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

[Iceman]

Those awful people.

Quite frankly, he is around that area for me. Might not make the top 50 on my list. Probably, but not 100% sure.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No offense, +/- can be interesting (take a look at Larry Robinson, that is incredible IMO. OTOH Brad McCrimmon is 10th overall in +/- and he's nowhere near a top 100 list) but there are a ton of factors I'd consider before going onto the plus minus stuff.

Lou Fontinato and Ted Harris lead the NHL in +/- in specific seasons. Advantage of playing with J.C. Tremblay.

Brad McCrimmon. 7th amongst defencemen. Benefit of being the partner of Ray Bourque 3rd and Mark Howe, 8th.

NHL.com - Stats

 

[Iceman]

I am bothered by the possibility of me having a 10~ spot gap between the 2 best wingers and the next 2 wingers. I can't have it like that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At this stage, it's not as important to determine whether player X should be 23rd, 24th or 25th on your list, but rather, whether he should be in the 20s, 50s, or if he even makes the list at all. Determining precise rankings is the purpose of the next round. Now, we just need to make sure players appear for voting and discussion at the right times. One of those players that I fear that might be ranked too low or not at all is Norm Ullman, which I have kind of built a case for in my Richard posts.

To start the case, I'll be comparing him to Delvecchio who is widely known if you have any interest in hockey history.

Offense

A quick cursory glance at their top-10 scoring finishes has Delvecchio with 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10 while Ullman's are 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10. Delvecchio has three more seasons than Ullman in the top-10, but Ullman's placements in the top-10 are consistently higher. Based off of pure longevity, Delvecchio wins, but I'm comfortable in saying that Ullman had the superior peak and prime. I don't know how important this is but Ullman's goal/points ratio is higher than your typical center while Delvecchio is your typical playmaking center.

Another tool I'll use is VsX. If you don't know what this is, you should really check it out because IMO, as of right now, it's the best tool to compare offense across eras. This is the link: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/reference-vsx-comprehensive-summary-1927-to-2017.2215905/

Ullman's 7 year VsX is 89.5, while Delvecchio's is 84.8. which is a 5.39% difference which is pretty big. Delvecchio makes up a bit of ground in the 10 year table with a score of 82.9, but Ullman' score is still higher, coming in at 84.7.

Right now, all signs point to Ullman being a clear step ahead of Delvecchio offensively. But, there's still one factor that hasn't been addressed yet: who was Gordie Howe's centre?

Credit to @overpass for the following info. This is on Delvecchio:



On Ullman:



Unfortunately, the tables are gone so we don't have exact data. But, Ullman was Howe's full time centre for three seasons, before Delvecchio took over the role for the rest of the 1960s. How much should the Howe factor be considered? IDK, up to you, but I do know that the Howe factor is considerably less for Ullman than for Delvecchio.

Another factor I want to bring up is PP time. I'm not exactly sure on the exact Red Wings PP formation but I'm pretty sure Delvecchio played the point in the 50s, before Howe took over the role in the 60s. Ullman doesn't look like he was a fixture on the PP until the 60s.

Contemporary reputation

So, this is where I'll post awards, and intangibles. Let's start off with awards:

Delvecchio:

• Hart voting: 9th and 13th
  
• AST voting at C (noteworthy seaons only): 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6*
• AST voting at LW (noteworthy seaons only): 2, 4*, 5
• 4x Lady Byng Trophy

*Split voting at LW and C

Ullman:

• Hart voting: 2, 5, 9, 14
• AST voting at C: 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5
• 1x Retro Rocket Trophy

Delvecchio's Hart record is relatively poor. His 9th and 13th place finishes were with like less than three votes. Ullman barely lost the Hart to Hull in 1964-65, and had another top five finish. Delvecchio has more years where he received significant AST support, but Ullman's quality is higher IMO. It seems to me that contemporary observers favoured Ullman over Delvecchio while quaternary sources favour Delvecchio > Ullman. If you ask me, I put more stock in contemporary opinion.

Defensively, both were known as excellent. Not good on the Bergeron or Toews level, but I'm reading more towards the playoff Crosby level. I'm not sure who was better between the two, but I can't imagine that the gap between them would be significant. If anyone is more well versed on this front, please chime in.

Leadership, well, Delvecchio was the captain of the Red Wings for 10 years, so I guess he wins in that department. Physicality seems to be Ullman.

