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

[Captain Bowie]

Will there be any Jews on the top 100 list?

According to this list, no: Category:Jewish ice hockey players - Wikipedia

 

[Nick Hansen]

According to this list, no: Category:Jewish ice hockey players - Wikipedia

Seems about right. Are we sure none of the great Soviet's didn't identify as Jews?

 

[Johnny Engine]

I hear Lorne Chabotsky was pretty good.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What "fourth line role"? In 2010 he played with his usual linemates in Marleau and Heatley, the biggest offensive threat in the League! I don't remember who his partners were in 2006 and 2016, but one thing he never was a "defensive fourth line center."

2016 World Cup...mostly played 4LW with ROR and Matt Duchene.
2010 Olympics...third line with Marleau and Heatley as you mentioned (Crosby and Getzlaf ahead of him at center...Toews and Bergeron behind him)
2006 Olympics...played with Rick Nash...and then a rotation of other wingers...I think Gagne, Doan and Bertuzzi depending on the situation...I can't separate what lines are what on that team though in terms of numbering...I guess behind Sakic...and then after that, I don't know...

He didn't play in many "featured" situations internationally and became much more of a two-way player though...

 

[Doctor No]

But it is. Take up this issue with the entire world of hockey.

I'm taking it up with you. Should it be?

One aspect that matters far less to me than to many people here. Face-to-face-against-your-main-opponent, chips-are-down, everything-on-the-line, win-or-die is far more important to me than run-of-the-mill regular season games.

It can matter less to you, but that doesn't make you correct.

Small sample size considerations are real, whether or not you care to believe in them or not.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm taking it up with you. Should it be?

I always took it as a given. Why not?

It can matter less to you, but that doesn't make you correct.

Small sample size considerations are real, whether or not you care to believe in them or not.

Maybe they are real, but I assign less value to them than you do. When you have one game to win, you give it your all, and I judge you based on that. If your all is repeatedly not good enough, sorry, Joe, you are gonna be cut in favor of those whose all was.

 

[Sentinel]

2016 World Cup...mostly played 4LW with ROR and Matt Duchene.
2010 Olympics...third line with Marleau and Heatley as you mentioned (Crosby and Getzlaf ahead of him at center...Toews and Bergeron behind him)
2006 Olympics...played with Rick Nash...and then a rotation of other wingers...I think Gagne, Doan and Bertuzzi depending on the situation...I can't separate what lines are what on that team though in terms of numbering...I guess behind Sakic...and then after that, I don't know...

He didn't play in many "featured" situations internationally and became much more of a two-way player though...

None of these are "fourth lines." In fact, on pretty much every club they'd be first lines (or possibly second). Not to mention that Babcock loves to rotate four lines and balance out the IT. Team Canada can afford to.

1G + 1A in six games on the line with ROR and Duchene is quite subpar. In 2010 Crosby and Getzlaf were ahead of him at center because his line was mediocre and theirs weren't.

 

[Michael Farkas]

By "pretty much every club" are you comparing Team Canada to an NHL team...?

I guess I'm just confused...he was supposed to play over Sidney Crosby or something?

I mean, it's not that it's hard to figure out...
Thornton ice time in 2010 Olympics
Prelims (14:33 avg)
vs. Norway 13:39 (Crosby ~16; Getzlaf ~13; Toews ~13.5)
vs. Switzerland 15:57 (Crosby ~19; Getzlaf ~16; Toews ~13)
vs. USA 14:02 (Crosby ~17.5; Getzlaf ~14; Toews ~14.5)

Tourney play (12:53 avg)
vs. Germany 12:47 (Crosby ~14.5; Getzlaf ~14; Toews ~12)
vs. Russia 12:43 (Crosby ~17.5;; Getzlaf ~11; Toews ~16)
vs. Slovakia 12:30 (Crosby ~16.5; Getzlaf ~13; Toews ~16.5)
vs. USA 13:33 (Crosby ~17; Getzlaf ~18; Toews ~17.5)

2016 World Cup
Prelims
vs. Czech 11:33
vs. USA 11:37
vs. Euro 11:04

Tourney play
vs. Russia 10:55
vs. Euro 8:41
vs. Euro 10:40

Used primarily in a defensive role on lower lines...particularly as the games elevated...which I guess is a credit to your point of not ranking him more than anything, you're really in a no-lose situation here unless you double down on this "Thornton was featured and failed to score" stuff...

 

[Doctor No]

I always took it as a given. Why not?

Well, let's start with this: the goaltender is responsible for slightly more than 0% of the team's offense, and a decent amount less than 100% of the defense. Pin whatever numbers you want to "slightly more" and "decent amount less", but if you're being reasonable in doing so, you'll reach the conclusion that the goaltender is less than 50% responsible for a team's winning or losing.

