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

[The Macho King]

To the people relying on "Star Power" - define it and justify it as an objective metric please.

 

[ted2019]

Since about his first smythe. So 3 years.

No chance in hell he was a top 5 player in anyone's mind except for yours and other Pens fans. He might make my top 4, but it's extremely unlikely.

 

[ted2019]

Just like last round, I feel like Ray Bourque stands in two bad ways:

1) Lower star power compared to the group
2) Lower playoff performances compared to (most) of the group (perhaps more debatable this time though)

The same is true of Dominik Hasek, so as of now both are at the bottom of my list.

Missing one is forgivable, missing both is not.I use ''missing'' in relative terms.

What do you consider "star power" ?

 

[86Habs]

"Star power" seems a rather nebulous way to measure or rank players, no? Growing up in the '80s, Paul Coffey had more "star power" than Ray Bourque, but does that make him a better player?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Is it possible for you to easily add a column in terms of PPG margins too? I'd love to see that if so.

Yup, for sure. I am probably going to do the same thing for goal scoring as well, if people do find these tables useful.

 

[bobholly39]

To the people relying on "Star Power" - define it and justify it as an objective metric please.

Moreso than that - state it's importance to you and justify yourself if you value it very highly.

I mean if it's one among many metrics, sure maybe it should have some worth. But it should have limited importance overall. Better player = better player even if he has less star power.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

No chance in hell he was a top 5 player in anyone's mind except for yours and other Pens fans. He might make my top 4, but it's extremely unlikely.

Even me back then I was probably more inclined to say Beliveau or hasek. But since Crosby has added much to his resume. I’ve recently been debating with myself on who’s better between hasek and Roy. Roy’s playoff resume has me flip flopping. So Beliveau and SId are my two favourites for number 5. As I think both have much greater playoff resumes than bobby hull. And both have greater regular season resumes than Richard

 

[Dr John Carlson]

The way I'd define it, 'star power' relies too much on what a player did off the ice - stuff that I don't care about for this project - for it to be a good measuring tool.

 

[ted2019]

For those who are either new to the HOH board or for those who might want to check something out real fast. The ATD Bios ( an incredibly wealth of information and knowledge).
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-master-bio-thread.2392433/

 

[ted2019]

Shut up, you're already dead.

Dig it!

 

[ted2019]

Even me back then I was probably more inclined to say Beliveau or hasek. But since Crosby has added much to his resume. I’ve recently been debating with myself on who’s better between hasek and Roy. Roy’s playoff resume has me flip flopping. So Beliveau and SId are my two favourites for number 5. As I think both have much greater playoff resumes than bobby hull. And both have greater regular season resumes than Richard

He was what, an 8 year veteran then? It isn't like he's a Gretzky like producer or even Mario. If he was a combination of Gretzky/Howe/Orr/Beliveau 8 years in, he still wouldn't make it that high with me. I'm shocked that I'm even considering him at 8 TBH.

 

[seventieslord]

To the people relying on "Star Power" - define it and justify it as an objective metric please.

From the guy who ranked players on "je ne sais quoi", this is an interesting request.

Don't mean to sound rude, but the two are practically, if not exactly, the same thing, in my opinion.

 

[overpass]

• 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.

I may not get time to flesh these out but I want to make a couple of points about Shore.

Many criticisms of his defensive play are from his early career. Late career Shore was winning Hart trophies for his defensive play. Maybe similar to a Scott Stevens where the career narrative and the timing is important to get right.

Playoffs—during Shore’s peak in the early to mid 30s the Bruins were feeing the pinch of the Depression and didn’t spend on depth. Lack of depth was their downfall in the playoffs with Shore having to play huge minutes.

Also, many of the common measure used to rate players we didn’t see, especially all star and trophy voting, aren’t really able to measure the height of a player’s peak. Part of the case for Shore was that he was the greatest defenceman before Bobby Orr. Not just that he was the best defenceman in X number of seasons. For example, in 1979, Jim Coleman gave his list of top 10 players. He included Eddie Shore and not Doug Harvey, and wrote of Bobby Orr: “Defensively he was no Eddie Shore, but who was?” So if you are going to rate Doug Harvey and Ray Bourque above Shore because you count the awards and then subtract for perceived negatives...the awards may not tell the whole story.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He was what, an 8 year veteran then? It isn't like he's a Gretzky like producer or even Mario. If he was a combination of Gretzky/Howe/Orr/Beliveau 8 years in, he still wouldn't make it that high with me. I'm shocked that I'm even considering him at 8 TBH.

