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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sidney Crosby and Howie Morenz were the two players in my top 10 who weren't available in Vote 1. So I'm glad they are available here.

First impressions:

5. Patrick Roy. I have him as easily the #1 goalie of all-time. When you look at adjusted save percentage, his regular season peak in the late 1980s/early 1990s is almost as good as Hasek, with much more career value and more playoff value than any player not named Wayne Gretzky. A top 2 player on 4 Cup winners - perhaps the least "team-dependent" resume of any goalie (and yes, I think Hasek's gaudy save percentages were at least a little helped by the style of Buffalo).

6-10. I have 5 forward rounding out my top 10. The order on my original list was Beliveau, Crosby, Morenz, Richard, Hull. Though I'm starting to think that I might have overrated Beliveau. I actually had Richard and Hull over him during Vote 1 - but honestly, these 5 forwards all blend together to me. The only thing I'm sure of is I will have Beliveau over Morenz.

Yes, that means I don't have any defensemen but Orr in my top 10.

Doug Harvey - My #2 defenseman, but I feel the gap between him and Orr is so much larger than the gap between him and Bourque/Lidstrom/Shore.

Briefly, why I currently have Richard and Beliveau over Harvey:

1. Star power. Reading contemporary opinions, Beliveau and Richard just had more of it. Especially Richard.
2. Harvey's prime almost perfectly coincides with playing for the most stacked team of all-time in the 1950s. While Richard did serious damage as the primary star on a top-heavy team in the late 1940s, and Beliveau starred (along with Henri Richard) on the 1960s dynasty. Counterarguments to this point would be that Harvey was 2nd in Hart voting in his only good season after being traded to the Rangers, and that Henri Richard was at least as important as Beliveau to the 1960s dynasty.

As for Hasek, he's kind of the Mario Lemieux of goaltenders, in that he was a fantastic per-game player, but fairly unreliable. The difference is that save percentage (the most commonly used stat for goalies) is a per-game stat. If you look at overall regular season value, I'm not sure how much Hasek separates himself from Glenn Hall.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Since we have some candidates that were contemporaries just a couple of quick tables showing the overlaps in seasons played in the NHL

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Bobby Hull

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Maurice Richard

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Doug Harvey

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Jean Beliveau

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Morenz

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Shore

WCHL

WHL

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

Hasek

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Roy

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bourque

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[The Macho King]

So this is a knee-jerk ranking, and I want a deeper dive here, but I'm going to rank them relative to each other on peak, prime, longevity, playoffs, and je nes sais quoi.

Peak

• Dominik Hasek
• Bobby Hull
• Patrick Roy
• Howie Morenz
• Eddie Shore
• Doug Harvey
• Jean Beliveau
• Sidney Crosby
• Maurice Richard
• Ray Bourque

Prime

• Doug Harvey
• Jean Beliveau
  
• Eddie Shore
• Bobby Hull
• Patrick Roy
  
• Howie Morenz
• Dominik Hasek
  
• Sidney Crosby
  
• Maurice Richard
• Ray Bourque

Longevity

• Ray Bourque
• Patrick Roy
• Bobby Hull
• Jean Beliveau
• Dominik Hasek
• Doug Harvey
• Eddie Shore
• Maurice Richard
• Sidney Crosby
• Howie Morenz

Playoffs

• Patrick Roy
• Jean Beliveau
• Maurice Richard
• Sidney Crosby
  
• Doug Harvey
• Howie Morenz
• Ray Bourque
  
• Dominik Hasek
  
• Eddie Shore
• Bobby Hull

Je Nes Sais Quoi

• Jean Beliveau
• Patrick Roy
• Sidney Crosby
• Dominik Hasek
• Doug Harvey
• Maurice Richard
• Howie Morenz
• Ray Bourque
• Eddie Shore

Personal note - that's roughly in order of importance, but peak and prime have outsized importance in my rankings, although relatively *poor* rankings in the playoffs probably offsets that (for instance, Bobby Hull's playoffs I have a dim view of). At this level, they all have at least one or two runs that they can hang their hats on as good/great, but I want to see *consistent* bringing it in the playoffs, so relatively poor showings hurt (this especially hurts Hasek and Hull relative to where I would have them otherwise).