Maybe they are real, but I assign less value to them than you do. When you have one game to win, you give it your all, and I judge you based on that. If your all is repeatedly not good enough, sorry, Joe, you are gonna be cut in favor of those whose all was.

See the above for starters. Suppose that Patrick Roy "gave it his all" just as much as Dominik Hasek did, but Marc Crawford put Trevor Linden out in the shootout instead of Wayne Gretzky. Or hell, suppose he *did* put Gretzky out there, but Gretzky's mind was somewhere else. Or Robert Reichel's shot is an eighth of an inch off, and hits the post and goes out instead of hitting the post and going in.

Bounces happen in small samples, for one.

And if you're truly believing what you're trying to sell us, why do you require "your all [to] repeatedly [be] not good enough"? It seems that you do believe that an appropriate sample is important.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If your all is repeatedly not good enough

How do you define or quantify that? What determines if an "all" was given, and if it was good enough? Is it simply based on whether you won or lost the game?

 

[Sentinel]

How do you define or quantify that? What determines if an "all" was given, and if it was good enough? Is it simply based on whether you won or lost the game?

I don't. Hockey is a game that cannot be reduced to mere numbers. The cult of statistics needs to be restrained. And yes, winning matters. A lot. Clutch matters. Intangibles exist. Spirit and leadership cannot be quantified, but they are real. Artistry and uniqueness on ice should be rewarded. That sort of statistically immeasurable stuff that makes people watch hockey.

I realize that for every example I'll give you, you'll come up with ten. But I don't care. Ovechkin hasn't changed one iota as a player in June 2018. His place on the list of history's greatest players changed quite a bit. Because he gave it all, and that "all" was good enough to finally win, after thirteen years of coming up short. He jumped from high 20s to low 10s. All because he finally won the Cup. When Thornton has a meaningful run, he will enter my list. Roy has never beaten Hasek when it mattered, so he will never overtake him on my list.

 

[Sentinel]

I guess I'm just confused...he was supposed to play over Sidney Crosby or something?

I don't know what you're talking about. Sidney Crosby was not hard to "play over" in those tournaments because Crosby did not exactly shine as expected (except the WC2016, of course). Toews, Richards, Getzlaf were awesome in those tourneys, not Crosby and Thornton.

All this other stuff just tells me that Thornton sucked and got less IT than he should have. I can't believe that anybody who watched those OG as I did can call his performance as anything but pathetic.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I don't. Hockey is a game that cannot be reduced to mere numbers. The cult of statistics needs to be restrained. And yes, winning matters. A lot. Clutch matters. Intangibles exist. Spirit and leadership cannot be quantified, but they are real. Artistry and uniqueness on ice should be rewarded. That sort of statistically immeasurable stuff that makes people watch hockey.

I realize that for every example I'll give you, you'll come up with ten. But I don't care. Ovechkin hasn't changed one iota as a player in June 2018. His place on the list of history's greatest players changed quite a bit. Because he gave it all, and that "all" was good enough to finally win, after thirteen years of coming up short. He jumped from high 20s to low 10s. All because he finally won the Cup. When Thornton has a meaningful run, he will enter my list. Roy has never beaten Hasek when it mattered, so he will never overtake him on my list.

That's fine. We have our different approaches. A lot of those things you mentioned come down to "gut" feelings. I don't trust my gut as much as you must. I guess it's good that this project takes multiple approaches into account.

 

[Fantomas]

The whole "cult of statistics" would dissipate a bit if we didn't need stats to convince people to not argue against obvious things.

 

[ted2019]

I take Thornton over Datsyuk because Thornton is better taking faceoffs.

 

[ted2019]

How much stock does anyone take from WHA stats? Does Hull's stats help him? Mark Howe?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Maybe because it was Bobby Hull, I had high expectations... but I'd say Hull performed in accordance with expectations in that demi-league. When making the case that Hull is the best to ever play his (LW) position, his WHA stats are pretty far down on my exhibit-table.

Most interesting thing about Mark Howe's WHA career is that we get to contemplate that curiosity-shop résumé-line of his stint at Wing. Mark Howe might scrape onto the back-end of my list. I won't agonize over it if he doesn't quite make the cut.

Maybe I'm not valuing longevity enough... but I'm underwhelmed by Thornton. List competition at the Center position is fierce. Also, there are players who have a generalized reputation as playoff underperformers (e.g.: Dionne) who, when you look at their squads, you wind up saying "man, they could use a little help out there." I don't think Thornton was without help in quite the same way.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How much stock does anyone take from WHA stats? Does Hull's stats help him? Mark Howe?

Periphial information, not core.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dominik Hasek overview. Based on Czech data, International performance which is very sparse lacking key elements - actual league schedules, first goal data, etc. NHL and NA info is much more complete.

