Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Captain Bowie]

What do people think of looking at Forsberg's vs. Malkin's career? I think they stack up quite closely to one another. Similar career numbers at this point. Malkin has fared slightly better in Hart voting, both had another all-time great Center to share the limelight with. Both had strong playoff and team success. I could see these two guys being quite close to each other on my list. Fairly similar playing styles too.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Yet nobody did so better, nor was able to replace Kurri.

Patrick Kane, faster version of Phil Kessel with the added sense to cluster points to one season.

-Replace in which way? How many elite hall of fame players does one team need? Messier, Coffey, Fuhr, Gretzky, Anderson?


-Crosby has Malkin and no other hall of famers or Top 100 players in his cup runs. Kane had Toews and Keith and maybe Hossa if you want to slide him in there, no where near Gretzky and Messier caliber talents. The Oilers have All Star Hall of Famers at every single position on the ice. I would love to switch out players on certain teams and see what happens.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

What do people think of looking at Forsberg's vs. Malkin's career? I think they stack up quite closely to one another. Similar career numbers at this point. Malkin has fared slightly better in Hart voting, both had another all-time great Center to share the limelight with. Both had strong playoff and team success. I could see these two guys being quite close to each other on my list. Fairly similar playing styles too.

-Ive got a feeling both will be ridiculously underrated by the time the lists are done. There seems to be a severe lack of credit for modern players in todays NHL. Both will rank very highly for me. Malkin's career and Cup quest is for #4 and #5 is also very far from over.

 

[The Macho King]

Kurri is a tough guy to place because he's both easy to overrate and underrate. But the results are what they are - 5 postseason all star, twice top 3 in Selke voting, was putting up PPG+ seasons until he was in his early 30s when his production started to dip. He did still put up two very good seasons *after* Gretzky was traded in Edmonton. Also - for all the "product of Gretzky" criticism, having chemistry with the greatest player of all time isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

I have him at 87 in my first draft, but that's going to get shuffled around. He'll end up in my top 100 though.

 

[MXD]

-Ive got a feeling both will be ridiculously underrated by the time the lists are done. There seems to be a severe lack of credit for modern players in todays NHL. Both will rank very highly for me. Malkin's career and Cup quest is for #4 and #5 is also very far from over.

• Currently active players are eligible, but will be judged only on what they have already accomplished
• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice

 

[Nick Hansen]

What about Erik Karlsson? Four AS 1, two Norris, two second places in Norris voting, one incredible playoff run and a stellar international record so far. And as MXD has posted about earlier, he's way underrated in Hart voting due to positional bias. He's run that Ottawa team for years.

 

[The Macho King]

Does anybody have Shanahan on their list?

I couldn't do it. Three All-Stars at a weak position, like 4? PPG seasons out of like 20. Good defensively, good player, but he didn't make my list.

What about Erik Karlsson? Four AS 1, two Norris, two second places in Norris voting, one incredible playoff run and a stellar international record so far. And as MXD has posted about earlier, he's way underrated in Hart voting. He's run that Ottawa team for years.

He's on my list. Pretty high, too. I think I have him in the mid-50s?

 

[MXD]

What about Erik Karlsson? Four AS 1, two Norris, two second places in Norris voting, one incredible playoff run and a stellar international record so far. And as MXD has posted about earlier, he's way underrated in Hart voting. He's run that Ottawa team for years.

It was in another thread I think, in a different context -- explaining that Hart voting support for D-Mens can be compared at face value with Hart voting support for forwards.

On topic : he's in a "I can't quite tell now, but most probably" situation. The reason for this is : I don't quite know where I'll end up ranking Duncan Keith yet -- since it's the first time I'll actually be asssessing Keith's case. And Karlsson goes below Keith (for now).

 

[The Macho King]

It was in another thread I think, in a different context -- explaining that Hart voting support for D-Mens can be compared at face value with Hart voting support for forwards.

On topic : he's in a "I can't quite tell now, but most probably" situation. The reason for this is : I don't quite know where I'll end up ranking Duncan Keith yet -- since it's the first time I'll actually be asssessing Keith's case. And Karlsson goes below Keith (for now).

I put EK comfortably over Keith (although now that I think of it I think I may have left Keith off of my first draft so I need to remedy that). I think I'm higher on EK than others though. He has kind of reminded us what an offensive D can do after about twenty years of thinking 60 points was a ton from the blueline.

 

[Dingo]

-Kurri shouldnt even be a Top 100 player. He played in the highest scoring era in NHL history. He played with a Top 2 or the best player in NHL history. He barely averaged 1 point per game. His trophy case is naked outside of a memorial trophy. Here is a perfect example of another player living off a superior player (Gretzky) coattails. But he has 5 Cups and played on an All Star team in Edmonton loaded with Hall of famers.