Beliveau ticks a lot of boxes, as does Harvey. They might be my 5/6. Hasek's peak has me leave him at 7. And I think Roy is going to make it 8. 9 is Bobby and 10 looks to be Morenz based on how I ranked them here.

 

[ted2019]

Sidney Crosby and Howie Morenz were the two players in my top 10 who weren't available in Vote 1. So I'm glad they are available here.

First impressions:

5. Patrick Roy. I have him as easily the #1 goalie of all-time. When you look at adjusted save percentage, his regular season peak in the late 1980s/early 1990s is almost as good as Hasek, with much more career value and more playoff value than any player not named Wayne Gretzky. A top 2 player on 4 Cup winners - perhaps the least "team-dependent" resume of any goalie (and yes, I think Hasek's gaudy save percentages were at least a little helped by the style of Buffalo).

6-10. I have 5 forward rounding out my top 10. The order on my original list was Beliveau, Crosby, Morenz, Richard, Hull. Though I'm starting to think that I might have overrated Beliveau. I actually had Richard and Hull over him during Vote 1 - but honestly, these 5 forwards all blend together to me. The only thing I'm sure of is I will have Beliveau over Morenz.

Yes, that means I don't have any defensemen but Orr in my top 10.

Doug Harvey - My #2 defenseman, but I feel the gap between him and Orr is so much larger than the gap between him and Bourque/Lidstrom/Shore.

Briefly, why I currently have Richard and Beliveau over Harvey:

1. Star power. Reading contemporary opinions, Beliveau and Richard just had more of it. Especially Richard.
2. Harvey's prime almost perfectly coincides with playing for the most stacked team of all-time in the 1950s. While Richard did serious damage as the primary star on a top-heavy team in the late 1940s, and Beliveau starred (along with Henri Richard) on the 1960s dynasty. Counterarguments to this point would be that Harvey was 2nd in Hart voting in his only good season after being traded to the Rangers, and that Henri Richard was at least as important as Beliveau to the 1960s dynasty.

As for Hasek, he's kind of the Mario Lemieux of goaltenders, in that he was a fantastic per-game player, but fairly unreliable. The difference is that save percentage (the most commonly used stat for goalies) is a per-game stat. If you look at overall regular season value, I'm not sure how much Hasek separates himself from Glenn Hall.

I think that Richard's "name" is holding up better then his game now. Richard had a lot of up and down years, too many to be ahead of Harvey, Hull and most likely, any forward in this round. Also, where can I find the adjusted save% table at?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Personally, I think a goalie (Roy IMO) should enter the running around this point, but always have a hard time moving others down for him.

I can see that, but I also think you could make a strong case without it even being a position-based quota selection. 1st Team selections and Conn Smythe Trophies spread across three decades sets a pretty high mark for a player’s range of top-level longevity. I think Bourque and Beliveau may give Roy a run for his money in that regard - but whether their potential regular season gap over Roy closes the playoff gap he would create over them is a good question.

I think Beliveau’s just might, but I do not believe Bourque’s to do so. Having said that, let’s not forget that Roy also has credited Bourque’s leadership for improving his own mindset going into Roy’s 2001-02 Hart/Pearson-nominated season.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Digging that breakdown, @The Macho Man - though I think Maurice Richard, for me, has the most Je Ne Sais Quoi of any player, and that’s despite me being a butterfly goaltender from the Roy-emulation era.

 

[Iceman]

Exactly the four players I thought were going to be available.

I'm surprised Shore made it. I thought he was going to fall (which he still might be).

 

[ImporterExporter]

What do folks consider "peak" timeframe?

 

[The Macho King]

What do folks consider "peak" timeframe?

Depends on the player. Minimum two seasons, but if you're say Gretzky and averaging 200 points over a 6 year span, then you have a 6-year peak. I consider both height and duration of peak, but I don't know if others will agree with that.

 

[MXD]

@The Macho Man , it's a Je ne sais quoi.

 

[The Macho King]

Digging that breakdown, @The Macho Man - though I think Maurice Richard, for me, has the most Je Ne Sais Quoi of any player, and that’s despite me being a butterfly goaltender from the Roy-emulation era.

Je Ne Sais Quoi is that personal feeling in my gut of how I value the player. So I mark that as intangible things like leadership, star power, influence, "highlightability", etc. It's just a way for me to encompass the ways that don't show up on stat sheets of how I think of a player, and is completely personal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I had Hasek at 5?

