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

[DannyGallivan]

I'm not judging Bobby Hull for Chicago not winning more, I'm judging him for not doing all he could to make his team win.

Let's compare him to a Zetterberg, a player who didn't have a 10th of Hull's talent. Zetterberg spent the 2008 and 2009 playoff finals shutting down Crosby. He also managed to lead the playoffs in goals and points in 2008. Would Hull have been able to do that? Would he have accepted the assignment of forgoing his own scoring to maximize the team's chance of winning?

I don't even have Zetterberg in my top 120, but he's a good example of a player who did everything he could to win. Hull didn't. I guess I'm not that impressed with offense only guys.

The HOH board ranked Hull as the 31th best playoff performer. Can you really be a top 10 player all-time if you aren't a top 30 playoff performer all-time?

Sorry, this arguement does not hold water. Again, do you criticize Gretzky or Lemeiux for not back checking? It's a team game and players have roles. Gainey played the 200 foot game. The much more talented Lafleur produced the offence. With the Hawks, it was Hull's job to produce goals... which he did better than anybody else. He also did very well in the playoffs too, despite what the HOH says. Let's just reproduce their list and save ourselves a lot of time.

 

[daver]

Teams win cups. Cup counting is not a good way of ranking individual players. Chicago didn't have near the depth of those Montreal & Toronto teams of the 1960's. They also had inferior coaching and a lack of clutch goaltending.

I didn't say counting cups, I said one's contribution to their team's winning Cups can be viewed as a significant difference between two players with similar regular season resumes. For example, Crosby has multiple high end Cup runs to OV's one.

The assumption that Hull would have more Cups and high end Cup runs if his team was better is not a reason to place him above other players. As I said, I don't have an issue with people putting Hull at #5 despite an inferior playoff resume to Belliveau or Richard. I have an issue with assuming he would have just as good a resume if he played on another team as a reason to put him at #5. I also have an issue with using the # of Cups to place him below those players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't get this line of thinking. Both stood out among their peers who also played in the same environments of less or more calls being made. I don't see a reason to assume that Hull would have performed differently relative to the league if he played in OV's era unless we make that same presumption for other players from Hull's era.

Very simple reason why Hull would have performed differently.

Hull's era the centre red line created offsides so his neutral zone speed was reduced.

Ovechkin's era the center red line no longer created offsides. Hull's neutral zone speed would not be reduced.

 

[daver]

Very simple reason why Hull would have performed differently.

Hull's era the centre red line created offsides so his neutral zone speed was reduced.

Ovechkin's era the center red line no longer created offsides. Hull's neutral zone speed would not be reduced.

What does this have to do with how much each player has separated themselves from their peers? Are you saying OV should be handicapped vs. every player who played before 2005?

 

[Sentinel]

Teams win cups. Cup counting is not a good way of ranking individual players. Chicago didn't have near the depth of those Montreal & Toronto teams of the 1960's. They also had inferior coaching and a lack of clutch goaltending.

It's debatable what's more important: depth or star power. Chicago's star power certainly exceeded Toronto's. And was Glenn Hall really known as a choker?

 

[Canadiens1958]

What does this have to do with how much each player has separated themselves from their peers? Are you saying OV should be handicapped vs. every player who played before 2005?

Just answered your questions about differences that impact performance.

Specifically to Ovechkin, O6 era rules would have forced him to comeback deeper if he wanted to be at full speed entering the neutral zone.

Basic skating.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Except it wasn't. The game is called differently during Ovechkin's career.

I've already clarified this, see post #965.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's debatable what's more important: depth or star power. Chicago's star power certainly exceeded Toronto's. And was Glenn Hall really known as a choker?

Glenn Hall by the playoffs was fatigued. For a seven season stretch he played all 70 RS games in an era where it was rare for a goalie to play all 70 games in one season. Also Chicago being the furthest west in the central time zone had the hardest travel schedule.

Depth is more important. Canadiens in 1953 and 1959 won SCs because of depth. Chicago did likewise in 1961 then foolishly got rid of depth that helped Toronto and Detroit beat them in 1962 thru 1964.

 

[K Fleur]

Thanks for digging this up, I would have guessed the Capitals had more PP opportunities than league average.

Although I'd actually be curious to see what the situational breakdown is. Washington usually finished high in the standings,

and teams that are ahead by 2+ goals in a game don't tend to get given PPs unless it's an obvious call

.

That’s along the lines of what I was thinking. It makes sense to when you consider the Ovi era Caps have probably been the best regular season performing team of the era. At worst the 2nd best.

