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

[MXD]

How is everyone on Morenz vs Crosby? I've never been a fan of Crosby but to my surprise I think his career holds up pretty well to Morenz's.

Crosby ahead. Three players in between them. Open to reconsideration.

 

[bobholly39]

Okay... Can somebody explain to me what this post is about? It seems that pretty much EVERYTHING that could possibly be wrong is actually wrong.

We're talking about a player who won two straight Art Ross, who would've won two straight Hart if it weren't for that "No Playoff" stipulation. McDavid won the Art Ross with bigger gaps than Crosby ever did (and in a lower scoring environment to boot!) and against possibly even better competition than Crosby (because said competition includes Crosby!). Malkin? !?!? Kane?!?! MESSIER who probably should've lost his Hart to a D-MEN if everyone had been honest amongst voters....? I can concede for Mikita, but the others, sorry, I don't get it.

(Oh and I'd like the intake of somebody else than the person I'm quoting...)

I find that you're one of the most arrogant posters here. You should really tone it down at times.

"hey im going to call out this poster and make his post sound ridiculous - but then im gonna specifically forbid him from replying to me and ask someone else to - and i won't even deign to address said poster directly, instead will refer to him in the 3rd person". Cool

Here goes anyways. I'll try to help you "get it".

1. The "gaps" by which you win an art ross isn't the end all be all. Crosby 2014 is bigger than any of McDavids though. Also - last year there was a lot more high scorers then in 2014, and some other seasons Crosby did good in, so "lower scoring environment" - not really.
2. Messier has 2 harts, not 1. He also has some pretty ridiculous playoff performances. The best of McDavid is comparable maybe, but he's yet to do anything to significantly surpass that level of play - let alone even match it maybe. If his peak was more out of this world - maybe he'd stand out more in such a project despite the obvious lack of longevity. It's not and so he doesn't.
3. Kane's art ross season is better than either of McDavid's imo. He's also had some great playoffs
4. I also prefer Malkin's best season to McDavid. Also - playoffs.

Finally - since McDavid isn't even relevant to this discussion, not sure why we're going down that tangent.

 

[MXD]

"hey im going to call out this poster and make his post sound ridiculous - but then im gonna specifically forbid him from replying to me and ask someone else to - and i won't even deign to address said poster directly, instead will refer to him in the 3rd person". Cool

This wasn't even what I was doing, but okay. Turns out I just wanted SOMEONE ELSE's opinion, since I already got yours. I might have been completely off too --- not the first time not the last. I might actually be off on this one, but I guess I'll wait for somebody else to chime in, since, frankly, I didn't even get past the /quote.

If you really don't want me to bother about your input, you could've asked more directly, you know. It's kinda sad, because you usually bring interesting perspectives.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

10. Sergei Makarov (RW)
20. Steve Yzerman (С)
30. Red Kelly (D / LW)
40. Ted Lindsay (LW)
50. Brett Hull (RW)

Brett Hull at 50 seems way too high

 

[K Fleur]

Just for clarity’s sake on league scoring during each player’s Art Ross Wins(so far)

McDavid

17-18: 5.94gpg
16-17: 5.53gpg

Crosby

13-14: 5.49gpg
06-07: 5.89gpg

Though I don’t think “meh” is an accurate way to describe McDavid’s peak(if that’s even the right word)and I can definitely understand people having him on their lists. Even if it’s “early”.

 

[The Macho King]

McDavid basically has 2/3rds of Marcel Dionne's peak, but none of the rest of his accomplishments. Not the career numbers, not the sustained success, etc. Add on to that, he has Dionne's playoff disappointment - one trip where he largely played second fiddle to an inferior player. Dionne is 50th on my list (will probably drop a few spots). Thornton is in the low 90s on my list (will probably drop out of the top 100). I don't see how McDavid's peak, as brief as it is, outpaces either Dionne or Thornton, and he doesn't have nearly the sustained production of those guys.

He's obviously well on his way, and the next time we do this list he will likely be on it. But based on his 3 year career, he has a good peak but not one that's unheard of, no reputation of sustained success (obviously since his career is only three years long), and nothing in the playoffs that make him stand out. He's outside of my 120.

