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

[Nick Hansen]

I personally think that is way too high for Esposito. He's in the low 40's for me. I think that Espo is a by-product of playing in the smaller Boston Garden and some guy named Orr.

Where do you put Bobby Hull?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Where do you put Bobby Hull?

Very, very high. Number 5. A physical aberration. A mutant. His "lost" years in the WHA even drag his legacy down a tad. If he stayed in the NHL his entire career, it may have been his goal record Gretzky beat instead of Howe's.

...oops, I apologize - I thought you were referencing my post. Sorry for cutting in, as you were!

 

[Nick Hansen]

Very, very high. Number 5. A physical aberration. A mutant. His "lost" years in the WHA even drag his legacy down a tad. If he stayed in the NHL his entire career, it may have been his goal record Gretzky beat instead of Howe's.

...oops, I apologize - I thought you were referencing my post. Sorry for cutting in, as you were!

Yeah, makes sense in relation to where you ranked Espo (it's identical to the original top 100 player list on here, in fact). I expect everyone to have Bobby Hull in their top ten so that's why low 40's for Espo seems awfully low to me.

 

[ted2019]

Where do you put Bobby Hull?

Top 8

 

[ted2019]

FINALLY sent my list in.

 

[Canadiens1958]

or 1968-69 season

Orr wasnt superman Orr yet, scoring "only" 64 points in 67 games.

Esposito meanwhile went for 49-77-126, winning the Hart, Ross (and 2nd in goal scoring) and leading the league in assists and +/-.

In the playoffs he lead the NHL in goals, assists and points posting 8-10-18 in only 10 games.

Prime example of worthless points.

14 of the 18 points were in three games that the Bruins won by a combined score of 22-0.

3 points in the 4 loses to Montreal

1 point in the other 3 Bruin wins.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Prime example of worthless points.

14 of the 18 points were in three games that the Bruins won by a combined score of 22-0.

3 points in the 4 loses to Montreal

1 point in the other 3 Bruin wins.

That's 1968, but throughout his career Espo is third all-time in game winning goals (behind only Howe and Jagr) with 118.

FYI, Gretzky is 21st on the list and Mario is 45th.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's 1968, but throughout his career Espo is third all-time in game winning goals (behind only Howe and Jagr) with 118.

FYI, Gretzky is 21st on the list and Mario is 45th.

1969 for accuracy.

Actually if you look at "key goals" first, tying, insurance, GWG, Gretzky and Lemieux drift further behind but that is a different issue.

Esposito lags defensively. While the offensive is impressive no one wants to constantly play claw back, scoring extra goals to compensate for defensive lapses.

 

[DannyGallivan]

1969 for accuracy.

Actually if you look at "key goals" first, tying, insurance, GWG, Gretzky and Lemieux drift further behind but that is a different issue.

Esposito lags defensively. While the offensive is impressive no one wants to constantly play claw back, scoring extra goals to compensate for defensive lapses.

His Bruins re-wrote the record book for offense. Criticizing his defense is like criticizing Gretzky or Lemieux's defense. As has been stated earlier, there comes a point where a player's main strength overshadows any perceived weaknesses in their game.

If it was all about a 200-foot game, Gainey and Bergeron would be top ten material.

 

[blogofmike]

Actually if you look at "key goals" first, tying, insurance, GWG, Gretzky and Lemieux drift further behind but that is a different issue.

Do they? Gretzky was primarily a playmaker and he has the most playoff first goals, is tied for most GWG in the playoffs, and he has a solid 4 OT goals.

Lemieux is tied for 2nd in first goals, but played half the games Gretzky and Brett Hull did, and has 100 1Gs in 915 RS games.

 

[steve141]

Yeah, wait a tick...isn't Clarke just a Nighbor regen basically...? There can't be too large of a gap between them, can there be? Two of the best two-way men in history...

For peak yes. The difference between them being that Nighbor had a much longer prime and more successful career. If Bobby Clarke would have played like 74-76 Clarke for ten years instead of 2-3 he'd be a top ten player all-time. But he didn't, so he isn't.

I have Clarke at 23, and Nighbor quite a bit higher.

 

[steve141]

Yeah, makes sense in relation to where you ranked Espo (it's identical to the original top 100 player list on here, in fact). I expect everyone to have Bobby Hull in their top ten so that's why low 40's for Espo seems awfully low to me.

I won't.

I used to be a big fan, but in the end I think Hull was more interested in scoring goals than winning hockey games.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I won't.

I used to be a big fan, but in the end I think Hull was more interested in scoring goals than winning hockey games.

How does that affect his placing in terms of this project? I mean, we're not really ranking the fiercest competitors or the best "winners" of all-time, but the top hockey players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How does that affect his placing in terms of this project? I mean, we're not really ranking the fiercest competitors or the best "winners" of all-time, but the top hockey players.

Prime objective of the game is winning.

Everything else is secondary or lower.