Was that crazy?

I acknowledge that this conflicts with how I voted last round and I find when it comes to actually voting my standards are shifting

If you criticize others for perceived placements.

 

[The Macho King]

@The Macho Man , it's a Je ne sais quoi.

f*** off I'm 'Merican.

 

[overg]

Does anyone want to give a brief overview of why each of these players is currently up for debate? I suspect all of the voters know, but I'll probably keep chirping about just how useful these threads are for newcomers to hockey history. Is anyone willing to outline in a few sentences why each of these players is being considered as a possible top 10 player of all time?

Not only do such overviews help out those interested in learning about things, but they can also sometimes help frame the debate . . . or even lead to areas of debate if there is a disagreement about just what exactly made any particular player great.

What do folks consider "peak" timeframe?

I don't think there's a set number of years, if that's what you're asking. Instead, it's how many years the player played at their personal highest level. Some players peaks are the same as their primes . . . they were consistent great for a number of years, with no one year standing out as otherworldly. For others, peaks seem to last anywhere from 1 to 5 or 6 years.

For me, "peak" is a question of both how high the level of play got, and how long it was maintained. And it's a balancing act. A one year out-of-this universe level of play might trump three "extremely good years," while an incredible 10 year "extremely great" peak might trump a 3 years of "of the gods" level play.

Put simply, when judging peaks, my criteria is how how high did the player peak, and for how long? The higher and longer, the better.

 

[MXD]

Warning : If you argued for Lemieux being high last round (that means, higher than 4th), and for Crosby being high THIS round (think, amongst the two or three best players), I'm totally judging you.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Warning : If you argued for Lemieux being high last round (that means, higher than 4th), and for Crosby being high THIS round (think, amongst the three best players), I'm totally judging you.

In the words of Frank Pentangeli: "I want everyone here to know -- there's not gonna be no trouble from me!"

 

[MXD]

Also, just some more Data. Here are the 3 defensemen and how many times they were top 10 in D scoring and how many times they won the D scoring race in the NHL.

Player	Top 10	Win
Bourque	19	2
Shore	13	3
Harvey	14	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I don't quite have the time to look into this, and it might be true, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, but...
Shore "won" only three times...!?!?!?!

 

[kruezer]

I don't quite have the time to look into this, and it might be true, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, but...
Shore "won" only three times...!?!?!?!

This is a fair question, I believe so, but there are definitely more D/F switches going on in the 30s in the NHL.com data, I noticed and pulled out a few where they were forwards being given D scoring credit, but it's possible I missed others. I would be happy to have someone double check me on that.

 

[The Macho King]

Does anyone want to give a brief overview of why each of these players is currently up for debate? I suspect all of the voters know, but I'll probably keep chirping about just how useful these threads are for newcomers to hockey history. Is anyone willing to outline in a few sentences why each of these players is being considered as a possible top 10 player of all time?

Not only do such overviews help out those interested in learning about things, but they can also sometimes help frame the debate . . . or even lead to areas of debate if there is a disagreement about just what exactly made any particular player great.

I can give my impressions. I do think all are worthy additions to this discussion (even if it's not exactly where I put them on my list).