 

[bobholly39]

Just for clarity’s sake on league scoring during each player’s Art Ross Wins(so far)

McDavid

17-18: 5.94gpg
16-17: 5.53gpg

Crosby

13-14: 5.49gpg
06-07: 5.89gpg

Though I don’t think “meh” is an accurate way to describe McDavid’s peak(if that’s even the right word)and I can definitely understand people having him on their lists. Even if it’s “early”.

I don't know that league scoring averages is always an accurate representation of how hard it is to score points or not. Sometimes it's just a result - ie top scorers performed better in 17-18, and so more goals were scored. Unless there are specific dynamics, rule changes or other that you can pinpoint that have an actual significant effect on scoring, i've never liked this idea much.

I mean it's one thing to look at scoring eras when comparing today to the 80s or 50s - but comparing year to year i don't think there should be almost any significance.

"Meh" for a peak - in an all-time sense, yeah. I look at Jagr's best seasons, or Lafleur, maybe Ovechkin...some of those guys have an argument for greatest offensive peak seasons after the big 4. McDavid isn't on that level. He's a step below - alongside many other art ross winners (i'm sure he'll improve and likely reach such a level in-time). What I was trying to say is that if he had reached a peak season that had an argument as one of the best ever (ie in this era you'd think 120+ points) - maybe you try to find room for him despite lack of longevity. But without that, his peak isn't anything all that special yet.

 

[Theokritos]

And also repeatedly outplaying Tretiak in head-to-head tournaments is a nice thing to have. Btw. I believe Czechoslovaks actually allowed less goals than Soviets in the 1971-1978 timeframe, despite Soviets taking most of gold medals.

There is one thing I want to add to the Tretyak vs Holeček head-to-head comparison. I seem to remember someone already mentioned their respective ages during the Europeans project, even though I can't find the post in question right now.

Both goaltenders competed head-to-head from 1971-1978. During that time frame, Tretyak was 18-19 to 25-26 years old and Holeček 26-27 to 33-34 years old.

Head-to-head:
1971: Holeček (26-27) – Best Goaltender and All-star
1972: Holeček (27-28) – All-star
1973: Holeček (28-29) – Best Goaltender and All-star
1974: Tretyak (20-21) – Best Goaltender and All-star
1975: split / Holeček (30-31) – Best Goaltender / Tretyak (21-22) – All-star
1976: Holeček (31-32) – Best Goaltender and All-star
1977: neither
1978: Holeček (33-34) – Best Goaltender and All-star

Tretyak won his first international honour at an age when Holeček didn't even play at the WCH. The Tretyak that Holeček repeatedly outplayed was younger than Holeček was before he won his first international honour.

Holeček overall:
26-27 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star
27-28 yo: All-star
28-29 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star
30-31 yo: Best Goaltender
31-32 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star
33-34 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star

Tretyak overall:
21-22 yo: All-star
26-27 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star
(27-28 yo: Olympics, no individual honours to win)
28-29 yo: Best Goaltender
30-31 yo: Best Goaltender and All-star
(31-32 yo: Olympics, no individual honours to win)

Tretyak retired at the age of 32, when he was still in his prime (he was 2nd in Best Player voting in the USSR that year). It's likely he would have won a few more international honours if he continued to play. That's not taking anything away from what Holeček achieved, but I think it puts their respective achievements a bit into perspective.

 

[steve141]

Current list (not final):

10. Hull
20. Mikita
30. Brodeur
40. Vezina
...
120. Ching Johnson

 

[steve141]

10. Sergei Makarov (RW)
20. Steve Yzerman (С)
30. Red Kelly (D / LW)
40. Ted Lindsay (LW)
50. Brett Hull (RW)

Interesting. I have Kelly almost 30 places higher than Yzerman. But I'm probably higher than most on Kelly and lower on Yzerman. These discussion's are going to be fun!

 

[Sentinel]

Brett Hull at 50 seems way too high

Definitely higher than most people, but I can't help it. Snatching the Hart in the middle of Gretzky / Lemieux reign, scoring the highest non-Gretzky's goal number in a single season (with no empty netters, otherwise this number could've been even higher), legendary World Cup performances, and a legendary Cup-winning goal go a long way in my book.

 

[Sentinel]

Man Yzerman at 20 seems crazy high....to me he's closer to 20th center than 20th player overall.

