Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18

[pappyline]

Add Crosby to that as well.

I was responding more to the current list being to 80's to present dominant not so much to compare from the previous list.

I think my previous post provided a partial or possible explanation for why that is so.

Also, it's a fact that there wasn't elite all time great talents from the maritimes or from BC until the 80s as well, with Sakic and Brett Hull from BC and Crosby and MacInnis from the maritimes.

If one were to do a top 100 players from all time prior to 1980, there wouldn't have been 4 guys from BC and the maritimes on that list, nor so many non Canadians to be sure.

IMO the list would probably be off kilter a bit if it wasn't post 1980ish heavy given these reasons.

I didn't realize Crosby was from outside Canada.

If you are going to respond to my post pay attention and stay on topic. I was simply responding to TDMM's post regarding the era make up of the current list to the 2008 list.

If you want to discuss which era of hockey produced the best players this has been discussed many times in many threads. And we don't need to be told ad nauseum where you stand.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Still sorting out my final ballot, open to being swayed by last-minute arguments.

Top tier:

Fedorov- My probable number one. Arguably the most important overall player to the best overall team of the era between lockouts.

Chara- Doesn't quite have the peak of some of these other players, but all those years of being very good add up. Starting to approach Chelios territory for longevity as a #1 caliber defenseman.

Cowley- His scoring record really is remarkable. The lack of back-checking has been accounted for, I believe, by him not appearing until now. His uneven playoff record was a little bothersome to me, but it seems he had the bad luck of injuries always seeming to strike late in the season and was often playing at less than full strength by March/April.

The middle:

Gadsby- A 7-time all star and several times a Norris finalist behind Harvey and Kelly. Who knows what Gadsby could have done had he not been on bad Chicago and New York teams for most of his career. There's been some question about his play from a purely defensive standpoint, but he was an all-star in his late 30's in a season where he had 12 points, so obviously he wasn't just getting by on offense.

Keith- Like Fedorov, he was crucial to a near-dynasty, but is probably going to end up lacking the longevity you'd expect of a player from his era. Position could change for better or worse in the future after he's retired and his legacy has a few years to sink in.

Leetch- I'm warming up to Leetch throughout the process. Had game-breaking ability in the first half of his career that is hard to come by at this point of the project. Later portions of his career aren't quite as bad on closer inspection as I initially suspected.

Belfour- Had some unfortunate lows during his career, but that's the nature of the goaltending position. You can't hide a bad season. Wasn't renown for clutch play in Chicago (though I think calling him a choker is simply false), but certainly delivered when the chips were down in Dallas, and even to an extent in Toronto. If I had one playoff game to win, I'm turning to Belfour before I turn to Brodeur or Hasek.

Mikhailov- Wasn't as high on him as I initially was before he became a candidate, but that's why I voted him fairly low last round. A round later, he looks better. Not sure exactly how I'll order this middle tier yet.

Bottom:

Stewart- I see Cowley as the superior of the two one-way centers. The big difference is that Cowley seems to have made his wingers better; he was an exceptional passer and stickhandler. Stewart largely relied on his wingers to do the work that he was too lazy to do himself after the first few seasons of his career.

Lindros- As good a player as any available on a per-game basis, but missed games at a rate that I just can't overlook. Unlike Stewart, who filled out his post-Maroons resume with a long string of good-not-great seasons, Lindros only has the one season in New York that was of any historical significance. It's amazing to think in retrospect that Lindros' playoff "arrival" in 1997 was in fact the last chapter of the book as far as post-season is concerned.

St Louis- A great player, and maybe my perception of him will change after he's been retired a while, but I really can't believe he's available this soon. The fact that he wasn't selected to the Canadian Olympic team in 2010 (right in the middle of five year stretch averaging 90 points per season) or 2014 until selected as an injury replacement (defending Art Ross winner) is a decent hint that the on-paper case for him is a lot stronger than the on-ice case is.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Still sorting out my final ballot, open to being swayed by last-minute arguments.

Top tier:

Fedorov- My probable number one. Arguably the most important overall player to the best overall team of the era between lockouts.

Nick Lidstrom would like a word. If the above is true what they hell we were doing voting him so high on this list?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Nick Lidstrom would like a word. If the above is true what they hell we were doing voting him so high on this list?

I think Lidstrom was probably passing Fedorov in terms of importance by 2000 or so, but Fedorov was a lot better in the mid-90s. Of course Lidstrom is better for their whole careers, but a lot of his greatness occurred long after Fedorov ceased to be an elite player.