Playoffs

Now this is where I think Delvecchio gets most of his boost from present day observers (and him spending his entire career with the Red Wings). But, like "11 Cup Richard", all they're looking at is number of Cups. Yes, Delvecchio has four Cups compared to Ullman's zero, but how important was Delvecchio to the 50s dynasty?

We can say for sure that he is behind Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, and Sawchuk. That's four guys already. You can add in Marty Pavelich, the best defensive forward of the early to mid 1950s. Quotes from Jack Adams, the GM of the Wings:





That's five guys that IMO are inarguable. That leaves Delvecchio to fight it out with #2D and #3D of the Red Wings, Leo Reise and Marcel Pronovost and Sid Abel, who was only there for two Cups. So, at best he's sixth, and at worst he's 9th. I'm not going to call Delvecchio a passenger, but I'm not going to call him one of the drivers either.

Despite never winning a Cup, Ullman was really good in those losing efforts, so this isn't a Dionne or Thornton situation where he sucked ass. This is more like Brad Park here. Ullman led the playoffs in scoring twice and finished 2nd another time. Delvecchio's best finish is 3rd.

I will have Ullman somewhere in the top-70.

A lot of keystrokes about Norm Ullman. How was he viewed by the opposition?

Unless centering Gordie Howe, the Canadiens were comfortable playing the Ralph Backstrom line against Norm Ullman.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I am bothered by the possibility of me having a 10~ spot gap between the 2 best wingers and the next 2 wingers. I can't have it like that.

Very reasonable list if that is the case.

 

[Iceman]

Is it cringe to have Crosby and Ovi right after each other? The gap between them and the next worse player is the biggest gap (tiers that is) so far on my list but I just can't see them climbing any higher than where they are now, so they are kind of stuck together.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Ovechkin is my favourite player, but I have him 9 spots behind Crosby. Both inside my top-20.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

A lot of keystrokes about Norm Ullman. How was he viewed by the opposition?

Unless centering Gordie Howe, the Canadiens were comfortable playing the Ralph Backstrom line against Norm Ullman.

Less lethal than Gordie Howe.

 

[pappyline]

Ovechkin is my favourite player, but I have him 9 spots behind Crosby. Both inside my top-20.

I have Ovechkin one spot ahead of Crosby. Both are outside my top 20.

 

[Sentinel]

I have Crosby and Ovechkin separated by Shore.

What impresses me the most about Ullman is that he lead the playoffs in points twice... on a losing team. I squeezed him into my 100... at the expense of Delvecchio.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Controversial opinion: Kelly > Shore.

Why? Playoffs.

 

[Iceman]

Controversial opinion: Kelly > Shore.

Why? Playoffs.

Is Potvin behind both?

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Is Potvin behind both?

Under this criteria, only behind kelly, but ahead of shore

 

[Iceman]

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.

Forsberg and Fedorov could take over games too like Malkin. Fedorov probably did it for the shortest period of their respective careers though.

 

[Iceman]

Datsyuk is a modern guy who I’d have ranked above the bolded

I rank Datsyuk above all those as well, but I don't think he'll make my top 120.

 

[Iceman]

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.

Well, the best player in the world played 26 games the year Brett Hull won his Hart. He came back and scored 44 points in the playoffs, 2nd most all time.

 

[bobholly39]

Well, the best player in the world played 26 games the year Brett Hull won his Hart. He came back and scored 44 points in the playoffs, 2nd most all time.

Yeah but its still an all time great season. 86 goals is insane and gives both peak gretz and lemieux a run for their money

 

[Canadiens1958]

I rank Datsyuk above all those as well, but I don't think he'll make my top 120.

Why? Both conclusions.

 

[The Panther]

Wayne Gretzky, +/- overview compared to other centers.

Centers Regular Season

NHL.com - Stats

Centers Playoffs

NHL.com - Stats

Oiler Years - Regular Season

NHL.com - Stats

Oiler Years - Playoffs

NHL.com - Stats

Post Oilers - Regular Season

NHL.com - Stats

Post Oilers - Playoffs

NHL.com - Stats

Oiler Gretzky approached Bobby Orr in RS and Playoff game impact.

Gretzky RS +520 / PO + 89
Orr RS +582 / PO +60

Gretzky played almost double the number of games that Orr did in the playoffs.

Post Oilers Gretzky RS -33/ PO +2.

Amongst skaters since 1988-89 Gretzky ranks 3747th in RS +/-. Home +46, away -79 splits.

Definitely not #1 All-Time numbers.

Far from impressive.

Oh yes, the old "post-prime plus/minus" analysis. The be-all and end-all, of course.

