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

[Daximus]

So some questions for those who are taking part. How do you go about your rankings and figuring out what is most important?
Era, peak, longevity, dominance over peers, dominance across generations, statistical dominance, era adjusted statistical dominance, team success? Just NHL? Do you put a lot of stock in someone being the first to accomplish something or more stock into someone doing it better than them? Do you factor in playoffs and international play as well as regular season play?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My goal is to not feel like we’re just re-hashing 2011-2014.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Out of curiosity, which years was Chara the best player in the league? Or top-3?

It's not so much whether he was Top 3 in any particular year, as much as being one of the few players to have a team build its identity around his for a period of many years.He was the end boss of those very physical Bostom teams and made everyone around him a little stronger and tougher.You cannot quantify this sort of value IMO, except intuitively.

Saying that Chara's best was at McDavid's level was probably going overboard though.

 

[steve141]

• We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.

I think this is key to a good project. We already have the positional lists. We've dissected how to rank wingers vs wingers, goalies vs goalies, defencemen vs defencemen etc. We should try to spend as little time as possible arguing the same old battles on the best at each position.

This project allows us to get to the heart of what a top player is, regardless of position. I'm looking forward to fresh comparisons like:

• Pilote vs Moore vs Parent
• Potvin vs Messier vs Tretiak
• Pronger vs Selanne vs Belfour
• Salming vs Kurri vs Smith
• etc...

 

[Theokritos]

I wish I never started this McDavid discussion.That's on me.

Then someone else would have started it. The question can't be avoided.

Three players have won the Hart trophy at 20 years old or younger: Gretzky, Crosby, McDavid.

Two players have won two Art Ross trophies at 21 years old: Gretzky and McDavid.

When you compare resumes "at 20 years" and "at 21 years" in order to justify having McDavid on your list, doesn't that imply you use some projection - which is explicitly against the guidelines of the project? (As opposed to putting a heavy emphasis on a player's peak.) Otherwise you would say something like: McDavid ist only 21, but he already has a top 100 resume, regardless of his age. Comparing resumes at a certain (very young) age on the other hand between him and Gretzky etc looks like a plain hint at how good McDavid is going to be in the future: Gretzky, Crosby and McDavid did this at that age... We know how the former two proceeded from there. Now draw your conclusions for McDavid...

I'm not saying McDavid must not be on your list. But if he is in your top 100, then his case and rank must rest on what he actually has done, not on what he can be expected to do from now on. If he announces his retirement tomorrow, where do you put him all time?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Out of curiosity, which years was Chara the best player in the league? Or top-3?

I can answer that question as it relates to McDavid, and I’m not sure about this idea that neither myself nor the Hart voters understand the nuance of defense enough to appreciate Chara relative to McDavid.

Defensive defensemen aren’t some indy band I don’t get. I happen to believe that the suppression of opportunity is further attenuated from the scoreboard than actual scoring and actual goaltending. Still important though. Along with transition in the middle, violence, and keeping the puck in the zone, that’s most of the 60 minutes. But unless the scoreboards start changing based on hits, blocked shots, and takeaways, the most important players are the ones that are abnormally impactful when it comes to deciding the game in those small percentage of plays when things break down.

Again, I think it depends on how YOU (or anyone) defines "best". Why IS McDavid the best player in the league? Because he scores lots of points? His elite skating ability? Vision? I'm not saying I don't think McD deserves to be in the conversation but why do you think defensemen in general don't get the same recognition that F's do? Is it REALLY because F's are better hockey players and impact the game in a greater manner?

People forget Chara was a 50+ point defensemen for a few seasons (think 08-09-12) while, IMO, being the absolute #1 shutdown player in hockey. One the ice for 26+ minutes a night. Look at his offensive/defensive zone start #'s compared to others in the same time period. It's not like this guy was Rod Langway inept offensively and just about every metric you look at you realize how dominant he was at ES and on the PK. Then there's the simple eye test.

Sure it's very easy to look at a player like McDavid and say "he's the best" because in many ways it's what the league and voters have pre conditioned us to believe.