 

[blogofmike]

Glenn Hall by the playoffs was fatigued. For a seven season stretch he played all 70 RS games in an era where it was rare for a goalie to play all 70 games in one season. Also Chicago being the furthest west in the central time zone had the hardest travel schedule.

Depth is more important. Canadiens in 1953 and 1959 won SCs because of depth. Chicago did likewise in 1961 then foolishly got rid of depth that helped Toronto and Detroit beat them in 1962 thru 1964.

Agree on depth being important, but was Hall playing 70 games THAT big of a detriment to his game?

In 1961 the streak was still on, and Hall won the Cup with Chicago. Hall played very well in the playoffs in the last few years of playing 70 games a season, winning the Cup in 1961, and losing in 6 in the Finals in 1962.

In 1959, it looks like Hall and Plante (Potvin?) were playing at about the same level - but Hall faced about 50% more shots and it seems like he was beaten by his team taking penalties they couldn't kill. I'm sure he found those things to be exhausting too.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't get this line of thinking. Both stood out among their peers who also played in the same environments of less or more calls being made. I don't see a reason to assume that Hull would have performed differently relative to the league if he played in OV's era unless we make that same presumption for other players from Hull's era.

I'm not trying to envision one player in the other's era. I was answering a poster that seemed to imply different standards of calling the rules was to the detriment of Ovechkin in comparison to Hull. I do not believe that to be the case, but really that's besides the point. Originally it was asked what might separate these two players on the list. For me, one such factor is the 2012-2014 stretch of relatively poor play from Ovechkin.

 

[Michael Farkas]

playing 70 games THAT big of a detriment to his game?

Possibly...

This is a c&p from a post I made previously...

Stanley Cup winning goalies in GGP since the big sleep...
Holtby - 17th (54)
Murray - 27th (49)
Murray - 67th (13)
Crawford - 16th (57)
Quick - 21st (49)
Crawford - 21st (30)
Quick - 4th (69)
Thomas - 16th (57)
Niemi - 34th (39)
Fleury - 8th (62)
Osgood - 30th (43)
Giguere - 18th (56)
Ward - 47th (28)

...and specific to workhorse Brodeur...

Brodeur GP -> playoff success
2007 (78 GP) -> ECSF loss
1996 (77 GP) -> Failed to qualify
2008 (77 GP) -> ECQF loss
2010 (77 GP) -> ECQF loss
2004 (75 GP) -> ECQF loss
...
[removed sub-40 game throwaway season, let's go full-time starter]
1997 (67 GP) -> ECSF loss
2012 (59 GP) -> SCF loss
2011 (56 GP) -> Failed to qualify
1994 (47 GP) -> Wales Conf. Final loss
1995 (40 GP) -> Stanley Cup Champ

He went to the SCF five times...those seasons he was: 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 14th in GGP...

He led the league in GGP six times...in those six playoffs, he won a combined one round. He beat Johan Holmqvist in a playoff series.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Sorry, this arguement does not hold water. Again, do you criticize Gretzky or Lemeiux for not back checking? It's a team game and players have roles. Gainey played the 200 foot game. The much more talented Lafleur produced the offence. With the Hawks, it was Hull's job to produce goals... which he did better than anybody else. He also did very well in the playoffs too, despite what the HOH says. Let's just reproduce their list and save ourselves a lot of time.

I don't understand the notion that Gretzky and Lemieux specifically are granted immunity from criticism with regards to defensive play. Evidently the likes of Gainey, Ramsey, Carbonneau, Madden, etc. have not been granted immunity for their poor offensive showings, or they'd be in the discussion here.

But I agree on Hull. From everything I've come across or heard from contemporary witnesses, he's the last guy Chicago's playoff failures should be blamed on. A litany of factors have been raised over the years, and not one do I recall pointing the finger at him. Hall and even Mikita, but never Hull specifically.

 

[Michael Farkas]

They get that pass because they were superhuman vs. their peers at offense. Mortals don't get that pass because they were mortals. There's a spectrum to it. Ovechkin dominates his peers, but not to the degree that Lemieux did...so you start going, "well, he didn't offer anything defensively...and he's a 90 out of 100 in terms of offense on this scale that I just made up but it's in quotes so it looks like someone is having an inner-monologue about it, where as Lemieux is 100 out of 100 or 99 out of 100 or whatever...so his defensive play matters less because his spectrum is just undeniably great..."

aannnddddd scene!

Now, if you rate defensive acumen on a higher echelon than is traditional, Lemieux (or Gretzky) won't rate quite as highly...but that's another story all together...

 

[quoipourquoi]

aannnddddd scene!

Indeed!