So all individual accomplishments have to be viewed in the context of winning.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I won't.

I used to be a big fan, but in the end I think Hull was more interested in scoring goals than winning hockey games.

Based on what?

He scored 62 goals and 129 points in only 116 NHL playoff games... most of that during the extremely tight scoring 1960's. He led the playoffs in goals three times. His game was offense and he did all he could do to help Chicago win.

Hull's name is on the Stanley Cup and the WHA's Avco Cup.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Prime objective of the game is winning.

Everything else is secondary or lower.

So all individual accomplishments have to be viewed in the context of winning.

If this was golf or tennis you would be correct. In a team game you can't penalize a Brad Park or Marcel Dionne for being on a bad team (or good teams that were beaten by better teams). Is Ray Bourque looked at more favourably because he bailed on the Bruins and cherry-picked a top contender to end his career with?

Don't get me wrong, contributions to winning is huge, but there are other factors to consider.

 

[Doctor No]

If this was golf or tennis you would be correct. In a team game you can't penalize a Brad Park or Marcel Dionne for being on a bad team. Is Ray Bourque looked at more favourably because he bailed on the Bruins and cherry-picked a top contender to end his career with?

Don't get me wrong, contributions to winning is huge, but there are other factors to consider.

Adding to this a common sports saying, "The other guys live in big houses, too."

Sometimes you're very good and strong and all of those good things, but the other team is full 0f elite players as well, and they're also trying their hardest.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Prime objective of the game is winning.

Everything else is secondary or lower.

So all individual accomplishments have to be viewed in the context of winning.

We'll have to agree to disagree once again.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I won't.

I used to be a big fan, but in the end I think Hull was more interested in scoring goals than winning hockey games.

What's even the thing that is supposed to separate Ovechkin and Hull by any significant margin? I get that Hull has a few more AS1 or AS2 placements but besides that...Hull probably slightly better in playoffs, but not a huge difference. Their overall play, I've never heard Hull was a two-way player of any particular significance. Three Art Ross (one shared) for Hull, but Ovechkin has three Hart's and two 2nd placements, Hull's got two of those and two 2nd placements, both 7 (retro in Hull's case) Richards...They just seem very similar in a lot of ways.

Another thing: Orr just winning one Lindsay/Pearson was surprising to me, I know it only existed for a few years during his careeer but. He's always been described as so impressive and over-powering. Yet Ratelle wins one in Orr's prime.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That 15-30 span of my list, which includes Esposito, Clarke, Lafleur, and Mikita is proving to be an exercise in futility to try and re-arrange. At this point I think I might be content to keep them where I had them originally and let the more detailed discussion sort things out.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Another thing: Orr just winning one Lindsay/Pearson was surprising to me, I know it only existed for a few years during his careeer but. He's always been described as so impressive and over-powering. Yet Ratelle wins one in Orr's prime.

Other oddities like this have never been explained adequately enough for me to take the award as anything but a token pat on the rear...

 

[Nick Hansen]

Other oddities like this have never been explained adequately enough for me to take the award as anything but a token pat on the rear...

Yzerman in 1989 comes to mind as well. It seems it is often used as a way for other players to say "look, we get there are better players than you but damn, you're pretty awesome yourself. Have this."

 

[Kyle McMahon]

What's even the thing that is supposed to separate Ovechkin and Hull by any significant margin? I get that Hull has a few more AS1 or AS2 placements but besides that...Hull probably slightly better in playoffs, but not a huge difference. Their overall play, I've never heard Hull was a two-way player of any particular significance. Three Art Ross (one shared) for Hull, but Ovechkin has three Hart's and two 2nd placements, Hull's got two of those and two 2nd placements, both 7 (retro in Hull's case) Richards...They just seem very similar in a lot of ways.

Another thing: Orr just winning one Lindsay/Pearson was surprising to me, I know it only existed for a few years during his careeer but. He's always been described as so impressive and over-powering. Yet Ratelle wins one in Orr's prime.

Hull was a much more prolific even-strength player than Ovechkin, who has approximately three years right in the middle of his career where he was a flat-out liability aside from on the powerplay. He sure bounced back under Trotz though, credit there.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Hull was a much more prolific even-strength player than Ovechkin, who has approximately three years right in the middle of his career where he was a flat-out liability aside from on the powerplay. He sure bounced back under Trotz though, credit there.

Consider level of what was allowed and not. I don't know, but I am guessing that the referees are enforcing the rules much harsher during Ovechkin's career than during Hull's career.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Consider level of what was allowed and not. I don't know, but I am guessing that the referees are enforcing the rules much harsher during Ovechkin's career than during Hull's career.

Yes I suspect so. This would be to Ovechkin's benefit most likely. There are old refs who have stated that there are instances where Bobby Hull had a defender holding him up, but since he was so strong and fought through it for a chance on goal, they couldn't justify calling a penalty. Restraining fouls have been relentlessly punished throughout Ovechkin's career.