Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[bobholly39]

Initial thoughts on some other candidates:

I'm happy to see Ovechkin here. Anyone looking at his resume objectively should be able to see that the gap between him and Hull is becoming smaller by the day - and if people have already voted Hull in, I expect Ovy should do well too. They're very similar.

I feel Messier is one of the least talented players who'll rank the highest. And although this may sound as an insult it's actually meant as the opposite. To me he's the poster boy for "accomplished more than expected of based on talent" - and i have no issue putting him up against Mikita or even Bourque/Lidstrom. That being said - I expect it's at least 1 round too early to give him any serious consideration at the top.

Potvin and Lidstrom should lead to interesting discussions with Shore and Bourque. I probably listed them in opposite order of how i'd rank them today - but very open in changing that on all of them. I've always been quite down on Lidstrom for peak, so i'm hoping someone can show some data to prove me wrong if he's worthy of it.

I'm happy to see Mikita (may have preferred Esposito first) but i expect it's too early for him too.

I'd be shocked if Crosby and Morenz don't go this round towards the top - and I expect Hasek to follow closely behind too. I still feel that Crosby should be ahead of Morenz, too.

I had Plante quite high on my first list and could see him get strong consideration too, but we'll see.

 

[MXD]

Plante played behind Beliveau, Richard and Harvey (you know, the most responsible for the dynasty, as was argued last round) and he lost 1st and 2nd team all star selections to contemporaries. He's more like a Billy Smith or Grant Fuhr than a Roy or Hasek.

Plante (should be close to Hall, Sawchuk) doesn't belong anywhere near Hasek; Hasek belongs closer to Roy.

If you say it, it MUST be true!

 

[bobholly39]

I fail to see what makes Jagr's peak better than Lafleur's, considering the latter continued it throughout the playoffs in grandiose fashion.There's no reason to separate RS and playoffs.

Lafleur and Hasek are usually the other 2 candidates I think of when I say "arguably the 5th best peak after the big 4". So I don't disagree that Lafleur also warrants consideration in that regards (though I might be tempted to prefer Jagr).

As to separating RS and Playoffs - well typically when I say peak I mostly look at RS, and then considering playoffs separate altogether. Doesn't really matter as you still get to the same conclusion.

Since Lafleur isn't here (and even if he were - unlike Jagr outside of his peak he has almost nothing of worth) - I think Jagr's peak should be a very strong consideration vs other players in this round and a reason to consider him towards the very top.

 

[daver]

I fail to see what makes Jagr's peak better than Lafleur's, considering the latter continued it throughout the playoffs in grandiose fashion.There's no reason to separate RS and playoffs.

Did Lafleur reach Jagr's regular season level of dominance though? I don't think Jagr did anything in the playoffs that wasn't representative of his regular season dominance. He was the clear playoff PPG leader over his 7 year run of Art Rosses.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Wishlist discussions:

Crosby vs. Morenz in the playoffs, particularly how they fared against other top centers
Messier vs. Bourque vs. Jagr
Messier vs. all eligible centers
Plante vs. everyone

 

[daver]

A good starting point to opening our eyes to the possibility that Sidney Crosby just might not be the Second-Baddest Aqua-Bird of All-Time.

Further perusals yield:

AS-Team:
Jagr: 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2
Crosby: 1,1,1,1,2,2,2

Outstanding/Valuable Trophies:
Hart:
Jagr: 1x winner, 3x runner-up
Crosby: 2x winner, 3x runner-up
Pearson/Lindsay:
Jagr: 3x
Crosby: 3x

Plus-Minus through age 30 (i.e.: Crosby's last completed year):
Jagr: +212
Crosby: +165

[Oh, and by-the-way, Jagr lost a production year through no personal fault of his own. (The 04-05 Lockout season.) The year after that, he banked a Pearson/Lindsay as a 33-year-old, so there could have been something in the tank the year before, too- if he'd had a chance to show it. This theme comes also comes into play this round- with Lidström, who had six 1st team AS nods and three Norrises before the Lockout, and four AS-1s and four Norrises after it.]