 

[wetcoast]

I didn't realize Crosby was from outside Canada.

If you are going to respond to my post pay attention and stay on topic. I was simply responding to TDMM's post regarding the era make up of the current list to the 2008 list.

It will be interesting to compare the 2 lists when all is said and done. IMO, this list is trending toward being a little bit too pro 80's to present.

my bad as I must have misread the part in bold.

If you want to discuss which era of hockey produced the best players this has been discussed many times in many threads. And we don't need to be told ad nauseum where you stand.

It has nothing to do with where I stand or what era produced the best players but simply facts in response to where you indicated that you thought the list was trending a little too pro 80's to present.

And I presented a major reason why.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I would say the comment that the list is trending towards 1980's-present is an obvious one if you think about it. The range of "1980's to present" is a range of time that is constantly getting longer. The last time we did this list, it was a period of 28 years. Today it is a period of 38+ years. The next time we do this list say 10 years from now, it will continue to trend that way. McDavid will most certainly be on the list, along with how knows how many other current players. The real test is the number of players on the list whose careers have ended in the last 10 years.

There were 18 such players on the 2008 list. Quid has not added the years the player was active to the current list in progress and I don't feel like checking each player manually. But How many players are on the list whose careers have needed more recently than 2008? Is it more than 18? Quickly scanning through the list, it does not appear to be the case.

Having said that, the last 20 spots could easily be modern-heavy, but it's something interesting to check out once we're all done here and named #100.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Lindros broke Joe's face in a fight, turning Thornton into the soft setup man that he became.

And if you saw them both play, you would know why Lindros was better.

I did.

In terms of pure ability, yes, he was better. But clearly that is not all that matters here because in that regard he was better than Selanne and Hull as well. Kurri, too, I'd say.


Anyway, I didn't mean to side-track the discussion and I appreciate the replies to the question.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Still sorting out my final ballot, open to being swayed by last-minute arguments.

Might be too late- but I'll have a go.

Fedorov- My probable number one.

Bravo

Chara- Doesn't quite have the peak of some of these other players, but all those years of being very good add up. Starting to approach Chelios territory for longevity as a #1 caliber defenseman.

I would have used Horton as a metaphorical comparable before citing Chelios. I like Chara as a nominee- I'm just not immediately wild about him as an advancement-laureate just yet. To reference the next two Defensemen...

Keith- Like Fedorov, he was crucial to a near-dynasty, but is probably going to end up lacking the longevity you'd expect of a player from his era. Position could change for better or worse in the future after he's retired and his legacy has a few years to sink in.

Playoffs might make for a helluva tiebreaker, if you're willing to weight that a bit more. We witnessed that there were times when Chicago lacked a playoff-serviceable 3rd pairing- and part of making up for that was that Keith would routinely play literally half the game. Half of a playoff intensity game, in the NHL of 5 years ago. Just remarkable. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that he may be wearing down more quickly than we typically see at his elite level.

In your defense, though, Chara comes up more favorably than Keith on the modern advanced stats. On that basis, I guess I can see that going the other way on this comparison is plausible. Just the old-school part of me will favor the Playoff Beast over the Corsi-Fenwick leader...

Leetch- I'm warming up to Leetch throughout the process. Had game-breaking ability in the first half of his career that is hard to come by at this point of the project. Later portions of his career aren't quite as bad on closer inspection as I initially suspected.

All anyone could ask- just give him a hearing and try not to tar him with that "offenseman" brush. His "ridden-like-rented-mule" factor is even higher than Keith's.

Mikhailov- Wasn't as high on him as I initially was before he became a candidate, but that's why I voted him fairly low last round. A round later, he looks better. Not sure exactly how I'll order this middle tier yet.

Players without a signature "wow" stat or skillset tend to be underestimated in all sports. I just hope that we're all sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced enough as to not fall prey to this tendency when it comes to Mikhailov. I see that TDMM said that Mikhailov merited the "glue guy" metaphor. Works for me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Cowley- His scoring record really is remarkable. The lack of back-checking has been accounted for, I believe, by him not appearing until now. His uneven playoff record was a little bothersome to me, but it seems he had the bad luck of injuries always seeming to strike late in the season and was often playing at less than full strength by March/April.

Is it really?

He won one scoring title. He had one great season (40-41) that wasn't a war year. The 3 war years were his highest scoring as well as best goal scoring seasons. He averaged a point a game, but was well below that in the playoffs. Played on some really great Bruins teams, including one that won a Cup with Cowley only playing two (scoreless) games.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is it really?

