Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (With a Vengeance)

[Canadiens1958]

How many LWs do people have on their lists?

12 plus 5 dual C/LW

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"10 year career comparable to Seibert" is definitely generous, considering he wasn't necessarily standing out during the War years. Granted, Clapper was quite old by then, and probably shouldn't have been expected to stand out the way just prior to the war, and shouldn't be penalized for playing longer than any other player did before that.

But there are legit and valid reasons to believe his longevity was WWII-fueled.

And his peak is a copy-paste of Babe Siebert's.

And again, I'll reiterate my point : Dit Clapper shouldn't make or break a list.

Dit Clapper and Earl Seibert retired at virtually the same time, after the 1946 season. Clapper played 6 games in 1947 and then cashed it in. Dit Clapper was inducted into the HHOF in 1947. Earl Seibert in 1963.

I guess a lot of hockey folks at the time felt comparing Seibert's career to Clapper's was being very generous.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Personally, I'd like to see the existing data paired with passes (sent and received) as well as instances where the puck is surrendered and received to/from nobody in particular. Always had a problem with the idea that you can gauge puck management by counting up a very selective portion of the things that can happen when one has the puck. Of courses, there would be all kinds of counting problems and it wouldn't take coaching effects into account, but ultimately, everyone's responsible for applying the soft information they already know to any conclusion they might make.

Seems like the NHL stats takeaways/giveaways are strictly for when a puck carrier is dispossessed by an opponent. That is, a player has clear possession and then, whoops, the opponent gains clear possession. Passing the puck and having an opponent pick it off to me would be a turnover but not a giveaway. Don't believe there is an official stat for turnovers (is there?).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How many LWs do people have on their lists?

12

I think.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Seems like the NHL stats takeaways/giveaways are strictly for when a puck carrier is dispossessed by an opponent. That is, a player has clear possession and then, whoops, the opponent gains clear possession. Passing the puck and having an opponent pick it off to me would be a turnover but not a giveaway. Don't believe there is an official stat for turnovers (is there?).

That seems like the exact definition of a giveaway to me.

Turnovers are just the combination of both giveaways and takeaways, like in football. "Gotta win the turnover battle".

 

[MXD]

Dit Clapper and Earl Seibert retired at virtually the same time, after the 1946 season. Clapper played 6 games in 1947 and then cashed it in. Dit Clapper was inducted into the HHOF in 1947. Earl Seibert in 1963.

I guess a lot of hockey folks at the time felt comparing Seibert's career to Clapper's was being very generous.

I'm giving (and I'll give) exacly zero mucks about enshrinement date, because that would force me to adopt very stupid perspectives, such as Larry Murphy being a better player than Mark Howe and
Cam Neely being a better player than Sergei Makarov.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That seems like the exact definition of a giveaway to me.

Turnovers are just the combination of both giveaways and takeaways, like in football. "Gotta win the turnover battle".

So your numbers (from post 19) show the top defensemen, who handle the puck the most, average less than a turnover a game? That makes no sense.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm giving (and I'll give) exacly zero mucks about enshrinement date, because that would force me to adopt very stupid perspectives, such as Larry Murphy being a better player than Mark Howe and
Cam Neely being a better player than Sergei Makarov.

So you'll make really stupid comparisons instead. Fine.

I respect your opinion.

 

[Captain Bowie]

So your numbers (from post 19) show the top defensemen, who handle the puck the most, average less than a turnover a game? That makes no sense.

Not turnovers, giveaways.

The league leaders in giveaways last season were Yandle, 129 in 82 games, and Burns, 124 in 82 games. only about 20 players averaged more than a giveaway a game over a full season. 1.0 giveaways a game is pretty high.

 

[ted2019]

The more I look at things, the more that Drew Doughty could make my list. He doesn't have the post season AS that I would like to see, but his Norris voting is better then I thought. I like the fact that his PPG goes from a regular season of .55PPG to .60.7PPG during the playoffs.

 

[Captain Bowie]

The more I look at things, the more that Drew Doughty could make my list. He doesn't have the post season AS that I would like to see, but his Norris voting is better then I thought. I like the fact that his PPG goes from a regular season of .55PPG to .60.7PPG during the playoffs.

How do you differentiate him from Keith?

Identical PPG
Norris; 1-1-4 for Keith, 1-2-2-3 for Doughty. Probably even consider the extra top 3 finishes vs. the extra win.
Multiple cup winners while being 1A/1B best player on the teams
2-1 vs. 2-2 AS voting
Playoff PPG near identical too

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Interested in seeing where various participants have Scott Niedermayer and Keith ranked. How many are including any Karlsson? Chara? Doughty?

