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

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, that's why I'm not formalizing anything until I'm ready to go...I'll go crazy...one list, a minute before the deadline, that's it and that's all...

 

[Canadiens1958]

What happens if more NHL archival data is released?

 

[Michael Farkas]

We'd have to take it in stride...

 

[Canadiens1958]

We'd have to take it in stride...

Before the deadline yes. Part way thru phase two may shift discussions.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Before the deadline yes. Part way thru phase two may shift discussions.

If it means we get more data, I welcome such a problem.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It might. But unless there's a schedule from the NHL, I think we'll just have to play the ball as it lies. I think it would have to be one hell of a bombshell to knock us off course though, no? Like what kind of magnitude would elicit something that would change the landscape that dramatically do you think...? Just spitballing, because I can't even come up with anything reasonable...

 

[Captain Bowie]

It might. But unless there's a schedule from the NHL, I think we'll just have to play the ball as it lies. I think it would have to be one hell of a bombshell to knock us off course though, no? Like what kind of magnitude would elicit something that would change the landscape that dramatically do you think...? Just spitballing, because I can't even come up with anything reasonable...

That's what I would think as well. I can't imagine something that would drastically affect our process. I mean even to date what have they released recently that has had the biggest affect? I'm sure a lot more of the specific data will be used in more detail during the actual voting rounds rather than the prelim discussion anyways.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Many gaps between 1959-60 and 1933-34.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I wouldn’t exactly lump Sergei Fedorov and Brett Hull in with Forsberg and Malkin. The latter two were consistently held as top 3-5 players (with minority support as #1) for a decade-straight.

Fedorov and Hull were healthier but with a fraction of the window as top players. I think this is the difference between #30-40 range and #70-85 range.

Maybe a fraction of the window in terms of time span on a calendar, but you need to be on the ice for it to matter. Forsberg only played 5 seasons of 70+ games during that span in question. His peak was probably 2002-2004, but he only played half the available games. Malkin has been a walking bandaid for the better part of a decade now, though he does get some credit for playing almost every available playoff game at least. Still, I would say he only has 4 historically-relevant peak seasons to show for his decade of being considered a top player.

Brett Hull has three, Fedorov perhaps only two. In comparison to Malkin though, I think their non-peak filler years are a lot better. Over a point-per-game and a Selke contender in several off-peak seasons for Fedorov, who has a seven year span where he barely missed any games. Hull has another six seasons of averaging just a shade under 50 goals (includes pre-rated 1995 where he played 100% of games) surrounding his three monster 70+ goal years. Malkin's non-peak seasons simply don't offer much as he was always injured and inconsistent. Forsberg fares a little better than Malkin in this regard, as I recall he was pretty much always on his game when healthy, so I do have him #1 out of these four players, but the gap is small.

I don't think playoffs really separates these players either. They all have good reputations, and all brought their A game for two or more Cup-winning runs (I guess only 1.5 for Forsberg technically). I'll say though, I think Hull gets a little forgotten sometimes in this regard since he lacked that singular Smythe-worthy run. 103 goals (190 total points) in 202 games is impressive on its own, but consider over half his career playoff games came from ages 33-39.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It might. But unless there's a schedule from the NHL, I think we'll just have to play the ball as it lies. I think it would have to be one hell of a bombshell to knock us off course though, no? Like what kind of magnitude would elicit something that would change the landscape that dramatically do you think...? Just spitballing, because I can't even come up with anything reasonable...

Hard to imagine five years would bump his career number in their range, but Terry Sawchuk’s numbers for 1951-1955 could theoretically bump him into the .926-934 adjusted peak ranges of Dryden, Hasek, Roy, Esposito, and Parent.

We’ve seen stronger pushes for Dryden on casual hockey blogs and from the main boards after his numbers were released. At the very least it seemed to shatter the narrative that any goaltender has created an Orr-like gap within the position.

If we can see a pattern of these peak-level numbers occurring in the 50s, 70s, and 90s, I think it would go a long way in helping some groups trust that there have been great players at the position prior to the YouTube-1980s-slapshot-from-the-wing GAs they may be mentally comparing to what would be considered a bad goal in 2018.

We have to lure the young folk in with save percentage because they grew up with it and can understand it... then we spring the trap and tell them all of the reasons why it’s not always reliable.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll take care of that last paragraph any time you want...

I did some real rough and pointless estimates based on average shots per game, games played and goals against (raw) to see if any of those "pre-save pct" guys (that is, goalies who played a few years before 1953 or whatever it is) would be likely to receive a bump...and the answer seemed to be no. In fact, it seems like it will lower it slightly. But I don't have that on good authority...it was just back of envelope math...

 

[DannyGallivan]

Hard to imagine five years would bump his career number in their range, but Terry Sawchuk’s numbers for 1951-1955 could theoretically bump him into the .926-934 adjusted peak ranges of Dryden, Hasek, Roy, Esposito, and Parent.

We’ve seen stronger pushes for Dryden on casual hockey blogs and from the main boards after his numbers were released. At the very least it seemed to shatter the narrative that any goaltender has created an Orr-like gap within the position.

If we can see a pattern of these peak-level numbers occurring in the 50s, 70s, and 90s, I think it would go a long way in helping some groups trust that there have been great players at the position prior to the YouTube-1980s-slapshot-from-the-wing GAs they may be mentally comparing to what would be considered a bad goal in 2018.

We have to lure the young folk in with save percentage because they grew up with it and can understand it... then we spring the trap and tell them all of the reasons why it’s not always reliable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Malkin has been a walking bandaid for the better part of a decade now, though he does get some credit for playing almost every available playoff game at least.

