"?

The evidence appears, to me, to point in the exact opposite direction. The younger generations are extremely high on Lemieux. These generations aren't going to dissappear.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You really think Lemieux is going to "slip out of the picture in the next generation"?

The evidence appears, to me, to point in the exact opposite direction. The younger generations are extremely high on Lemieux. These generations aren't going to dissappear.

I think that’s going to change quickly and dramatically when the number of people who actually saw him play becomes smaller than those who didn’t.

If Lemieux had never existed and someone proposed his career as a hypothetical, he wouldn’t be a consensus “Big Four” guy. His case is based very heavily on realizing just how incredibly good of a player he was, beyond what the stats can convey. Scoring an NHL goal is one thing... creating that goal out of thin air while everyone gawks in amazement is something different. But people who know him only through stats, or through grainy highlight clips, won’t get that part of the puzzle. And at some point those people become the dominant voice in the room.

 

[bobholly39]

I think that’s going to change quickly and dramatically when the number of people who actually saw him play becomes smaller than those who didn’t.

If Lemieux had never existed and someone proposed his career as a hypothetical, he wouldn’t be a consensus “Big Four” guy. His case is based very heavily on realizing just how incredibly good of a player he was, beyond what the stats can convey. Scoring an NHL goal is one thing... creating that goal out of thin air while everyone gawks in amazement is something different. But people who know him only through stats, or through grainy highlight clips, won’t get that part of the puzzle. And at some point those people become the dominant voice in the room.

The one thing Lemieux has on....just about every player in history, including his co big-3, is the 'eye test'. He has so many highlight reel moments and goals, arguably moreso than anyone - that even 30-40 years from now it'll still be easy to notice. I assume his stats will still look great too, unless some players start beating that.

Howe has a lot less of that (and video footage less readily available).
Orr probably has a lot - but I think Lemieux looks better, and more footage helps.
Gretzky is great (and obviously with all the records is untouchable regardless) - but again, Lemieux has a ton of highlight reels where he can probably outdo #99.

That should have some lasting power.

If anything - guys like Crosby/Ovechkin - they certainly have some highlight reel moments- but much less than Lemieux. 50 years from now they'd be more likely to slip. Lemieux is somewhat bullet proof in that sense.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The one thing Lemieux has on....just about every player in history, including his co big-3, is the 'eye test'. He has so many highlight reel moments and goals, arguably moreso than anyone - that even 30-40 years from now it'll still be easy to notice. I assume his stats will still look great too, unless some players start beating that.

Howe has a lot less of that (and video footage less readily available).
Orr probably has a lot - but I think Lemieux looks better, and more footage helps.
Gretzky is great (and obviously with all the records is untouchable regardless) - but again, Lemieux has a ton of highlight reels where he can probably outdo #99.

That should have some lasting power.

If anything - guys like Crosby/Ovechkin - they certainly have some highlight reel moments- but much less than Lemieux. 50 years from now they'd be more likely to slip. Lemieux is somewhat bullet proof in that sense.

Time will tell, but I think you’re being generous with how many people will look at 1980s and 1990s defense as being on equal ground with 2040s defense. People today are quick to believe that the 1960s NHL was a glorified beer league.

Ironically, this puts Mario in the position of looking TOO good. He looks like a varsity player picking on the JV team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Who are we talking about? The casual fan, the historian, or someone in between?

Mario Lemieux is unlikely to be pushed down for several reasons:

• 1) He has the best collection of highlights out of any player; his talent is very obvious regardless of eras or level of opposition. This is not true of everyone.
• 2) His height/weight will likely be considered huge even 100 years from now
• 3) He has a very clean resume: From prodigy to biggest prospect ever to NHL star to NHL legend, along with good narratives like the cancer year or his come back year.
• 4) The further in the future we go, the more it looks like he singlehandedly won the back-to-back Stanley Cups
• 5) Great international resume (especially 1987 playing with Gretzky and the big goal).
• 6) High total numbers always look better than small total numbers, even with Gretzky around to relativize them. (Howe suffers from this greatly)
• 7) Overwhelming testimonies of his dominance

 

[Trap Jesus]

Who are we talking about? The casual fan, the historian, or someone in between?

Mario Lemieux is unlikely to be pushed down for several reasons:

• 1) He has the best collection of highlights out of any player; his talent is very obvious regardless of eras or level of opposition. This is not true of everyone.
• 2) His height/weight will likely be considered huge even 100 years from now
• 3) He has a very clean resume: From prodigy to biggest prospect ever to NHL star to NHL legend, along with good narratives like the cancer year or his come back year.
• 4) The further in the future we go, the more it looks like he singlehandedly won the back-to-back Stanley Cups
• 5) Great international resume (especially 1987 playing with Gretzky and the big goal).
• 6) High total numbers always look better than small total numbers, even with Gretzky around to relativize them. (Howe suffers from this greatly)
• 7) Overwhelming testimonies of his dominance

I actually think among casual fans Lemieux probably will get pushed down. I remember when I was growing up and just getting into hockey (late 90s) the common thought was Gretzky vs. Orr was not too far off from a toss-up for best ever (Gretzky with the edge), but more recently you see it way more tilted towards Gretzky. As time goes by I think you really start to see people appreciate his longevity more, and the other side of that is that you'll start to see Lemieux knocked more because unlike Orr, he's competing directly with Gretzky and Howe as a forward.

With Lemieux, he just has a lot going against him for longevity, playing in Gretzky's shadow for a decent portion of his career (and in that high scoring era so some will bring up inflated stats), and now being passed in Cups by Crosby + Malkin in the same organization. I know that last one may seem trivial, but if you look at any arguments about the greatest of all time in basketball you'll see how much championships get brought up in arguments.

 

[bobholly39]

Who are we talking about? The casual fan, the historian, or someone in between?

Mario Lemieux is unlikely to be pushed down for several reasons:

• 1) He has the best collection of highlights out of any player; his talent is very obvious regardless of eras or level of opposition. This is not true of everyone.
• 2) His height/weight will likely be considered huge even 100 years from now
• 3) He has a very clean resume: From prodigy to biggest prospect ever to NHL star to NHL legend, along with good narratives like the cancer year or his come back year.
• 4) The further in the future we go, the more it looks like he singlehandedly won the back-to-back Stanley Cups
• 5) Great international resume (especially 1987 playing with Gretzky and the big goal).
• 6) High total numbers always look better than small total numbers, even with Gretzky around to relativize them. (Howe suffers from this greatly)
• 7) Overwhelming testimonies of his dominance

Don't forget some of the stories surrounding him coming back from cancer in 1993 to dominate the scoring race - and his return from retirement at age 35 and still scoring at...an insane rate. I think those 2 stories will age very well.