As everyone knows, Gretzky's prime ended in 1991. Here's how he did in even-strength terms up to then (first 12 seasons, including 3 on losing teams):

1. Gretzky (+606 )
2. Bourque (+411)
3. Kurri (+373)
4. McCrimmon (+371)
5. M. Howe (+347)

Some other players of this period, by comparison:
Trottier (+289)
Langway (+272)
Messier (+174)
Savard (+90)

After the fall of 1991, Gretzky's even-strength numbers (in terms of goals against vs. for) are indeed unimpressive. His scoring stats become Mario Lemieux-like in being highly dependent on power-plays for larger degrees of his production. However, the main reason for his unimpressive even-strength numbers is that his teams mostly sucked -- like, really sucked. Here's his teams' collective record from 1991 to 1999 (there were barely two winning seasons inclusive):

206-263-84 (.448)

This would look a lot worse if we saw it in terms of overall team goals for vs. against (since most of these teams were ''attacking"-style clubs that gave up a lot of shots against). Over this eight-year period, Wayne went something like -91. These teams were largely train-wrecks.

Frankly, no player's plus/minus stats (if that's important) can overcome playing years on bad teams. As an example, the 3 worst L.A. Kings in terms of plus/minus in 1993-94 were Gretzky, Kurri, and Robitaille -- the team's 3 best players (though you could argue about Blake by this point... who himself was -7 and went -28 after Gretzky was traded).

Serge Savard was +79 in 1977... and -26 his last season in Winnipeg. Sakic was -102 his first three seasons, and +97 for three years on a strong team later. Yzerman was -58 his first three years, and +45 the next three. Etc.

(One important difference, however, between these types of players -- including Mario Lemieux -- and Wayne Gretzky is that Gretzky in his first two seasons was capable of elevating his otherwise poor team by his presence on even-strength ice. Wayne was +55 his first two seasons in the NHL, on a new team, where only three other players in both inaugural Oiler-seasons were even in the 'plus' range, let alone into double digits!)

More to the point, however -- and as I will forever argue about high-scoring players (esp. forwards) -- using plus/minus as any inherently meaningful way to evaluate their team contribution is crazy. Yeah, there are exceptions, like a complete outlier where a guy is -20 on a good team or something, but that never occurs in Gretzky's career (though his +100 in 1985 could be considered an outlier). The reason I always say this is that many high-scoring players' designated job is to produce on the power-play, or to get a lot of ice-time on bad teams (like Sakic c.1988-1991).

The best example might be Mario Lemieux in his first two seasons, 1984-86. Mario's -41 these two years is fourth-'worst' on his club and indeed shows that (unlike rookie Gretzky) his presence on the ice at ES was not hugely impacting Pittsburgh's fortunes. However, in reality, in these two seasons Lemieux was on the ice for 298 Pens' goals and 214 goals against, an overall "plus" 84 on a club that was overall "minus" 81 those two seasons. So, Mario's worth on those teams is completely overlooked when using plus/minus as analysis.

And so, similarly, when looking at Gretzky's final eight seasons (really, six seasons and two 'halfs'), his overall goals for/against is "plus" 198, on clubs that were "minus" 153. That's pretty severely impacting his club in a positive way, not shown at all by plus/minus.

Even more to the point, as you know, Gretzky was a force in the playoffs in 1993, 1996, and 1997 (albeit not in 1992).


Now, don't get me wrong: Oct.1991 to April 1999 Gretzky is nowhere near the Gretzky before that. The younger Gretzky was capable of dominating teams at even-strength as much as with a man advantage (heck, at times he dominated teams short-handed). But trying to dismiss those final eight years by pointing at only plus/minus is highly misleading. Indeed, as explained above, I think it's entirely misleading, at any time, to isolate plus/minus with high-scoring forwards (except in the case of extreme outliers).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Unless anyone thinks there's a chance that Gretzky won't be available in the first group of players to be discussed, I don't see the point of discussing him in detail now.

 

[The Macho King]

Unless anyone thinks there's a chance that Gretzky won't be available in the first group of players to be discussed, I don't see the point of discussing him in detail now.

Seriously - we can table discussions of the big 4 for now. I'm much more interested in discussing who to put #5 anyway .

But seriously - let's talk about some fringe players instead of "do I put him 13th or 15th?"

 

[Sentinel]

Seriously - we can table discussions of the big 4 for now. I'm much more interested in discussing who to put #5 anyway .

