Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (The Sequel)

[Nick Hansen]

I say all around player and you reply with a PPG stat?

Trottier was astronomically better defensively and physically than Malkin.

We all know that. But it must be weighed against offense. Malkin won against Crosby and Ovechkin in their prime and or peak while recording maybe the best playoff run in the last 20 years. Was Trottier capable of that?

I think Malkin's PPG so far in his career is far more impressive offensively than what Trottier accomplished in the 80's (centering Bossy).

 

[Fantomas]

His Norris record in that window is: 3, 3, 5, 7, 8

Lidstrom's Norris record in that timeframe is: 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 6.

Isn't there a better way to look at players than awards voting? Awards voting is historically unreliable.

For some reason in hockey awards voting results are seen as a valid way to classify players. But in sports like baseball past results in awards voting are often viewed as a joke.

 

[Fantomas]

I say all around player and you reply with a PPG stat?

Trottier was astronomically better defensively and physically than Malkin.

Astronomically?

 

[BenchBrawl]

We all know that. But it must be weighed against offense. Malkin won against Crosby and Ovechkin in their prime and or peak while recording maybe the best playoff run in the last 20 years. Was Trottier capable of that?

I think Malkin's PPG so far in his career is more impressive offensively than what Trottier accomplished in the 80's.

The gap between Malkin's and Trottier's offense is not big enough to compensate for the gap in virtually every other aspect of the game that is in favor of Trottier.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How many centers in history simultaneously combined so many skills and aspects like Bryan Trottier? The guy was doing everything right.

Trottier brought everything to the table, and left everything on the table.

 

[Nick Hansen]

How many centers in history simultaneously combined so many skills and aspects like Bryan Trottier? The guy was doing everything right.

Yes, agreed. I don't necessarily disagree with Trottier being higher than Malkin. It all depends on where they appear in the top 100 list.

C1958 raised the question of Francis, D. Gilmour, Modano and Sundin in the last thread. How do you rank them?

Also curious what you (as in the ones participating in this) do with Lindros. Most seem pretty clear on Forsberg (30-50 right?) because he never faltered the way Lindros did, he didn't become the ghost Eric did.

 

[Fantomas]

Players from past eras always have the mythology on their side. Contemporary players often not so much.

Trottier I think is a good example of this. He is astronomically great because he just is and that's that. It's just one of those things you learn at a young age.

But maybe he should be ahead of Malkin based on all of those intangibles in his game. Nevertheless maybe Malkin deserves more credit than he gets because his resume - regular season, playoffs, internationally - is also great and looks, at least to the naked eye, to be right there with Trottier's.

 

[MXD]

...Actually, I'll end up having Malkin back-to-back with Henri Richard, despite those two players having absolutely NOTHING in common, except playing center "behind" an even better player and winning more than two Stanley Cups.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Players from past eras always have the mythology on their side. Contemporary players often not so much.

Trottier I think is a good example of this. He is astronomically great because he just is and that's that. It's just one of those things you learn at a young age.

But maybe he should be ahead of Malkin based on all of those intangibles in his game. Nevertheless maybe Malkin deserves more credit than he gets because his resume - regular season, playoffs, internationally - is also great and looks, at least to the naked eye, to be right there with Trottier's.

Well I have no problem mythologizing modern players.Crosby is in my Top 10.

I don't know why people insist on trying to find era or nationality bias in other people.It's NOT hard to consider all eras.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Players from past eras always have the mythology on their side. Contemporary players often not so much.

Trottier I think is a good example of this. He is astronomically great because he just is and that's that. It's just one of those things you learn at a young age.

But maybe he should be ahead of Malkin based on all of those intangibles in his game. Nevertheless maybe Malkin deserves more credit than he gets because his resume - regular season, playoffs, internationally - is also great and looks, at least to the naked eye, to be right there with Trottier's.

I don't know if Trottier is the best example of this. Some of the guys from the 30's, 40's or the 50's bother me much more in that aspect.

 

[Fantomas]

Henri Richard is a very interesting example of a player whose perceived value in history is largely based on aspects outside of his basic offensive production. Known to be a winner, leader, great all-around player, even though his numbers are nothing special.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes, agreed. I don't necessarily disagree with Trottier being higher than Malkin. It all depends on where they appear in the top 100 list.