Three major issues that touch Dominik Hasek and in certain instances Patrick Roy to a greater degree.

Both goalies picked their spots - either their own or coaches decision. Regardless, happened too often to ignore.

Both goalies took about 3-4 years to establish themselves in the NHL yet neither had health or injury issues.

Contemporaries and predeccessors did not have picked or managed starts.

These factors have to be looked at in any discussion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sometimes I have heard it being argued that Kharlamov did not really separate himself from his peers both when it comes to statistics and award recognition. While this largely may be true it is also worth pointing out that there is one metric where Kharlamov really separated himself from his peers namely when it comes to Soviet player of the year voting shares. The reason why I think that it is worth looking at voting shares beyond only the voting finishes is that it in my opinion is a more accurate metric. Looking only at voting finishes it is easy to assume that all 1st place finishes hold the same value. But if we for example compare Krutovs 1st place finish in 86/87 with a voting share of 0.985 to Larionovs 1st place finish in 87/88 with a 0.550 voting share it does in my opinion seem very inaccurate to suggest that those two finishes should hold exactly the same value and therefore it is more fair to look at the voting shares.

Anyway here is how Kharlamov does when it comes to SPOTY voting shares and how he compares to the other four great Soviet forwards of his generation.

Valery Kharlamov
71/72: 130/180 = 0.722
72/73: 107/177 = 0.605
75/76: 107/192 = 0.557
74/75: 81/195 = 0.415
68/69: 51/165 = 0.309
70/71: 61/204 = 0.299
78/79': 300/1734 = 0.173
73/74: 26/168 = 0.155
69/70: 20/204 = 0.098
79/80: 19/207 = 0.092
77/78: 15/219 = 0.068
76/77: 5/228 = 0.022
3-year average: 0.628
5-year average: 0.522
7-year average: 0.440

Alexander Maltsev
71/72: 130/180 = 0.722
80/81: 121/222 = 0.545
69/70: 104/204 = 0.510
70/71: 70/204 = 0.343
73/74: 38/168 = 0.226
79/80: 38/207 = 0.184
77/78: 33/219 = 0.151
75/76: 28/192 = 0.146
81/82: 17/222 = 0.077
76/77: 9/228 = 0.039
68/69: 5/165 = 0.030
82/83: 7/243 = 0.029
74/75: 5/195 = 0.026
72/73: 2/177 = 0.011
3-year average: 0.592
5-year average: 0.469
7-year average: 0.383

Boris Mikhailov
77/78: 128/219 = 0.584
73/74: 67/168 = 0.399
76/77: 73/228 = 0.320
78/79': 435/1734 = 0.251
79/80: 49/207 = 0.237
74/75: 44/195 = 0.226
72/73: 34/177 = 0.192
68/69: 30/165 = 0.182
70/71: 5/204 = 0.025
75/76: 4/192 = 0.021
3-year average: 0.434
5-year average: 0.358
7-year average: 0.316

Vladimir Petrov
72/73: 104/177 = 0.588
76/77: 90/228 = 0.395
74/75: 49/195 = 0.251
80/81: 28/222 = 0.126
78/79': 129/1734 = 0.074
77/78: 14/219 = 0.064
75/76: 6/192 = 0.031
70/71: 3/204 = 0.015
73/74: 2/168 = 0.012
69/70: 2/204 = 0.010
3-year average: 0.411
5-year average: 0.287
7-year average: 0.218

Alexander Yakushev
74/75: 58/195 = 0.297
72/73: 46/177 = 0.260
68/69: 22/165 = 0.133
71/72: 19/180 = 0.106
75/76: 17/192 = 0.089
73/74: 12/168 = 0.071
79/80: 5/207 = 0.024
78/79: 24/1734 = 0.014
3-year average: 0.230
5-year average: 0.177
7-year average: 0.140

3-year average:
1. Valery Kharlamov: 0.628
2. Alexander Maltsev: 0.592
3. Boris Mikhailov: 0.434
4. Vladimir Petrov: 0.411
5. Alexander Yakushev: 0.230

5-year average:
1. Valery Kharlamov: 0.522
2. Alexander Maltsev: 0.469
3. Boris Mikhailov: 0.358
4. Vladimir Petrov: 0.287
5. Alexander Yakushev: 0.177

7-year average:
1. Valery Kharlamov: 0.440
2. Alexander Maltsev: 0.383
3. Boris Mikhailov: 0.316
4. Vladimir Petrov: 0.218
5. Alexander Yakushev: 0.140

As you can see above Kharlamov stands out as clearly the top forward of his generation when it comes to SPOTY voting shares. Yes Maltsev is rather close over 3 years but over both 5 and 7 years Kharlamov is clearly ahead. It is also worth noting how far ahead of Mikhailov that Maltsev is. Both when it comes to top results but also considering that Maltsev recieved votes in 14 seasons compared to Mikhailovs 10 seasons. I know that most people rank Mikhailov ahead of Maltsev but how far ahead should he really be ranked? For what it is worth the SPOTY voters seemed to consider Maltsev the somewhat superior player over their careers. Now I am not pretending that SPOTY voting means everything and there are many other metrics to use when ranking Soviet players but it definitely means something and I personally don't see much of a case for having Mikhailov very far ahead of Maltsev.