To be fair i'm still working on my list so i don't have a slot for him yet to compare, but it just seems high

Did you end up slotting Makarov above Jagr? I remember you seemed 50/50 on it in the past.

Yes, barely. Makarov at 10, Jagr at 14.

Yzerman has phenomenal highs in both offense (highest non-Gretzky/Lemieux point total ever, snatched the Lindsay from them both in their prime) and defense (Selke + 1AST), as well as one of the best leaders in NHL history, with a series of legendary playoff performances to boot (a Conn Smythe + 2002 one-leg show). A very special player. I used to have him higher.

 

[VanIslander]

Brett Hull ahead of Bernie Geoffrion, Bill Cook or Sergei Makarov would be unfathomable, and grounds for rejecting/questioning the submitted list, wouldn't it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brett Hull ahead of Bernie Geoffrion, Bill Cook or Sergei Makarov would be unfathomable, and grounds for rejecting/questioning the submitted list, wouldn't it?

It doesn't make sense to me, but lists shouldn't be rejected due to individual rankings that don't make sense. Lists should only be rejected based on systematic bias (for or against a certain team or era) or carelessness (omitting multiple players that everyone else has on their lists without good explanation).

 

[Sentinel]

Brett Hull ahead of Bernie Geoffrion, Bill Cook or Sergei Makarov would be unfathomable, and grounds for rejecting/questioning the submitted list, wouldn't it?

Makarov is 10, Geoffrion is 56, and Cook is 61.

I'm sure some of your choices I will find "unfathomable," but I am not going to call for your list rejection because of it. That would be a humongous can of worms to open.

 

[steve141]

Definitely higher than most people, but I can't help it. Snatching the Hart in the middle of Gretzky / Lemieux reign, scoring the highest non-Gretzky's goal number in a single season (with no empty netters, otherwise this number could've been even higher), legendary World Cup performances, and a legendary Cup-winning goal go a long way in my book.

As a poster who tends to be unimpressed with offense-only guys, even I don't understand the constant underrating of Brett Hull on these boards. He is one of the most consistent goal scorers ever, possibly top five for longevity as an elite goal scorer.

But most of all, I find him underrated as a playoff performer. Removing the Oilers Hull is the all-time leader in playoff goals, and second in points.

Yes, he might have looked lazy at times towards the end of his career, but when the playoffs came around he wasn't a floater. His coaches knew what his strengths and limitations were, and put him with players who could compliment him. The same was true for Moore, Bossy, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux and many others who rarely get called out for not being 200 ft players.

I have Hull above both Dionne and Selänne. None of them will be in my top 70 though.

 

[steve141]

Brett Hull ahead of Bernie Geoffrion, Bill Cook or Sergei Makarov would be unfathomable, and grounds for rejecting/questioning the submitted list, wouldn't it?

I think we should avoid group-think. The point of the 2nd round is to settle these issues through open discussion. As long as everyone stays open-minded it's only a positive that we don't all agree.

One poster had Hasek at 7th in the goalie project. I still try to get my head around that sometimes.

 

[Sentinel]

As a poster who tends to be unimpressed with offense-only guys, even I don't understand the constant underrating of Brett Hull on these boards. He is one of the most consistent goal scorers ever, possibly top five for longevity as an elite goal scorer.

But most of all, I find him underrated as a playoff performer. Removing the Oilers Hull is the all-time leader in playoff goals, and second in points.

Yes, he might have looked lazy at times towards the end of his career, but when the playoffs came around he wasn't a floater. His coaches knew what his strengths and limitations were, and put him with players who could compliment him. The same was true for Moore, Bossy, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux and many others who rarely get called out for not being 200 ft players.

I have Hull above both Dionne and Selänne. None of them will be in my top 70 though.

I was nodding my head all the way until the last sentence. All that... and not in the Top 70? That's just brutal.

Btw, my Selanne is 41. Dionne is 71.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As a poster who tends to be unimpressed with offense-only guys, even I don't understand the constant underrating of Brett Hull on these boards. He is one of the most consistent goal scorers ever, possibly top five for longevity as an elite goal scorer.

But most of all, I find him underrated as a playoff performer. Removing the Oilers Hull is the all-time leader in playoff goals, and second in points.