 

[Laineux]

Again, I think it depends on how YOU (or anyone) defines "best". Why IS McDavid the best player in the league? Because he scores lots of points? His elite skating ability? Vision? I'm not saying I don't think McD deserves to be in the conversation but why do you think defensemen in general don't get the same recognition that F's do? Is it REALLY because F's are better hockey players and impact the game in a greater manner?

Forwards (especially centers) drive the possession more than defencemen and the top GAR players are all forwards in every model I have encountered. If you place any trust in advanced all-encompassing (by attempt) stats, it does seem that forwards impact the game clearly more than defencemen.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Defenseman are more important, generally speaking, than forwards. Defenseman manage tougher situations, more ice, more minutes. There's never been a team that has consistently been a threat to win without a #1 defenseman except the mid-1970s Flyers. A team that got to avoid Montreal for their two championships and then got pummeled by Montreal when they got the chance...

As a coach, I routinely move my best player back to defense. Best skater, best passer, best vision, best hockey sense - that player is playing defense for me.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Forwards (especially centers) drive the possession more than defencemen and the top GAR players are all forwards in every model I have encountered. If you place any trust in advanced all-encompassing (by attempt) stats, it does seem that forwards impact the game clearly more than defencemen.

I don't very much. And I'll tell you why.

Hockey is a massively team dependent sport. This isn't baseball where there is much more of a one on one component between a hitter/pitcher. Unfortunately people try and replicate the slew of advanced numbers you see in baseball and translate it to the ice. There is an inherent risk with that because the dynamics of hockey are more complex then baseball, IMHO.

Defensemen (especially 1s) are on the ice far more than any F's. They are generally the ones who get the puck to the the F's in the neutral/offensive zones or even transition it themselves. In a case like Erik Karlsson, they are the teams most dynamic offensive player, from the back end.

 

[Laineux]

Defenseman are more important, generally speaking, than forwards. Defenseman manage tougher situations, more ice, more minutes. There's never been a team that has consistently been a threat to win without a #1 defenseman except the mid-1970s Flyers. A team that got to avoid Montreal for their two championships and then got pummeled by Montreal when they got the chance...

As a coach, I routinely move my best player back to defense. Best skater, best passer, best vision, best hockey sense - that player is playing defense for me.

I see a stronger correlation with a strong center core than strong defencemen in terms of winning Cups in the past 20ish years.

New Jersey Devils is the only team without high end centers to win the Cup in that timeframe that comes to mind... which they compensated for with incredible goaltending/defensive core.

Washington, once again, had the best center depth in these playoffs and to no surprise won it all.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Don't agree actually. Even if you cut things off at 20 years despite this being an all-time thing...

Ignoring Vegas' one run without any centers, the highest win% teams in the playoffs over the last 25 years are:
Detroit (plenty of centers: Yzerman, Fedorov -> Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc. - but also an all-time d-man in Lidstrom...and they didn't do [poop] before Lidstrom really...but still had Yzerman and Fedorov)
Chicago (Really just Toews-led...fairly weak in the all-time realm...and not a lot of quality behind him, particularly after Patrick Sharp moved to wing permanently...they did feature Duncan Keith though)
Colorado (I mean, they had it all...centers and defense...)
New Jersey (Again, defense-heavy...Stevens and Niedermayer...center weak)
Anaheim (Again, defense-heavy and/or center weak...went on deep runs with Steve Rucchin and Andy McDonald as prominent centers...Ozolinsh backing one run, Neidermayer/Pronger/Beauchemin manning the winner)

Very clear win for defense, even in the last quarter century...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I see a stronger correlation with a strong center core than strong defencemen in terms of winning Cups in the past 20ish years.

New Jersey Devils is the only team without high end centers to win the Cup in that timeframe that comes to mind... which they compensated for with incredible goaltending/defensive core.

Washington, once again, had the best center depth in these playoffs and to no surprise won it all.

NJ also played a system that focused on trapping the opposition. It wasn't just that they had superior Dmen, it's they used a specific system and played it better than anyone else.