I have Keith ahead of Niedermayer. He's on my list, Niedermayer is not. Keith's impact on the Blackhawks in their three Cup wins was on the level of Scott Stevens' impact of the Devils during their three wins. Niedermayer's New Jersey career is probably closer to Brent Seabrook level of impact. Of course having the great Anaheim years as well gets him into the conversation for this list, but ultimately I feel his stint as a premier NHL defenseman was rather brief by the standards of his era.

I have Chara within my top 100. A true workhorse defenseman for over a decade on a Boston team that never had overly strong blueline personnel, yet was frequently among the best defensive teams in the league. By all accounts an exceptional leader, captain of perhaps the only team in the last 20 years to pull off a legitimate upset in the Stanley Cup Final.

I think Doughty is getting close, but it's a little soon. Probably has matched Niedermayer is terms of peak and prime, but lacks the longevity to justify ranking him equal to or above him.

Similar story with Karlsson. Probably in Brian Leetch territory, but without any longevity yet. The non-offensive aspects of his game are still developing. Leetch is on my list right now, but just barely, and I don't see any justification for ranking Karlsson ahead of him at this point.

 

[Sentinel]

That means relatively little to me in a team game. I knew it would be the first factor to be brought up in his favour, and it is telling to me that winning a team game with 20 other players having to play a factor is the biggest thing going for him.

He has a similar Norris record to others that also missed the list for me: Keith, Doughty, Rob Blake. No significant Hart consideration. Good, but not all that noteworthy longevity considering the scope of the project (compared to Bourque, Lidstrom, Chelios, even Chara to date).

Actually his numbers stack up pretty close to that of Rob Blake. Similar GP, similar scoring totals, 1 Norris win with a handful of top 5's. Blake also won his cup playing 2nd fiddle to a better defenceman, though that could be debated considering Bourque's age and how Blake performed in the playoffs.

Blake never came close to winning the Conn Smythe. Neids' longevity is actually pretty impressive, given that he was a star player for about 15 years. Anyway, my rankings are:

92. Scott Niedermayer (D)
98. Duncan Keith (D)

Doughty, Chara, Blake, and of course Karlsson didn't make the list.

Niedermayer's New Jersey career is probably closer to Brent Seabrook level of impact. Of course having the great Anaheim years as well gets him into the conversation for this list, but ultimately I feel his stint as a premier NHL defenseman was rather brief by the standards of his era.

Of course Neidermeyer would not come within a mile of this list on his NJ accomplishments alone. But his Anaheim stint catapults him straight into it. And, no, it wasn't brief. He was already elite in 1994-95, and his 2008-09 season is also excellent IIRC.

 

[ted2019]

How do you differentiate him from Keith?

Identical PPG
Norris; 1-1-4 for Keith, 1-2-2-3 for Doughty. Probably even consider the extra top 3 finishes vs. the extra win.
Multiple cup winners while being 1A/1B best player on the teams
2-1 vs. 2-2 AS voting
Playoff PPG near identical too

I don't have Keith that far up either. Keith wasn't even in my 1st draft of top 120. 2nd draft he is in the 100/120 range. Interesting take I have is that Keith's TOI in the playoffs is 2:58 more then his regular season. Doughty's TOI in the playoffs is about 1:36 more. Does that mean that Keith is/was more valuable to the Hawks then Doughty is/was to the Kings? Also, it's interesting to see that Keith is on ice for a lot more goals against then Doughty is/was. I understand that system has a lot to do with this, but was on ice for 776 goals against in 770 games played. Keith was on ice for 1211 goals against in only 995 games played.

 

[ted2019]

I have Keith ahead of Niedermayer. He's on my list, Niedermayer is not. Keith's impact on the Blackhawks in their three Cup wins was on the level of Scott Stevens' impact of the Devils during their three wins. Niedermayer's New Jersey career is probably closer to Brent Seabrook level of impact. Of course having the great Anaheim years as well gets him into the conversation for this list, but ultimately I feel his stint as a premier NHL defenseman was rather brief by the standards of his era.

I have Chara within my top 100. A true workhorse defenseman for over a decade on a Boston team that never had overly strong blueline personnel, yet was frequently among the best defensive teams in the league. By all accounts an exceptional leader, captain of perhaps the only team in the last 20 years to pull off a legitimate upset in the Stanley Cup Final.

I think Doughty is getting close, but it's a little soon. Probably has matched Niedermayer is terms of peak and prime, but lacks the longevity to justify ranking him equal to or above him.

Similar story with Karlsson. Probably in Brian Leetch territory, but without any longevity yet. The non-offensive aspects of his game are still developing. Leetch is on my list right now, but just barely, and I don't see any justification for ranking Karlsson ahead of him at this point.

To say that Neidermayer is like Brent Seabrook is totally underselling Niedermayer's importance on those Devils & Ducks teams. The system that the Devils used severely hindered Niedermayer's skill level. On a more up-tempo team, Neidermayer wins 3 Norris' probably.

 

[Captain Bowie]

He was already elite in 1994-95, and his 2008-09 season is also excellent IIRC.