He won one scoring title. He had one great season (40-41) that wasn't a war year. The 3 war years were his highest scoring as well as best goal scoring seasons. He averaged a point a game, but was well below that in the playoffs. Played on some really great Bruins teams, including one that won a Cup with Cowley only playing two (scoreless) games.

Depends on how you define a "great" season. He was top 5 in points 4 straight years before the war affected the league.

Points

1936-37 NHL 34 (10th)

1937-38 NHL 39 (5th)

1938-39 NHL 42 (3rd)

1939-40 NHL 40 (5th)

1940-41 NHL 64 (1st)

1942-43 NHL 72 (2nd)

1943-44 NHL 71 (7th)

1944-45 NHL 65 (4th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Points Per Game

1937-38 NHL 0.81 (6th)

1938-39 NHL 1.24 (1st)

1939-40 NHL 0.83 (7th)

1940-41 NHL 1.39 (1st)

1942-43 NHL 1.50 (1st)

1943-44 NHL 1.97 (1st)

1944-45 NHL 1.33 (5th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Michael Farkas]

Upon further review...Duncan Keith is looking like a surprisingly big riser for me...this is a tough vote, I have a ballot completed...but I'm still chewing on it. I keep making a bunch of inequalities to figure it out... ("If Keith > Leetch, then...")

I think that may be enough to undercut enough skaters to boost a goalie...a rarity for me...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Is it really?

He won one scoring title. He had one great season (40-41) that wasn't a war year. The 3 war years were his highest scoring as well as best goal scoring seasons. He averaged a point a game, but was well below that in the playoffs. Played on some really great Bruins teams, including one that won a Cup with Cowley only playing two (scoreless) games.

In my mind, Cowley more than proved his worth as an elite all-time scorer before the war really depleted the league in the mid-40's.

Cowley would have run away with the scoring title in 1939 had he not missed 14 games. Also missed the scoring title by a single point in 1943 (Doug Bentley won). 1944 he was within spitting distance of another scoring title, despite missing a significant number of games. His linemate Herb Cain was the eventual leader. And finally, he was the highest scoring player in the NHL in 1945 who wasn't a member of the Blake-Lach-Richard line. So only a single scoring title, but could very well have had several.

It seems to me the war years have been treated a little inconsistently though. Durnan seemed to get roasted for them, while Lach and Bentley got more of a pass. Earl Seibert was a bit of a mixed bag. We'll see how our panel treats Cowley.

You're right to question his playoff track record. It's not very good. But he seemed to have the bad luck of constantly being hurt right near the end of the season or having old injuries flare up at inopportune times. It's clear Schmidt was more important to those Boston teams, but we've got a big gap between him and Cowley at this point, so I don't think it would be too soon for him.

 

[Vilica]

I would say the comment that the list is trending towards 1980's-present is an obvious one if you think about it. The range of "1980's to present" is a range of time that is constantly getting longer. The last time we did this list, it was a period of 28 years. Today it is a period of 38+ years. The next time we do this list say 10 years from now, it will continue to trend that way. McDavid will most certainly be on the list, along with how knows how many other current players. The real test is the number of players on the list whose careers have ended in the last 10 years.

There were 18 such players on the 2008 list. Quid has not added the years the player was active to the current list in progress and I don't feel like checking each player manually. But How many players are on the list whose careers have needed more recently than 2008? Is it more than 18? Quickly scanning through the list, it does not appear to be the case.

Having said that, the last 20 spots could easily be modern-heavy, but it's something interesting to check out once we're all done here and named #100.

I've been monitoring player active years as I was trying to compare to a MLB top 100 list breakdown, so here's my breakdown of players by decade (using x6-x7 as it works better with NHL years). You've elected 84 of the 100 so far, so the numbers obviously are only up to there. I was trying to figure out how MLB milestones like the NL from the NA, the pitching mound at 60'6", the AL/World Series, integration and expansion compared to the NHL from the NHA, the consolidation of leagues, the forward pass, the Original 6 era, and expansion.