-Patrick Kane is so superior to Kurri its not even funny. If Kane played on a stacked hall of fame roster like Edmonton with terrible goalkeeping in the early 80s his numbers would skyrocket.

Kurri is a good bit over a point a game, with an emphasis on goals, and this while playing until 37, dragging his numbers down, which Kane has yet to go through.
Of course he gets bonuses from Gretzky and the 80s, but you are kind of having your cake by acting like, “even though he played with Gretzky in the 80s his career numbers are barely over a point per game”. The stat is wrong to begin with, but if you actually isolate his Gretzky+80s prime the numbers are staggering.
And he was far more defensively sound than Kane.
I also would probably put Kane over Kurri, for the record, but you are making a biased argument and leaving out important details.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

I put EK comfortably over Keith (although now that I think of it I think I may have left Keith off of my first draft so I need to remedy that). I think I'm higher on EK than others though. He has kind of reminded us what an offensive D can do after about twenty years of thinking 60 points was a ton from the blueline.

-EK is the leader in PPG the last 20 years at .83 per game for defensive players. Lidstrom is 2nd at .75 followed by underrated Al MacInnis in 3rd at .75. There are 10 players only in the last 20 years above .65. The gap is substantial. Bourque just made it at .67

 

[Nick Hansen]

-EK is the leader in PPG the last 20 years at .83 per game for defensive players. Lidstrom is 2nd at .75 followed by underrated Al MacInnis in 3rd at .75. There are 10 players only in the last 20 years above .65. The gap is substantial. Bourque just made it at .67

And Bourque's the most impressive out of those.

 

[BenchBrawl]

What do people think of looking at Forsberg's vs. Malkin's career? I think they stack up quite closely to one another. Similar career numbers at this point. Malkin has fared slightly better in Hart voting, both had another all-time great Center to share the limelight with. Both had strong playoff and team success. I could see these two guys being quite close to each other on my list. Fairly similar playing styles too.

They're extremely close.That's also why I won't waste too much time splitting this particular hair in Round 1 and content myself with ranking them in the same cluster so hopefully they pop up at the same time in Round 2.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Kurri is a good bit over a point a game, with an emphasis on goals, and this while playing until 37, dragging his numbers down, which Kane has yet to go through.
Of course he gets bonuses from Gretzky and the 80s, but you are kind of having your cake by acting like, “even though he played with Gretzky in the 80s his career numbers are barely over a point per game”. The stat is wrong to begin with, but if you actually isolate his Gretzky+80s prime the numbers are staggering.
And he was far more defensively sound than Kane.
I also would probably put Kane over Kurri, for the record, but you are making a biased argument and leaving out important details.

-Kurri's career is 1.11. He also had Gretzky and Robitaille in LA. But they couldnt win Cups in LA without 4 other All Star Hall of Famers lifting the load too.

-As for Kane, An Art Ross, Calder, Memorial, Conn Smythe, Lindsay, World Cup Gold Medal and WC MVP award. Top 15 all time in ERA adjusted points per game, Top 4 among all active players in ppg and playoff ppg.

-Kane's closet is pretty loaded with awards. And his Points per game and playoff points per game numbers are solid. And, unlike other players that have a peak of 5 or 6 great years then their stats fall off a cliff, Kane is the definition of consistency.

 

[Captain Bowie]

-Kurri's career is 1.11. He also had Gretzky and Robitaille in LA. But they couldnt win Cups in LA without 4 other All Star Hall of Famers lifting the load too.

-As for Kane, An Art Ross, Calder, Memorial, Conn Smythe, Lindsay, World Cup Gold Medal and WC MVP award. Top 15 all time in ERA adjusted points per game, Top 4 among all active players in ppg and playoff ppg.

-Kane's closet is pretty loaded with awards. And his Points per game and playoff points per game numbers are solid. And, unlike other players that have a peak of 5 or 6 great years then their stats fall off a cliff, Kane is the definition of consistency.

Don't forget, player's drop off usually comes in their early 30's. Kane hasn't played long enough to hit that part yet. His career PPG will most assuredly drop off before his career is done.

 

[Captain Bowie]

They're extremely close.That's also why I won't waste too much time splitting this particular hair in Round 1 and content myself with ranking them in the same cluster so hopefully they pop up at the same time in Round 2.

Good strategy.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

-Replace in which way? How many elite hall of fame players does one team need? Messier, Coffey, Fuhr, Gretzky, Anderson?


-Crosby has Malkin and no other hall of famers or Top 100 players in his cup runs. Kane had Toews and Keith and maybe Hossa if you want to slide him in there, no where near Gretzky and Messier caliber talents. The Oilers have All Star Hall of Famers at every single position on the ice. I would love to switch out players on certain teams and see what happens.