Was he? Didn't get any Norris or AS attention until 97/98. In 95 his numbers don't particularly stand out. +/- was impressive, but the top defencemen that you weren't exactly a who's who.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Blake never came close to winning the Conn Smythe. Neids' longevity is actually pretty impressive, given that he was a star player for about 15 years. Anyway, my rankings are:

92. Scott Niedermayer (D)
98. Duncan Keith (D)

Doughty, Chara, Blake, and of course Karlsson didn't make the list.


Of course Neidermeyer would not come within a mile of this list on his NJ accomplishments alone. But his Anaheim stint catapults him straight into it. And, no, it wasn't brief. He was already elite in 1994-95, and his 2008-09 season is also excellent IIRC.

Niedermayer seemed to be player that showed flashes of brilliance here and there, but I would not say he was an elite defenseman until 2002 or so. At least not consistently. I'd argue he was no more elite than Brian Rafalski was for much of their time together. An offensive-minded defenseman (not to say he was bad defensively, but he was obviously not the shutdown guy) putting up mostly sub-40 point seasons throughout his 20's doesn't scream elite to me.

I can see why Niedermayer will be on some lists, but I don't forsee him finding his way on to mine. I have him as the #6 defenseman of his era (classified him as 1993-2005), and as of right now I don't have anyone that I ranked worse than the #5 defenseman of their era in my 120. For most eras, even the #5 does not make the cut.

To say that Neidermayer is like Brent Seabrook is totally underselling Niedermayer's importance on those Devils & Ducks teams. The system that the Devils used severely hindered Niedermayer's skill level. On a more up-tempo team, Neidermayer wins 3 Norris' probably.

Niedermayer on the Ducks was way better than Seabrook; I was speaking strictly Devils career. Basically the #2 guy for the most part, but some seasons where he was arguably less vital than Daneyko or Rafalski. Seabrook usually a strong #2, but times where Hjalmarsson was more effective. I don't think the comparison is unreasonable.

The system the Devils used made them, and by extension Niedermayer, winners. One of the biggest talking points when it comes to Niedermayer is how he was always a part of championship teams. Can't have it both ways. Maybe he wins an extra Norris on a weaker team that let him roam offensively (see PK Subban), but he likely has several less Cups.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Niedermayer wasn't held back by the Devils' system as much as he was held back by being an unimpressive powerplay quarterback. Overaged rookie Brian Rafalski easily pushed Niedermayer aside for the role of top PP QB on the team, and he outscored Niedermayer by a fairly wide margin their first few years together.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Niedermayer on the Ducks was way better than Seabrook; I was speaking strictly Devils career. Basically the #2 guy for the most part, but some seasons where he was arguably less vital than Daneyko or Rafalski. Seabrook usually a strong #2, but times where Hjalmarsson was more effective. I don't think the comparison is unreasonable.

Niedermayer was better than Seabrook ever was in 2003, when he had a Smythe-worthy performance, but before then, I agree with you.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Niedermayer was better than Seabrook ever was in 2003, when he had a Smythe-worthy performance, but before then, I agree with you.

Yup, agreed. 2003 playoffs was really Niedermayer's breakout as a true Hall of Fame level defenseman. Up until then he was more sizzle than steak in an all-time sense.

 

[Sentinel]

Was he? Didn't get any Norris or AS attention until 97/98. In 95 his numbers don't particularly stand out. +/- was impressive, but the top defencemen that you weren't exactly a who's who.

After 1995 playoffs the whole world knew his name.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't have Keith that far up either. Keith wasn't even in my 1st draft of top 120. 2nd draft he is in the 100/120 range. Interesting take I have is that Keith's TOI in the playoffs is 2:58 more then his regular season. Doughty's TOI in the playoffs is about 1:36 more. Does that mean that Keith is/was more valuable to the Hawks then Doughty is/was to the Kings? Also, it's interesting to see that Keith is on ice for a lot more goals against then Doughty is/was. I understand that system has a lot to do with this, but was on ice for 776 goals against in 770 games played. Keith was on ice for 1211 goals against in only 995 games played.

Difference in TOI in playoffs is OT related.

 

[Captain Bowie]

After 1995 playoffs the whole world knew his name.

Is that really how we are going to define "elite" now though?

I mean, after this playoffs the whole hockey world knows Tom Wilson's name if they didn't already.

 

[Sentinel]

Is that really how we are going to define "elite" now though?

I mean, after this playoffs the whole hockey world knows Tom Wilson's name if they didn't already.

If Wilson keeps it up for fifteen years... Besides, 95 Neidermayer was clearly better than 18 Wilson.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If Wilson keeps it up for fifteen years... Besides, 95 Neidermayer was clearly better than 18 Wilson.

I understand that, my point being "the world knows his name" is not exactly a quantifiable quality.