Active 1917 - 3 Top 50, 5 Top 100; 8 Total - 4* teams, 39 skaters, 6 goalies (non-consolidated)
Active 1927 - 7 Top 50, 4 Top 100; 11 Total - 10 teams, 135 skaters, 13 goalies
Active 1937 - 6 Top 50, 6 Top 100; 12 Total - 8 teams, 160 skaters, 14 goalies
Active 1947 - 4 Top 50, 8 Top 100; 12 Total - 6 teams, 136 skaters, 10 goalies
Active 1957 - 10 Top 50, 7 Top 100; 17 Total - 6 teams, 137 skaters, 10 goalies
Active 1967 - 13* Top 50, 7 Top 100; 20 Total - 6 teams, 157 skaters, 19 goalies
Active 1977 - 16* Top 50, 3 Top 100; 19 Total - 18+12=30* teams, 449+279=728 skaters, 53+29=82 goalies
Active 1987 - 16* Top 50, 6 Top 100; 22 Total - 21 teams, 620 skaters, 63 goalies
Active 1997 - 15 Top 50, 7 Top 100; 22 Total - 26 teams, 769 skaters, 77 goalies
Active 2007 - 8 Top 50, 4 Top 100; 12 Total - 30 teams, 858 skaters, 84 goalies
Active 2017 - 3 Top 50, 1 Top 100; 4 Total - 30 teams, 888 skaters, 95 goalies
[1917 Montreal Wanderers folded after 6 games, 1977 Minnesota Fighting Saints folded after 42 games]

1917 caveats - used 17-18 as my year instead of 16-17; Cyclone Taylor never played NHL, Sprague Cleghorn injured DNP [counted both anyway]
1927 caveats - Dit Clapper and Charlie Gardiner started to play in 27-28, Georges Vezina died in 1926 [those 3 not included in count]
1937 caveats - none
1947 caveats - Doug Harvey and Red Kelly started to play in 47-48 [not included in count]
1957 caveats - Bobby Hull started to play in 57-58 [not included in count]
1967 caveats - Kharlamov and Firsov were playing in the USSR, Dickie Moore was retired in 66-67, played in 67-68 [all 3 counted]
1977 caveats - Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich were playing in the WHA, Kharlamov, Fetisov, Makarov, Tretiak in the USSR [all 6 counted]
1987 caveats - Fetisov and Makarov USSR, Hasek CSSR, Guy Lafleur was retired in 86-87, played in 88-89 [all 4 counted]
1997 caveats - none
2007 caveats - none
2017 caveats - none

Basically the argument I was building about MLB is that if you look at a recent top 100 players list, you really only see 3 or 4 players who played before the NL/AL merger (Honus Wagner, Cy Young, Cap Anson, maybe Deacon White). I was just trying to figure out if the establishment of the NHL was a suitable comparable time frame, or if it should be something different.

I have a few issues with the distribution, but rather than make my arguments I will leave them until the list is completed, and simply just provide the numbers as they are right now.

Edit: Was going back through list and realized Bossy started in 77-78, so he should be under caveats and 1977 Total should be 18.

 

[ted2019]

I would say the comment that the list is trending towards 1980's-present is an obvious one if you think about it. The range of "1980's to present" is a range of time that is constantly getting longer. The last time we did this list, it was a period of 28 years. Today it is a period of 38+ years. The next time we do this list say 10 years from now, it will continue to trend that way. McDavid will most certainly be on the list, along with how knows how many other current players. The real test is the number of players on the list whose careers have ended in the last 10 years.

There were 18 such players on the 2008 list. Quid has not added the years the player was active to the current list in progress and I don't feel like checking each player manually. But How many players are on the list whose careers have needed more recently than 2008? Is it more than 18? Quickly scanning through the list, it does not appear to be the case.

Having said that, the last 20 spots could easily be modern-heavy, but it's something interesting to check out once we're all done here and named #100.

Besides McDavid, I think you might see the following players.
Nikita Kucherov
Steven Stamkos
Victor Hedman
Patrice Bergeron
Auston Mathews
Erik Karlsson
Carey Price

 

[The Panther]

The fact that (St. Louis) wasn't selected to the Canadian Olympic team in 2010 (right in the middle of five year stretch averaging 90 points per season) or 2014 until selected as an injury replacement (defending Art Ross winner) is a decent hint that the on-paper case for him is a lot stronger than the on-ice case is.

Or, Team Canada brass were idiots (see: Keenan cutting Yzerman).

I also cannot fathom Chara higher than Lindros.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Or, Team Canada brass were idiots (see: Keenan cutting Yzerman).

I also cannot fathom Chara higher than Lindros.

Hard to call them idiots when they won the tournament in all three instances being referenced.

Eric Lindros had three great seasons. And got injured right before the playoffs in one of those three. Chara has been one of the better defensemen in the NHL for 15 years now. Remarkable durability for a physical player, unlike Lindros who could not withstand the physical toll of the NHL for more than a few months at a time.