It's almost like today's salary cap era NHL has the talent spread out among numerous teams, while previous eras had several teams each with a bunch of Hall of Famers. Who knew?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Don't forget, player's drop off usually comes in their early 30's. Kane hasn't played long enough to hit that part yet. His career PPG will most assuredly drop off before his career is done.

-And as Ive said and others said, most players retire before 30. And 1980 and prior, almost all players retired before 30. The old timers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s didnt play to 35 or 40. Its about comparing apples to apples. I literally cannot wait until that poster has the updated VSX rankings capped at 31 years old and younger.

 

[Nick Hansen]

-And as Ive said and others said, most players retire before 30. And 1980 and prior, almost all players retired before 30. The old timers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s didnt play to 35 or 40. Its about comparing apples to apples. I literally cannot wait until that poster has the updated VSX rankings capped at 31 years old and younger.

Wrong. The 'bulk' of players you've been talking about earlier didn't play until 35 or 40. But the elite has done it for many, many decades.

The bulk is not interesting here.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

-And as Ive said and others said, most players retire before 30. And 1980 and prior, almost all players retired before 30. The old timers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s didnt play to 35 or 40. Its about comparing apples to apples. I literally cannot wait until that poster has the updated VSX rankings capped at 31 years old and younger.

Yes, almost all of them did. This post is utter nonsense. Practically no post-WWII candidates for this list voluntarily retired in good health before age 35.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Yes, almost all of them did. This post is utter nonsense. Practically no post-WWII candidates for this list voluntarily retired in good health before age 35.

-So we get a fair comparison and age is taken out of the equation. All players get compared from when they started until 31 years old. It doesnt get any more fair then that. There is no goal post moving with that. Every player is on an equal playing field.

 

[Johnny Engine]

-And as Ive said and others said, most players retire before 30. And 1980 and prior, almost all players retired before 30. The old timers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s didnt play to 35 or 40. Its about comparing apples to apples. I literally cannot wait until that poster has the updated VSX rankings capped at 31 years old and younger.

This is not correct, and it's been pointed out to you numerous times in several threads on a similar topic. Why are you bringing it up again?

Yes, almost all of them did. This post is utter nonsense. Practically no post-WWII candidates for this list voluntarily retired in good health before age 35.

I believe it was MS who made the recent post about how stars born in the mid-50s tended to drop off faster than stars who came before and after them. That's true for a number of reasons, and I think if you plotted the median age of retirement for great players on a graph, you'd see other points where it wanes slightly here and there.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What about Erik Karlsson? Four AS 1, two Norris, two second places in Norris voting, one incredible playoff run and a stellar international record so far. And as MXD has posted about earlier, he's way underrated in Hart voting due to positional bias. He's run that Ottawa team for years.

I don’t think it’s positional bias; he missed the playoffs in 2015-16 which always hurts players in MVP voting. The very next season, both he and Brent Burns went top-5 in Hart voting. If we’re looking at the two Norris years, he’s behind a teammate in voting in 2011-12 and had an ice-cold first half of 2014-15 on defense that hurt him, before turning on the jets in February.

I’m not seeing positional bias, but instead a player that was robbed because Ottawa was really bad in 2015-16.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

This is not correct, and it's been pointed out to you numerous times in several threads on a similar topic. Why are you bringing it up again?


I believe it was MS who made the recent post about how stars born in the mid-50s tended to drop off faster than stars who came before and after them. That's true for a number of reasons, and I think if you plotted the median age of retirement for great players on a graph, you'd see other points where it wanes slightly here and there.

-Please post a link with a statistical break down of every single player of players retiring early to say my claim is wrong. I want to see a link to prove me wrong

-Also, the other poster should bring the new VSX numbers to the table, 31 years age and younger. I feel its valuable. The VSX is valuable since multiple people told me to look at it. I looked at it. I like it. I also like the fact VSX looks just like my era adjusted numbers.

 

[The Macho King]

Speaking of Howe - Explain 50-51's Hart voting to me? Howe outscores the 2nd highest scorer by 20 points, wins the Art Ross and the (Retro) Rocket, his team leads the league in points, and somehow he's tied for third in Hart voting (with Red Kelly), behind Milt Schmidt (who was tied for 4th in points and 25 behind Howe) and Richard (who was second in goals and points - goals by 1 and points by 20). Also somehow Howe was 1st All-Star while Richard was 2nd All-Star. Boston also finished almost 40 points behind Detroit.

Was he penalized for playing on a stacked team (with Kelly and Sawchuk)? I don't see how he doesn't win the Hart there - seems like a funky award. Maybe Schmidt and Richard were just more comfortable votes rather than a 22 year old?

Edit: Meant to post this in the "Howe in the Big 4 Thread". My b.