C1958 raised the question of Francis, D. Gilmour, Modano and Sundin in the last thread. How do you rank them?

Also curious what you (as in the ones participating in this) do with Lindros. Most seem pretty clear on Forsberg (30-50 right?) because he never faltered the way Lindros did, he didn't become the ghost Eric did.

I don't know yet, except that Sundin is out.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I don't know yet, except that Sundin is out.

Same.

I'd go with

Gilmour
Francis
Modano

I do appreciate the peak though, and I think Gilmour clearly peaked the highest out of these guys. Francis longevity is amazing. Modano two-way beast in a way that Sundin never was. I never really considered him a great despite that. It's tough.

 

[Fantomas]

Well I have no problem mythologizing modern players.Crosby is in my Top 10.

I don't know why people insist on trying to find era or nationality bias in other people.It's NOT hard to consider all eras.

Sure and there are some past players who seem to get little to no respect, like Marcel Dionne. It seems being perceived as a winner is crucial in order to attain a mythology.

Malkin will probably always get some points taken off because he plays second fiddle to Crosby, and is therefore not seen as a true catalyst to the Penguins success.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sure and there are some past players who seem to get little to no respect, like Marcel Dionne. It seems being perceived as a winner is crucial in order to attain a mythology.

Malkin will probably always get some points taken off because he plays second fiddle to Crosby, and is therefore not seen as a true catalyst to the Penguins success.

You won't find someone who feels sorry for Dionne with me.Same with Thornton.

I have to fight the urge to keep them out of my list completely.Thornton might not make it actually.Dionne... meh.

 

[Fantomas]

Does anyone have Dionne lower than Henri Richard?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Does anyone have Dionne lower than Henri Richard?

Absolutely not.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Does anyone have Dionne lower than Henri Richard?

Without having a fixed list, it's guaranteed that Henri > Dionne on my list.

 

[Fantomas]

Without having a fixed list, it's guaranteed that Henri > Dionne on my list.

Interesting. Look forward to see more lists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Henri Richard is a very interesting example of a player whose perceived value in history is largely based on aspects outside of his basic offensive production. Known to be a winner, leader, great all-around player, even though his numbers are nothing special.

All the old tables in this site got destroyed during the poorly performed site migration, but they showed that in the 1960s, Henri was up there with Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull as the best even stength scorers of the 1960s. Ahead of even Jean Beliveau.

 

[BenchBrawl]

All the old tables in this site got destroyed during the poorly performed site migration, but they showed that in the 1960s, Henri was up there with Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull as the best even stength scorers of the 1960s. Ahead of even Jean Beliveau.

And then there's the issue of whether Chicago played 3 lines versus 4 lines for Montreal.

 

[Fantomas]

All the old tables in this site got destroyed during the poorly performed site migration, but they showed that in the 1960s, Henri was up there with Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull as the best even stength scorers of the 1960s. Ahead of even Jean Beliveau.

Very interesting. If someone has this please post, because it is hard to believe.

 

[Thenameless]

Sure and there are some past players who seem to get little to no respect, like Marcel Dionne. It seems being perceived as a winner is crucial in order to attain a mythology.

Malkin will probably always get some points taken off because he plays second fiddle to Crosby, and is therefore not seen as a true catalyst to the Penguins success.

Yes, it's a bit unfortunate for players that didn't do as much winning. I remember having these same discussions with other hockey guys when I was much younger. Gilbert Perreault and Marcel Dionne were always being compared to Lafleur, and there were quite a few that felt Dionne was actually better than Lafleur.

Malkin and Crosby were both put into an ideal situation. The pair are just too much for other teams to handle. I believe this pair is slightly better than Beliveau/H. Richard, Fedorov/Yzerman, and Sakic/Forsberg - mostly on the strength of Malkin's ability to take over a game when Crosby is being shut down or injured. I see Malkin as a true 1B catalyst to the Penguins' success.

 

[Fantomas]

FYI the Henri Richard even strength scoring topic is discussed here: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/henri-richard-vs-dave-keon.1723093

 

[Michael Farkas]

Re: save pct.

Just because a team gives us shots doesn't mean it is bad defensively.

But to explore arena bias, could we do a home/away split of Bower's save pct to help?