 

[MXD]

Hard to call them idiots when they won the tournament in all three instances being referenced.

When you're Canada and win an internationnal tournament, it's not necessarily because the brass made the best choices. Also, the best choice isn't necessarily the best player. I mean, Dan Hamhuis was never at any point a better player than Kris Letang...

You're usually making good arguments. This one, while not wrong per se, probably shouldn't be raised in this case, nor should the omission of picking St-Louis (which led directly to his trade to the Rangers) for the OG) be used to explain why the Lightning bowed out in four games in the first round of the 2014 playoffs instead instead of making the SCF, while beating the team that had beaten the Lightning on the way.

 

[The Panther]

The "Lindros-missed-too-many-games" thing always gets overblown, so I think, by people with an agenda against him.

Yes, Lindros missed a lot of games. So did Lemieux and Forsberg and Crosby. Certainly in consideration of career value, Lindros therefore should get dinged for a shorter prime than those guys (although 9 elite seasons in a row -- over a 10 year-period -- isn't exactly shabby), but in comparison of prime years, he played just as often as those three players.

Lindros appeared in 486 games for Philly, out of 626 games Philly played (regular season). So, he appeared in 78% of their games. That's over the eight seasons he was a Flyer.

Over his first eight seasons, Lemieux appeared in 517 games, out of 640 games the Pens played. That's 81% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Forsberg appeared in 494 games, out of 622 games the Avs played. That's 79% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 of 622 games the Pens played. That's 76% of the games they played.


Now, is eight great seasons as a Flyer, plus one more very good season for the Rangers (and it was a really good season in 2001-02), enough to ignore Lindros's injuries and foreshortened career? Of course not. But make sure you're docking Forsberg and Crosby and Lemieux by the same degree, based on the first 8 seasons (and Lemieux missed WAY more than Lindros after those first eight).

We're not talking about Lafontaine or Turgeon here. When Lemieux was sidelined, Lindros and Jagr (maybe later Forsberg) vied for the position of best player in the world for about five or six years.

 

[Captain Bowie]

The "Lindros-missed-too-many-games" thing always gets overblown, so I think, by people with an agenda against him.

Yes, Lindros missed a lot of games. So did Lemieux and Forsberg and Crosby. Certainly in consideration of career value, Lindros therefore should get dinged for a shorter prime than those guys (although 9 elite seasons in a row -- over a 10 year-period -- isn't exactly shabby), but in comparison of prime years, he played just as often as those three players.

Lindros appeared in 486 games for Philly, out of 626 games Philly played (regular season). So, he appeared in 78% of their games. That's over the eight seasons he was a Flyer.

Over his first eight seasons, Lemieux appeared in 517 games, out of 640 games the Pens played. That's 81% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Forsberg appeared in 494 games, out of 622 games the Avs played. That's 79% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 of 622 games the Pens played. That's 76% of the games they played.


Now, is eight great seasons as a Flyer, plus one more very good season for the Rangers (and it was a really good season in 2001-02), enough to ignore Lindros's injuries and foreshortened career? Of course not. But make sure you're docking Forsberg and Crosby and Lemieux by the same degree, based on the first 8 seasons (and Lemieux missed WAY more than Lindros after those first eight).

We're not talking about Lafontaine or Turgeon here. When Lemieux was sidelined, Lindros and Jagr (maybe later Forsberg) vied for the position of best player in the world for about five or six years.

Forsberg is your best comparison here, but he did a bit more with his limited regular season games, plus adds the element of being an all-time great playoff performer. Lindros may have been able to do similar things in the playoffs, and we saw what he could do in 97, but Forsberg had 100 more playoff games to show it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If I had one playoff game to win, I'm turning to Belfour before I turn to Brodeur or Hasek.

i'm fairly high on dallas and toronto belfour too but wow

 

[bobholly39]

Besides McDavid, I think you might see the following players.
Nikita Kucherov
Steven Stamkos
Victor Hedman
Patrice Bergeron
Auston Mathews
Erik Karlsson
Carey Price

Lundqvist/Luongo for goalies too maybe. Don't know about any others.
Toews possibly in a full career starts to look good
Kane (he's not here yet)

I don't see Hedman as showing up. Not impossible - but he still has a lot to add to get there.
Stamkos....maybe. Would be borderline. Depends on 2nd half to career i suppose

Matthews/Kucherov are obviously too early to tell but good possibilities. Maybe in 15 years, more than 10 though, after a full career.
McKinnon could too if he keeps that level for his prime.