Washington didn't have better C depth than Pittsburgh (Crosby, Malkin, Brassard, Shehan). Washington got better defensive play and goal tending. And Pitt was completely gassed by that point.

 

[Laineux]

Washington didn't have better C depth than Pittsburgh (Crosby, Malkin, Brassard, Shehan). Washington got better defensive play and goal tending. And Pitt was completely gassed by that point.

I disagree, because Malkin was injured, I think Washington had the best centers in these playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Washington is a perennial loser (sub. 500 playoff win% in this time span - 17th)...this was about teams that win consistently, to be fair.

 

[Laineux]

Washington is a perennial loser (sub. 500 playoff win% in this time span - 17th)...this was about teams that win consistently, to be fair.

Which is fair, but is it a surprise that they won when Kuznetsov emerged as one of the top centers in the world (in the playoffs too)? This is by far the best center depth they've ever had in the Ovechkin era... and Kuznetsov was their best/most important player (despite that Smythe we should all know this to be true).

Not to go off-topic any more, I don't have enough to give to participate in this project.

 

[DannyGallivan]

• Eligibility
  • Players will be judged only on their performance as hockey players
  • Currently active players are eligible, but will be judged only on what they have already accomplished
  • No, I don’t know what to do with Connor McDavid either

• Preliminary Discussion Thread
  • Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he or she does not intend to take part in the voting round
  • Posters are encouraged to share information about players in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
  • For instance, did you know Roy McGiffin was in the fruit business during the off-season? Not that I am implying that he should be ranked on the viability of his Californian fruit
  • Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for the voting round
  • Please do not rank players outright in the preliminary thread

• Voting
  • Round 1
    • All participants submit a list of 120 players ranked in order, with all positions included
    • All eras are to be considered
    • To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Tim Thomas, not Timothy Thomas Jr.; Justin Williams, not Justinus Septum Williams
    • Lists may be submitted via PM to quoipourquoi
    • Deadline for list submission is September 30
    • Players will be assigned a point value on each list based on ranking. A 1st-place vote is equal to 120 points. A 2nd-place vote is equal to 119 points. A 120th-place vote is equal to 1 point.
    • An aggregate list will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
    • Participants must submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible to vote in Round 2
  • Round 2
    • The top-10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
    • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
    • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
    • Final voting will occur for two days via PM. A 1st-Place vote is equal to 10 points. A 2nd-Place vote is equal to 9 points. A 10th-Place vote is equal to 1 point.
    • The top-5 players will be added to the final list, unless people start booing because of a clear break in voting after the top-4 players, at which point we might agree to hold someone back for the next round because I easily succumb to peer pressure and will go along with whatever you want
    • The exception is in Vote 1 in which only 4 players (#1-4) will be added and in Vote 21 in which only 1 player will be added (#100) because we like to do things arbitrarily for dramatic effect
    • The process repeats until we have a list of 100 players
    • Failure to retain an acceptable level of discussion may lead to an abbreviated list of no fewer than 25 players

• Quality Assurance
  • Lists will be subject to an evaluation process
  • This is not meant to deter participation; we merely want to ensure that voters are considering all eras of hockey's history
  • The complete voting record of every participant will be released at the end of the project
  • Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
  • We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.
  • Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
  • Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

I'll always say that you can't compare goaltenders to skaters. I'd like to see goalies have their own category. Is Roy better than Bobby Hull? Is Hasek better than Jean Beliveau?

 

[The Macho King]

I'll always say that you can't compare goaltenders to skaters. I'd like to see goalies have their own category. Is Roy better than Bobby Hull? Is Hasek better than Jean Beliveau?

Too bad. Goalies are hockey players too.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Defensemen (especially 1s) are on the ice far more than any F's

Because they exert themselves less than forwards in the short-shift era.

Again, I think it depends on how YOU (or anyone) defines "best". Why IS McDavid the best player in the league? Because he scores lots of points? His elite skating ability? Vision? I'm not saying I don't think McD deserves to be in the conversation but why do you think defensemen in general don't get the same recognition that F's do? Is it REALLY because F's are better hockey players and impact the game in a greater manner?