It was 11 years in the league. And now there is not much separating sid and Beliveau. They are actually quite comparable. With Beliveau having a few more top hart and ross finishes. But Crosby plays in a much deeper league so there’s that. Your probably more shocked because Crosby is still an active player and the idea of him being that high all time is weird. When in reality it isn’t

 

[sr edler]

Roy’s playoff resume has me flip flopping.

Roy's playoff resume is great but Sakic could or should probably have had it in 96. Perhaps I'm too biased from the VAN series but he didn't look like a world beater there, getting lit up in a few games by Mogilny/Tikkanen/Linden on the PP, and in the finals against FLA they probably would have won with Johan Hedberg in net. But against CHI and DET, I guess he sealed the deal there. And Sakic' performance obviously doesn't mitigate Roy's. I'm just allergic to a certain type of trophy counting, especially when it comes to the Smythe.

 

[The Macho King]

For those who are either new to the HOH board or for those who might want to check something out real fast. The ATD Bios ( an incredibly wealth of information and knowledge.
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-master-bio-thread.2392433/

We should post these in each OP honestly. Really good info here.

 

[pappyline]

My #1 and #10 are etched in stone and I can't see anybody coming up with something that will make me change my mind. Hull was my #5 guy the first 2 times we did this and that was how the ratings came out both times, I see no reason to change this. Crosby will be #10. He didn't even sniff my top 14. I realize this will be an unpopular view but I don't care. And yes, I have heard all the injury excuses.

Now 6-10 I am quite flexible on. I keep shifting on Richard, Harvey, and Beliveau and could be convinced of any order for these guys. There seems to be a lot of cup counting for these guys but when you look at playoff performance Hull is right up with them.I am quite high on Morenz and could see him as high as 6. For Hasek & Roy right now I have Hasek ahead but will listen to the arguments. Shore & Bourque I am not sure where to place.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Roy's playoff resume is great but Sakic could or should probably have had it in 96. Perhaps I'm too biased from the VAN series but he didn't look like a world beater there, getting lit up in a few games by Mogilny/Tikkanen/Linden on the PP, and in the finals against FLA they probably would have won with Johan Hedberg in net. But against CHI and DET, I guess he sealed the deal there. And Sakic' performance obviously doesn't mitigate Roy's. I'm just allergic to a certain type of trophy counting, especially when it comes to the Smythe.

Out of all the awards the smythe has a big name factor to them. If it’s close between two players the more “famous” player will likely get it. I guess that’s where the star power people are discussing comes in.

 

[The Macho King]

From the guy who ranked players on "je ne sais quoi", this is an interesting request.

Don't mean to sound rude, but the two are practically, if not exactly, the same thing, in my opinion.

TBF that was one of five criteria and I noted that je ne sais quoi involved a slew of factors (including leadership, perceived dominance, etc.). It was also ranked last out of my five metrics. I basically consider it a "tiebreaker" if everything else falls roughly equal.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Now we get into some interesting comparisions

Morenz/Beliveau/Crosby

Who is the best Hab of all time?

Roy/Harvey/Beliveau/Richard/Morenz

Maurice Richard will always be #1 for me.

Béliveau and Lafleur were more skilled players than Richard but no one will ever trump Rocket Richard as the greatest Montreal Canadiens of all time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

"Star power" seems a rather nebulous way to measure or rank players, no? Growing up in the '80s, Paul Coffey had more "star power" than Ray Bourque, but does that make him a better player?

Joe Namath had star power and name recognition.

At least 25 better QBs.

 

[seventieslord]

TBF that was one of five criteria and I noted that je ne sais quoi involved a slew of factors (including leadership, perceived dominance, etc.). It was also ranked last out of my five metrics. I basically consider it a "tiebreaker" if everything else falls roughly equal.