 

[bobholly39]

The "Lindros-missed-too-many-games" thing always gets overblown, so I think, by people with an agenda against him.

Yes, Lindros missed a lot of games. So did Lemieux and Forsberg and Crosby. Certainly in consideration of career value, Lindros therefore should get dinged for a shorter prime than those guys (although 9 elite seasons in a row -- over a 10 year-period -- isn't exactly shabby), but in comparison of prime years, he played just as often as those three players.

Lindros appeared in 486 games for Philly, out of 626 games Philly played (regular season). So, he appeared in 78% of their games. That's over the eight seasons he was a Flyer.

Over his first eight seasons, Lemieux appeared in 517 games, out of 640 games the Pens played. That's 81% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Forsberg appeared in 494 games, out of 622 games the Avs played. That's 79% of the games played.

Over his first eight seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 of 622 games the Pens played. That's 76% of the games they played.


Now, is eight great seasons as a Flyer, plus one more very good season for the Rangers (and it was a really good season in 2001-02), enough to ignore Lindros's injuries and foreshortened career? Of course not. But make sure you're docking Forsberg and Crosby and Lemieux by the same degree, based on the first 8 seasons (and Lemieux missed WAY more than Lindros after those first eight).

We're not talking about Lafontaine or Turgeon here. When Lemieux was sidelined, Lindros and Jagr (maybe later Forsberg) vied for the position of best player in the world for about five or six years.

Crosby's first 8 years >> Lindros's first 8 years
Lemieux's first 8 years >>> Lindros's first 8 years

Plus - they both have a lot more outside of those 8 years. Lindros doesn't. The one season in NYR wasn't bad - but it would be the worst season of Crosby's career, for example, so doesn't exactly add much.

That 8 year stretch is pretty good but it's not on some superhuman level worthy enough of having him surpass a lot of other players.

Forsberg is a closer comparable - but he has a better overall regular season record, and a much better playoff record.

 

[The Panther]

Crosby's first 8 years >> Lindros's first 8 years
Lemieux's first 8 years >>> Lindros's first 8 years

Sure, I didn't say otherwise. I'm merely talking about penalizing them for games missed. (Having said that, is Crosby's first 8 years really that much better than Lindros's? I would say it's better, but marginally. Lemieux is a given.)

Plus - they both have a lot more outside of those 8 years. Lindros doesn't.

Yes, that's what I said in my post.

The one season in NYR wasn't bad - but it would be the worst season of Crosby's career, for example, so doesn't exactly add much.

If we're going to talk about games missed, Lindros's 2001-02 is certainly better than two of Crosby's seasons.

That 8 year stretch is pretty good but it's not on some superhuman level worthy enough of having him surpass a lot of other players.

On a per game basis, I'd say it is pretty superhuman and should give him a boost over a lot of other players. If we waive Mario, Lindros was more-or-less tied with Jagr in per-game production (on a lower scoring team) for those 8 years, with slightly better ES results than Jagr, and an incredible physical presence that Jagr didn't have. I'd still say Jagr was better overall (esp. in the latter 90s), but only by a hair. And Lindros didn't have a Mario Lemieux on power-plays and so on to rack up points with.

Forsberg is a closer comparable - but he has a better overall regular season record, and a much better playoff record.

Yes, I agree Forsberg and Lindros are very, very close overall. Sure, Forsberg's playoffs look better because he went deeper more and played more games (on a much deeper team), but in the eight seasons Lindros was with Philly, the PPG comparison in playoffs is 1.14 Lindros to 1.12 Forsberg, so a dead heat.

To be clear: I obviously have no issue with ranking Lemieux (duh!), Crosby, or Forsberg ahead of Lindros. I also would rank all of them higher than Lindros (Forsberg slightly) by career value and overall impact. I'm just saying that there seems to be a kind of revisionism in regards to Lindros's career, where the narrative changed from the late-90s one of "best overall player in the game" to today's "disappointment-always-injured-didn't-achieve-anything". In fact, Lindros achieved an incredible amount. I think a lot of people can't get past their personal dislike of him (I can understand that) to evaluate him objectively (that I can't understand). I personally would also tend to rank players' prime/peak levels more importantly than their longevity or career value, but that's just me.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Doughty possibly could be in discussion for this list in ten years, only worry is that his team is in a real bad place. Don't see it becoming much better in the near future either. He'd need a couple of more runs and preferably a Norris to add IMO.

edit: just noticed he was -30 for this season, christ.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Doughty made my initial list...