• Bobby Hull - Until *very* recently, was universally considered to be the best pure goalscorer in history. Led the league in goals 7 times with a legendarily hard shot. I can't imagine that some goalies didn't wear masks while playing against this guy and his banana blade. Him with his partner Mikita and Glenn Hall brought a struggling franchise into their golden years (until the latest generation). Pros - Amazing scorer, numerous Harts and Art Ross trophies. Cons - (Relatively) disappointing playoffs, piece of shit human being.
• Dominik Hasek - Made goaltending a position that got its own highlight packages. Six Vezinas. Two Harts (rarely given to goaltenders). Seemed to have joints where no other human being did. Pros - High peak, fun to watch. Cons - Relatively disappointing playoffs. Some game-to-game consistency issues. Seen as issues with being a team player.
• Doug Harvey - Owned the Norris trophy for years, and was a key cog of the greatest dynasty in sports. Great offensively, stellar defensively. Cons - not a great Hart voting record. Orr comes a generation later and redefines the position. And (an issue for all Habs) hard to see where his greatness sits when surrounded by such amazing talent.
• Eddie Shore - Hart trophy winner, meanest guy on the ice, offensive defenseman extraordinaire. Along with Morenz, probably the defining players from the early years of the NHL. Cons - Defensive play was sometimes criticized. Playoff disappointments
• Howie Morenz - Superstar. Great offensive player in the formative years of the NHL. Cons - Playoff disappointment. There's been some reevaluating of his position in regards to other pre/early-era NHL players.
• Jean Beliveau - Complete player. Defines leadership. Wore the C for two Habs Dynasties, and his name is on the Cup so much you can't escape it. But he also brought it offensively as well. Cons - so many great supporting players (especially on the first dynasty).
• Maurice Richard - Superstar. Great goalscorer and 50 in 50. There are players that turn it up in the playoffs, and then there's the Rocket. He showed up best when the pressure was on the most. Cons - Surprisingly disappointing trophy case for someone revered so highly.
• Patrick Roy - Shouldn't have to say much here. He wouldn't hear it anyway because of his Cup rings in his ears. Only three-time Smythe winner in history. Regular season peak is underrated (similarly to how Howe's is due to the era). Cons - Somewhat inconsistent regular season numbers.
• Ray Bourque - Outside of Howe, the standard for continued excellence. Numerous Norris', and seemed to be a finalist every year. Cons - Didn't seem to peak that highly. Didn't have a ton of playoff success although wasn't surrounded by a ton of talent in Boston.
• Sidney Crosby - Best player of the post-lockout generation. Two Smythes. Three Cups. Cons - health has limited his regular season dominance. Whiner .

 

[Sentinel]

A couple of points.

1. Finally Hasek is here. Insane peak. I used to rank him as #4 of all time, above Lemieux, as he had more influence over games due to his position. I finally succumbed to the popular opinion, but I still have him at #5. AFAIK his Vezina competition was superior to Harvey's competition for the Norris, and his two Harts speak for themselves.

2. If Bobby Hull is in, Ovechkin should be right behind him. There is really nothing that separates them any more. And Crosby, for that matter.

3. I am lower on Morenz than most. His Harts and his legend are where his hat hangs, but two Art Rosses seem underwhelming. Shore's OTOH are pretty impressive. At any rate, I have them both in the teens.

 

[The Macho King]

A couple of points.

1. Finally Hasek is here. Insane peak. I used to rank him as #4 of all time, above Lemieux, as he had more influence over games due to his position. I finally succumbed to the popular opinion, but I still have him at #5. AFAIK his Vezina competition was superior to Harvey's competition for the Norris, and his two Harts speak for themselves.

2. If Bobby Hull is in, Ovechkin should be right behind him. There is really nothing that separates them any more. And Crosby, for that matter.

3. I am lower on Morenz than most. His Harts and his legend are where his hat hangs, but two Art Rosses seem underwhelming. Shore's OTOH are pretty impressive. At any rate, I have them both in the teens.

This is an argument I could see (although we won't entertain because Ovi is not on the list). But considering Ovi's career now, does that make HULL look worse in comparison?

I think that would fit in (since we're still discussing Hull and not ranking Ovi). But 7 times leading the league in goal scoring once seemed awe inspiring, but now we see it in a pretty talented era. Hull has another Ross I think (maybe two more?) but at the same time, he had another top 20 player as a linemate while I don't think Ovi has ever played significant time with anyone that's even going to make this list at all. Neither have *great* playoff resumes, but both are okay.

But to push back, one place where I think Hull can hang is hat is I don't think he had the lull in his career that Ovi had for a couple of seasons. I don't know if that's enough to set them apart, but it's an interesting point.

Idk... I think Hull may drop out in favor of Crosby on my top 10, as much as that makes me somewhat ill to say out loud.

 

[seventieslord]

Some initial thoughts...

Shore seems like the odd one out here. The preliminary threads really made me rethink him... his main selling points are his 4 Harts being more than any other defenseman, but that stat doesn't seem nearly as impressive after reading about voting standards at the time, team success, contemporary opinion, etc.

Richard will also need convincing for me, I'm always skeptical of players whose legend seems to outweigh their accomplishments.