I'm not criticizing it as a metric, just that it's basically the exact same thing as star power. You're asking people to define that which you've already defined!

 

[seventieslord]

I may not get time to flesh these out but I want to make a couple of points about Shore.

Many criticisms of his defensive play are from his early career. Late career Shore was winning Hart trophies for his defensive play. Maybe similar to a Scott Stevens where the career narrative and the timing is important to get right.

Playoffs—during Shore’s peak in the early to mid 30s the Bruins were feeing the pinch of the Depression and didn’t spend on depth. Lack of depth was their downfall in the playoffs with Shore having to play huge minutes.

Also, many of the common measure used to rate players we didn’t see, especially all star and trophy voting, aren’t really able to measure the height of a player’s peak. Part of the case for Shore was that he was the greatest defenceman before Bobby Orr. Not just that he was the best defenceman in X number of seasons. For example, in 1979, Jim Coleman gave his list of top 10 players. He included Eddie Shore and not Doug Harvey, and wrote of Bobby Orr: “Defensively he was no Eddie Shore, but who was?” So if you are going to rate Doug Harvey and Ray Bourque above Shore because you count the awards and then subtract for perceived negatives...the awards may not tell the whole story.

Speaking of Shore being "criticized for his defensive play" - can someone post these instances? If they are just the 2-3 quotes about how Seibert was better defensively/tougher, or how Hitchman was even better than him, those are fairly weak overall.

Ray Bourque was outstanding defensively, but you could have said "he's not as good as Mike Ramsey defensively" and that would have been true. Mark Howe was also very good, but you could have said "Brad McCrimmon stays back and watches the zone while Howe goes off on one of his many rushes" and that would have also been true.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Red Fisher's Top 10 Montreal Canadiens skaters (during Fisher's career)

1.Jean Béliveau
2.Maurice Richard
3.Guy Lafleur
4.Doug Harvey
5.Henri Richard
6.Larry Robinson
7.Bernard Geoffrion
8.Bob Gainey
9.Dickie Moore
10.Serge Savard

Note: This ignores prior eras, so no Howie Morenz or Newsy Lalonde for example.Maurice Richard's prime was also prior but he ranked him anyway.Possibly Richard would be 1st if Fisher had seen his best years.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm not criticizing it as a metric, just that it's basically the exact same thing as star power. You're asking people to define that which you've already defined!

But I defined how I was using it. So far references to it have been drive bys of "yeah but Hull had starpower so he's #5 for me and Hasek didn't so he's not on this group."

First thoughts:

Star Power

So high up the list I still put a lot of value on star power.I separate the list in three tiers (not a list!) for star power:

Maurice Richard
Jean Béliveau
Eddie Shore
Sidney Crosby
Bobby Hull
Howie Morenz

Doug Harvey
Patrick Roy

Dominik Hasek
Ray Bourque

Clearly the first group had way more star power than the rest.IMO it's not even close.

So I don't know how he's defining star power here, and why the only goalie to win the Hart twice apparently doesn't have it.

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.

And here - I'm not quite sure what this means. And I want to. Because it looks like this is *the main factor* which sets Harvey behind Richard and JB.

I'm not saying these rankings are an exact science here, but I want a discussion that you can participate in and not just point out funeral attendance numbers as a metric for ranking players.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Can you explain why [Crosby's so low]? Is it an anti-active player bias? If so i'd love for you to explain your reasoning, because i'm hoping people don't vote that way unless it's justified.

My list contained six players currently active. Maybe, by the standards of this project, that's a little low. I don't think it's too low. If we go by the "chalk" of the current list, he's on the outside this round. I think that placement is entirely justified on the merits.

I'm certainly not saying that Crosby's not good. That would be silly. But he's [insert name of old-time PCHA-Superstar here] good, not Morenz good. A teammate like [insert name of teammate who seems to raise his game every time this guy's injured] helps make him look better. If [insert name of current player who's a countryman of aforementioned teammate] had [aforementioned teammate] on his own team, we could well be talking about [said countryman] now, instead of this guy.

Wanna sell me on moving Crosby up? Make the "shed-denizen" case against Shore and M. Richard... and I might move him past those two guys.