Yes.

People forget Chara was a 50+ point defensemen for a few seasons (think 08-09-12) while, IMO, being the absolute #1 shutdown player in hockey. One the ice for 26+ minutes a night. Look at his offensive/defensive zone start #'s compared to others in the same time period. It's not like this guy was Rod Langway inept offensively and just about every metric you look at you realize how dominant he was at ES and on the PK. Then there's the simple eye test.

I don’t think anyone forgets Chara existed; the time frame you’re presenting is 6-12 years ago. But assuming this is what you’re doing(?), this is the first I’m hearing that someone thought he was better than Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin - the way McDavid is largely considered better than everybody.

Sure it's very easy to look at a player like McDavid and say "he's the best" because in many ways it's what the league and voters have pre conditioned us to believe.

I feel like I’m being asked to take the red pill or the blue pill. If Boston was so good at suppressing opportunities while Chara was on the ice to the point that we should be holding him above players that have unusually high impact in areas that directly impact the score, why is Boston ranked 20th and 22nd in shots allowed in 2008 and 2009? Do we have the numbers to show that all of the danger occurred in the 30-35 minutes when he wasn’t on the ice? I’m looking for something to convince me that my eyes and ~130 voters are wrong.

To Chara’s credit, two people did give him a 1st-place vote in 2009, but a teammate had double the top-3 votes.

I don’t know that I’m asking for the impossible either - in the past 40 years, #1 defensemen like Langway, Stevens, and Pronger have had on/off ratios and GA numbers that are tangibly great - not the subtle you-don’t-understand-the-nuance variety.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Shots aren't the enemy today. Quality chances are. Efficiency goaltending has rendered shots as, well, not meaningless...but not very meaningful...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think Chara at his absolute best was every bit as dominant a hockey player as anyone (Crosby, Ovechkin) during that time frame. His dominance is just harder for the average fan to appreciate and in some cases, see. And as I've correctly pointed out the NHL and as a by product, the media, since Bobby Orr, have made it a regular occurance to push the narrative that only F's can be considered most valuable/best.

There used to be a time when Dmen were appreciated on the whole a lot more than they are today (generally speaking, pre WWII).

 

[DannyGallivan]

Too bad. Goalies are hockey players too.

I'd like more detail in your response. How do you compare Martin Brodeur with Bobby Orr?

 

[The Macho King]

I'd like more detail in your response. How do you compare Martin Brodeur with Bobby Orr?

You say "which one of these two players was better." You compare their impact on the ice, look at stats, contextualize what those stats mean, adjust a bit for era, compare them to their competition - especially players that overlapped eras - and then you say "Bobby Orr was a better hockey player than Martin Brodeur."

 

[quoipourquoi]

Shots aren't the enemy today. Quality chances are. Efficiency goaltending has rendered shots as, well, not meaningless...but not very meaningful...

Much better, but pretty difficult to compare across generations (whereas shot data and GA have been historically tracked). At any rate, is there some measure of quality chances that shows Chara to be as good relative to the league in 2008 and 2009 as McDavid has been in 2017 and 2018? I’d settle for someone presenting an argument for 2018 Hedman/Doughty over teammates Kucherov/Kopitar at this point - or really any year where someone believes the top-3 Norris nominees contained better individual seasons than the top-3 Art Ross finishers (2000?).

 

[DannyGallivan]

You say "which one of these two players was better." You compare their impact on the ice, look at stats, contextualize what those stats mean, adjust a bit for era, compare them to their competition - especially players that overlapped eras - and then you say "Bobby Orr was a better hockey player than Martin Brodeur."

So then, you can probably compare Bobby Orr to Dan Marino or Mickey Mantle too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shots aren't the enemy today. Quality chances are. Efficiency goaltending has rendered shots as, well, not meaningless...but not very meaningful...

Impeded chances. Screened shots, back side rebounds.