I had Beliveau/Hull/Harvey/Crosby as the next four in that order on my list. Maybe Morenz has the best chance of moving into that top 4? There was a lot of revisionist thinking regarding him in the preliminary threads but it will be interesting to dive deeper into that now that more discussion can be had on him. He could move way up or way down for me.

It's not just that Shore had more Harts than any other defenseman, he had more than any other player. Until Gordie picked up his 5th.

Contemporary opinion? What do you mean about that? The Hart and all-star voting pretty much IS contemporary opinion!

His team success needs to be discussed, but the most important thing to point out is that during nearly his entire career, the NHL placed the division winners in a series against eachother. That means that unless the league's two best teams were in one division, it was impossible to see a final with the league's two best teams. It also means that every season, a powerhouse would be out after 2-5 games, and not even because they were the victims of an upset, just that they had to play their (more or less) equal for a first opponent. This greatly deflates the GP and point totals of anyone who was on a typically strong team. The "most likely" occurrence for a division winner is to roll over an also-ran in round one, picking up nice stats along the way, then have a closer division final, but ultimately win, then have a finals matchup that could go either way. But division winners (which Shore's Bruins were 8 times in his career) had this scenario fast-forwarded for them. They had seven first round series (1928 was more logical) that could have gone either way, and they did - they won three times and lost four. Here are the results:

1929: 57-point Boston defeated 59-point Montreal, 3-0, 5 GF, 2 GA
1930: 77-point Boston defeated 51-point Maroons, 3-1, 9 GF, 5 GA
1931: 62-point Boston lost to 60-point Montreal, 2-3, 13 GF, 13 GA
1933: 58-point Boston lost to 54-point Toronto, 2-3, 7 GF, 13 GA
1935: 58-point Boston lost to 64-point Toronto, 1-3, 2 GF, 7 GA
1938: 67-point Boston lost to 57-point Toronto, 0-3, 3 GF, 6 GA
1939: 74-point Boston defeated 58-point New York, 4-3, 14 GF, 12 GA

1939 wasn't quite like the rest - the league was one division, and the top-2 teams played a best of 7 to get to the finals, while the other 4 playoff teams had little best-of-3 series to get there. Again, pretty nonsensical.

We would look at the playoff records of a few 1930s stars a lot differently if the playoff format had made sense back then. Eddie Shore is affected by this more negatively than anyone else.

In total, Boston was 15-16 in these seven series, with 53 GF and 58 GA (47.7 GF%). On average, they were 7.1 points better than their first round opponent. These results are disappointing, of course - Boston was, on the whole, favoured to win more than three of seven series, but this is not a train wreck either.

(edited to remove 1940 as Shore was no longer a Bruin)

Also, just some more Data. Here are the 3 defensemen and how many times they were top 10 in D scoring and how many times they won the D scoring race in the NHL.

Player	Top 10	Win
Bourque	19	2
Shore	13	3
Harvey	14	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

FYI, based on my "defense VsX", Harvey' 10-year score is 113, Shore's is 110 and Bourque's is 108.

I’ll probably give Beliveau vs. Richard vs. Roy a go later today. I think of the eligible players, they may have the most similar balance of regular season performance, playoff performance, health, and year-to-year consistency.

Sidney Crosby is my wildcard.

Really, Crosby a wildcard? At this point I kinda see him as a guy with a resume you can really set your watch to.

 

[kruezer]

Just double checked, I missed filtering out Northcott when I pulled the data, I am not sure when Northcott was switched to D, but assuming his big offensive years came at LW my removing of him changes Shore to 5 wins which does make a lot more sense.

 

[MXD]

This is a fair question, I believe so, but there are definitely more D/F switches going on in the 30s in the NHL.com data, I noticed and pulled out a few where they were forwards being given D scoring credit, but it's possible I missed others. I would be happy to have someone double check me on that.

I'll look into this, full answer might come only Wednesday though.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby has it all. Regular season success. Playoff success. International success. I like the fact that the Canada Cup was rebooted with the World Cup of hockey and Sid was the MVP of the tourney as well as the leading scorer. Gives it a Gretzky feel.

Multiple of both Hart’s and smythes as well as three second place finishes in hart voting and Crosby’s mvp finishes overall are mighty impressive. The only real flaw on Crosby’s resume is a full season peak this due to injuries.