But seriously - let's talk about some fringe players instead of "do I put him 13th or 15th?"

Sure. This is my borderline:

95. Norm Ullman (C)
96. Chris Pronger (D)
97. Vyacheslav Starshinov (C)
98. Duncan Keith (D)
99. Jiri Holecek (G)
100. Elmer Lach (C)
101. Eric Lindros (C)
102. Alex Delvecchio (C)
103. Doug Gilmour (C)
104. Igor Larionov (C)
105. Martin St. Louis (RW)

Starshinov is a questionable choice, and I'm sure not many people have him in their lists. However, he was the best player in the Soviet championships in the 1960s, rivaling Firsov. Firsov was better internationally, Starshinov domestically. Starshinov is one of the best Soviet goalscorers, he was a leader (lead Spartak to three championships), and was quite adequate defensively.

404 goals in 510 league games is pretty amazing.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm actually expecting a handful of McDavid votes ranging from token 100-120 throw-ins, to the occasional eye-popping ranking in the top-50 or so, but probably not enough to get him into a round-2 vote at all (and I doubt he'd be popular in the round 2 debates.) If said votes are consistent with a strong "peak FTW" stance in the individual list, it won't be wrong to have it there. Now, if McDavid's there and a large number of "obscure" cases (say Firsov, Gerard and Benedict are all missing), I'd have to question whether the listmaker did their history homework.
For my part, I'm with TDMM on his "not as good as Lindros yet, and Lindros is borderline at best" explanation. It's a sensible comparison that takes the mystique out of McDavid's unique case. After all, the goal of this project is not to throw up our arms and say "b'golly these players are just TOO different to even talk about".

I have no doubts he'll be on a few lists.

But even in a case like Lindros who had a rather abbreviated career, EL has well over 700 games played to his name. There is a lot more to go on. McDavid has barely topped 200 games. 209 to be exact. The ONLY way i'd consider him with that little time is if he had dominated the league on a Orr/Gretzky/Howe/Lemieux level AND did something of note in the postseason at least once. Since neither of those has happened, he's not worthy of being brought up with guys who have 700+ games to their name. Some well north of 1000.

Just my humble opinion of course.

 

[ted2019]

Where is Roy Worters in everyone's minds?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Even as a Pens diehard, I think Ovechkin has Sid edged out in terms of regular season accolades (AS voting on its face doesn't do much for me given the very weak state of LW in the league over the past 10-12 years). It's very hard to ignore the Rockets, even if I think the Caps and 8 have often sold out late in years to boost the overall goal scoring totals. Obviously Sid would almost surely have another 2 Hart's/AR's/1st team AS if not for freak/cheap shots but this isn't the what if section. I give Ovi the edge in the regular season. But I do think we need to give at least some attention to the fact Sid is sort of mirroring his idol, Stevie Yzerman, in terms of late 20's/early 30's change of play (ie, sacrificing offense for a more well rounded posture, which one can see with 87's three straight top 10's in Selke voting).

Where Sid blows Ovechkin out of the water is postseason (yeah, even with 8 finally getting his 1st) and the international stage.

Sid is already 10th all time in points in the playoffs (185 in 160). By the age of 30. Ovi is 65th. Sid is 8th all time in PPG with Ovi in 37th. And Sid's played a lot more games which naturally is almost always going to bring a players numbers down.

He's got a pair of Smythe's (yes the first was one of the weaker ones in history) and a couple of other very good runs to his name. Led the postseason in goals, assists (twice) and points once.

Plus head to head, Crosby is 3-1 against Ovi. Both have been quite good in those 4 series, on the whole, to be fair.

And obviously Sid's play for Canada is well documented. One of the all time great moments with the golden goal at the 2010 Olympics, on Canadian soil. Captained the team to gold in 2014. Captained gold at the 2015 WC's and gold again at the 2016 WCOH, taking home leading scorer/MVP honors. Also overlooked was his performance at the 2006 WC's, being only 18 years old, he was on the AS team, named best forward, and led all scorers.

I was very impressed with Ovi's play in the postseason for the first time in a while this past go around. While not quite 2008-2010 Ovi, he was just engaged so much more and consistently so. Obviously paid off in a big way. While I do think Kuznetsov was the absolute best player as the tourney went on (22 assists, 32 points and +12), credit is due to AO. Guy finally earned a Cup and even this Pens fan had to applaud his effort. Also, side note, was generally happy for Holtby who's always been really good for the Caps in the postseason and bailed their asses out when Grubs had them in an early hole in round 1.