Yes, he might have looked lazy at times towards the end of his career, but when the playoffs came around he wasn't a floater. His coaches knew what his strengths and limitations were, and put him with players who could compliment him. The same was true for Moore, Bossy, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux and many others who rarely get called out for not being 200 ft players.

I have Hull above both Dionne and Selänne. None of them will be in my top 70 though.

Dickie Moore was strong defensively, assigned, Gordie Howe and Andy Bathgate regularly.

 

[ResilientBeast]

After seeing the breakdown for Kelly being the second best player on the Red Wings teams I just put together a quick summary of Hart Voting between Mikita, Hull, Hall and Pilote. I definitely underrated Hall, he should be way closer to Mikita than he was on my first or second pass.

Hart Voting
Season	Mikita	Hull	Hall	Pilote
57-58	x	x	5	x
58-59	x	x	x	x
59-60	x	2	3	x
60-61	x	x	5	x
61-62	2	3	6	x
62-63	5	x	4	x
63-64	x	2	6	x
64-65	x	1	x	x
65-66	x	1	4	x
66-67	1	3	x	x
67-68	1	3	x	x
68-69	x	5	8*	x
69-70	4	x	x	x
70-71	x	3	x	x
71-72	x	7	x	x

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[steve141]

I was nodding my head all the way until the last sentence. All that... and not in the Top 70? That's just brutal.

Btw, my Selanne is 41. Dionne is 71.

Well, as I said, I tend to give more credit to defensively responsible players than most. I also have Nighbor over Morenz, Harvey over Bourque, Lidstrom over Shore, Clarke over Lafleur, Messier over Esposito, Chelios over Robinson etc. Guess that's just how I view hockey.

That said, I think people who place a large emphasis on offence should give more credit to Hull than most people on this board usually do. He wasn't a compiler, he was a major contributor to the top teams in the league until the end.

 

[steve141]

After seeing the breakdown for Kelly being the second best player on the Red Wings teams I just put together a quick summary of Hart Voting between Mikita, Hull, Hall and Pilote. I definitely underrated Hall, he should be way closer to Mikita than he was on my first or second pass.

Hart Voting
Season	Mikita	Hull	Hall	Pilote
57-58	x	x	5	x
58-59	x	x	x	x
59-60	x	2	3	x
60-61	x	x	5	x
61-62	2	3	6	x
62-63	5	x	4	x
63-64	x	2	6	x
64-65	x	1	x	x
65-66	x	1	4	x
66-67	1	3	x	x
67-68	1	3	x	x
68-69	x	5	8*	x
69-70	4	x	x	x
70-71	x	3	x	x
71-72	x	7	x	x

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Good summary. I have Hall in my top 20.

 

[ted2019]

I'd like to participate in this project, but my knowledge of non-NHL players admittedly sucks.

That's why the ATD Bios are so helpful. Read up and join in the voting.

 

[ted2019]

At least I hope that Martinec will be discussed, i.e. will show up as a candidate, at some point during this project (I would think so?). He shouldn't be much harder to rank than his Soviet contemporaries, actually; yes, he played less games vs the best Canadians than the Soviet players, but did he ever show some weaknesses when he did play against them? The 1972 post-Summit exhibition game (his line with B. Stastny and Farda was arguably CSSR's best in the game), Canada Cup 1976 (1 ppg in those 3 games), Tesla Pardubice vs NHL teams (I think he had 1 ppg there too... IIRC, Theokritos once provided the stats).

The only knock on him might be his less than absolutely brilliant (but still good) domestic scoring and suspects about his conditioning (the two things might have been related). However, like with Kharlamov, his domestic and international accolades and international scoring (specially compared to his teammates) should more than make up for that imo.



Most definitely. Unless someone wants to overly punish Firsov for not having played against Canada's best... which is a bit short-sighted in my opinion.

I have Martinec just outside my top 100. I would like to justify putting him higher and it could happen still as i'm on my 1st rough draft.

 

[steve141]

Dickie Moore was strong defensively, assigned, Gordie Howe and Andy Bathgate regularly.

Good point, that was probably a bad example to use. Your familiarity with the team certainly exceeds mine. How would you compare Moore defensively to Olmstead?