Well, he did miss an entire playoff run. 2011?

I guess I see it as not enough to drop that much from their healthier contemporaries with similar decade-long reputations (#30-40 vs. the #10-20 Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin).

Orr and Hasek seem to take the lesser hits than players like Malkin and Forsberg and Lindros for their injury problems - almost certainly because there will always be more excellent forwards while truly great defensemen and goaltenders may be more rare.

 

[The Macho King]

We have til mid-October, right?

Gosh for some reason I thought it was mid-September. Okay I'll take another crack at a draft then.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well, he did miss an entire playoff run. 2011?

I guess I see it as not enough to drop that much from their healthier contemporaries with similar decade-long reputations (#30-40 vs. the #10-20 Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin).

Orr and Hasek seem to take the lesser hits than players like Malkin and Forsberg and Lindros for their injury problems - almost certainly because there will always be more excellent forwards while truly great defensemen and goaltenders may be more rare.

Orr had a short career, but was fairly reliable injury-wise during it. During his six peak seasons he only missed a significant number of games once. To me at least, there's a big difference between retiring young due to one particular injury that you just can't overcome, and constantly missing chunks of 10 and 20 games for years on end due to a laundry list of different ailments.

Hasek is harder to quantify. Opinions of him tend to be more spread out. People will have him inside the top 10 in this project, and others outside the top 30. Goaltenders in his era weren't typically expected to play more than 65 games in a season either. On the surface, Hasek only has one year of his nine year prime where he was significantly below what you'd expect for games played. You need to dig deeper to discover/remember that he seemingly flaked out with phantom injuries at a crucial time of year.

 

[ted2019]

I have Hasek barely outside the top 10.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I have Hasek barely outside the top 10.

Hasek 12, Roy 10.

 

[ted2019]

Hasek 12, Roy 10.

Hasek is my top rated goalie.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Hasek is my top rated goalie.

I have the two so close overall, I bounce between the two. I have a hard time committing to one over the other for very long. This time around I think I gave the edge based on longevity and playoffs

 

[Sentinel]

I'd say Forsberg is ahead. They're similar in offensive prowess and both have very good playoff runs, but in other aspects Forsberg brought more to the table while Malkin took things off.

Unless you completely disregard the most important aspect of the game : goalscoring.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Would it be possible to have the Top 10 scorers per season in the premier Czech and Soviet leagues from 1965 to 1990 as well as the regular season schedules?

Thank you.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek is my top rated goalie.

No goaltenders in the top-10 then? Not saying there’s a mandate or anything, but two names to take a look at strongly in comparison to some of the #5-10 skaters would be Jacques Plante and Patrick Roy. Both careers had structure more resembling that of a skater, so it may make for easier comparison to the usual suspects like a Maurice Richard or a Jean Beliveau - without all of the same caveats necessary when comparing Dominik Hasek and Terry Sawchuk.


I’m trying to remember who first drew the parallel between Patrick Roy’s career and golf scorecard (Michael Farber of Sports Illustrated?), but if you think of the 18 seasons as 18 holes, he probably just has the one double-eagle in 1989 where everything went right from October to May/June, but he also birdies just about everything else because even if he struggles getting to the green (1986 and 2001), he’ll chip it in because of his playoffs. And just the one bogey in a par-3 lockout season.

Not a whole lot in terms of water hazards or sand traps (injuries), and you’d have to take more than just his appendix in a playoff round to keep him from finishing a hole. And he helped modernize the swing and the club.

I’d keep going but I’m terrible at golf so I’m running out of metaph- OH! I bet he wishes he could mulligan his eagle putt in 2002. Okay, now I’m done.

Scoreboard to scorecard, he might have shot the same as Maurice Richard, so hopefully they’re eligible at the same time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No goaltenders in the top-10 then? Not saying there’s a mandate or anything, but two names to take a look at strongly in comparison to some of the #5-10 skaters would be Jacques Plante and Patrick Roy. Both careers had structure more resembling that of a skater, so it may make for easier comparison to the usual suspects like a Maurice Richard or a Jean Beliveau - without all of the same caveats necessary when comparing Dominik Hasek and Terry Sawchuk.


I’m trying to remember who first drew the parallel between Patrick Roy’s career and golf scorecard (Michael Farber of Sports Illustrated?), but if you think of the 18 seasons as 18 holes, he probably just has the one double-eagle in 1989 where everything went right from October to May/June, but he also birdies just about everything else because even if he struggles getting to the green (1986 and 2001), he’ll chip it in because of his playoffs. And just the one bogey in a par-3 lockout season.

Not a whole lot in terms of water hazards or sand traps (injuries), and you’d have to take more than just his appendix in a playoff round to keep him from finishing a hole. And he helped modernize the swing and the club.

I’d keep going but I’m terrible at golf so I’m running out of metaph- OH! I bet he wishes he could mulligan his eagle putt in 2002. Okay, now I’m done.

Scoreboard to scorecard, he might have shot the same as Maurice Richard, so hopefully they’re eligible at the same time.

Extending the golf analogy, the goaltender discussions will come down to the willingness to play all golf courses and tournaments vs selective golf courses and tournaments.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Patrick Roy would never be caught dead on a public course like a peasant...

 

[DannyGallivan]

No goaltenders in the top-10 then? Not saying there’s a mandate or anything,

Well, there's five skaters to every goalie, so it shouldn't really be too surprising. Plus it's too early to have a drink (referring to the thread guidelines in the very first post), but it's hard enough to rank goaltenders among skaters anyways.