It is also very clear that Yakushev by far had the weakest SPOTY voting record of the top 70's forwards. And I personally don't think that Yakushev has much of a case for being ranked ahead of any of the other four forwards. Unless one puts an incredible amount of value on performances against North American opponents.

Edit: As you can see I used the Izvestia golden stick voting as a stand in for the Soviet player of the year voting in 78/79.

Interesting but what does it say about a domestic league and the resulting National team if the top players are all forwards?

Effectively beyond the few games against teams with National team defencemen and goalies very little opposition for the forwards to showcase their talents.

 

[seventieslord]

Dominik Hasek overview. Based on Czech data, International performance which is very sparse lacking key elements - actual league schedules, first goal data, etc. NHL and NA info is much more complete.

Three major issues that touch Dominik Hasek and in certain instances Patrick Roy to a greater degree.

Both goalies picked their spots - either their own or coaches decision. Regardless, happened too often to ignore.

Both goalies took about 3-4 years to establish themselves in the NHL yet neither had health or injury issues.

Contemporaries and predeccessors did not have picked or managed starts.

These factors have to be looked at in any discussion.

Has this been proven with Patrick Roy? I might be mis-remembering, but the old line that he took the easy starts and left Hayward with the harder ones, I thought that had been disproven years ago. There must be data on this that we can review.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I may be off base, but using goaltender performance “face to face” as a ranking criteria seems pretty dumb.

...and I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I know that Roy played relatively few back-to-backs...along the lines of Hasek, well below Brodeur. Can't speak to the quality of opponents...for some reason, I thought that @Doctor No had something along those lines...

 

[Doctor No]

Let me see what I can pull.

 

[Doctor No]

Has this been proven with Patrick Roy? I might be mis-remembering, but the old line that he took the easy starts and left Hayward with the harder ones, I thought that had been disproven years ago. There must be data on this that we can review.

Now, this I have data readily available on. From:
MONTREAL CANADIENS GOALTENDING HISTORY: YEAR-BY-YEAR

Average strength of schedule, Montreal regular season goaltenders (minutes weighted):
1985-86: Roy +0.02 (Soetaert +0.03, Penney +0.13)
1986-87: Roy +0.00 (Hayward -0.08)
1987-88: Roy -0.09 (Hayward -0.04)
1988-89: Roy -0.13 (Hayward -0.06)
1989-90: Roy -0.18 (Hayward +0.04)
1990-91: Roy -0.08 (Racicot -0.21, Bergeron -0.24)
1991-92: Roy -0.14 (Melanson +0.02, Racicot -0.26)
1992-93: Roy +0.03 (Racicot -0.48)
1993-94: Roy -0.03 (Racicot -0.06, Tugnutt -0.49)
1994-95: Roy -0.01 (Tugnutt +0.13)
1995-96: Roy -0.01 (Jablonski +0.12)

Units are goals/game (a +0.25 means that the goaltender's typical opponent would be favored by 0.25 goals against an average team on neutral ice). These data incorporate home-ice advantage equal to the league average for the season at hand.

Other than 1992-93 (where Racicot's schedule strength is comical) there's no meaningful pattern here. (Even weirder is that when I look at a difference as large as 1992-93, I first assume that the weaker schedule corresponds to a disproportionate share of home games, but Roy played 60% of games at home while Racicot played an ostensibly-tougher 31% at home).

Percentage of games against top quartile teams:
1985-86: Roy 24% (Soetaert 18%, Penney 22%)
1986-87: Roy 28% (Hayward 15%)
1987-88: Roy 23% (Hayward 20%)
1988-89: Roy 23% (Hayward 21%)
1989-90: Roy 25% (Hayward 37%)
1990-91: Roy 26%
1991-92: Roy 18%
1992-93: Roy 30% (Racicot 1%)
1993-94: Roy 30%
1994-95: Roy 23%
1995-96: Roy 28%

You'd ordinarily expect 25% of a goaltender's minutes to be against top-quartile teams (unless his own team is in the top quartile of course). 1989-90 is interesting (and lines up with the first chart). I included Racicot's 1% in 1992-93 because it amused me (it's actually 1.39%).