What are your thoughts on having Mario as your teammate in a few of those seasons, the gap in elite Cup runs, and the wider gap in 2-way play?

And do you have no consideration for partial seasons?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I fail to see what makes Jagr's peak better than Lafleur's, considering the latter continued it throughout the playoffs in grandiose fashion.There's no reason to separate RS and playoffs.

Lafleur's playoffs are really great but I'll chime in again that I think Jagr is a very underrated playoff performer here.

I detailed his playoffs during the period he was "the guy" in Pittsburgh in the ATD and I think he did well on those (mostly bad with no depth) teams. Considering the focus the opposition could put singularly on him and the fact he was often injured in the playffs.. he put up the numbers.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lafleur's playoffs are really great but I'll chime in again that I think Jagr is a very underrated playoff performer here.

I detailed his playoffs during the period he was "the guy" in Pittsburgh in the ATD and I think he did well on those (mostly bad with no depth) teams. Considering the focus the opposition could put singularly on him and the fact he was often injured in the playffs.. he put up the numbers.

Agreed, but two points:

• I agree Jagr was a good playoff performer; on the other hand, he was no Flower.
• We were talking about peak years and who had the best peak; Lafleur's best playoffs are all in his peak, Jagr's are not (even if as you say, he was good in the playoffs in his peak).

(Moving on from the Lafleur vs. Jagr discussion now, since the former is not eligible)

 

[bobholly39]

Wishlist discussions:

Crosby vs. Morenz in the playoffs, particularly how they fared against other top centers
Messier vs. Bourque
Messier vs. all eligible centers
Plante vs. everyone

No issue with a more in-depth look at playoffs but if you're going to give *any* value to how they fared against top centers, you have to consider the likelihood of facing such top centers in each era to weight the importance of it correctly. I maintain that in a 30 team league, it's more important to be good in a vacuum - even if you maybe suffer against 2-3 players specifically - than it is to be good against specific players. So I don't think that's worth that much in Crosby's case (unless you can show a trend where he faces top centers multiple times in important situations which led to poor results). But in a 30 team league i don't think that's likely

 

[BenchBrawl]

Did Lafleur reach Jagr's regular season level of dominance though? I don't think Jagr did anything in the playoffs that wasn't representative of his regular season dominance. He was the clear playoff PPG leader over his 7 year run of Art Rosses.

Both peaked more or less at the same level yes, unless you want to split hair.

(Moving on from the Lafleur vs. Jagr discussion now, since the former is not eligible)

 

[MXD]

From my perception, Lafleur was much better in the playoffs than Jagr was, and I think he has a slightly better regular season peak (and that he clearly has a better peak if we're to include PO ni peak) as well, though it's probably arguable and...

...But I don't quite know why there's a discussion about this, considering Lafleur isn't up for voting (...and for cause, I might add), and that he's probably not even the best winger who is not yet available.

 

[daver]

I thought this might be an interesting comparison for Jagr vs. Crosby:

REGULAR SEASON

After 15 seasons (90/91 - 05/06), Jagr is the clear #1 in points and #1 in PPG (1.29) for his era. The average PPG of the next Top 10 scorers is 1.05

After 14 seasons (05/06 - 18/19), Crosby is #2 in points and #1 in PPG (1.29) for his era. The average PPG of the next Top 10 scorers is 0.98


PLAYOFFS

After 15 seasons (90/91 - 05/06), Jagr is #4 in points and #3 in PPG (sans Mario) (1.04) for his era. The average PPG of the other Top 10 scorers is 0.91

After 14 seasons (05/06 - 18/19), Crosby is the clear #1 in points and the clear #1 in PPG (1.16) for his era. The average PPG of the next Top 10 scorers is 0.91

Give Jagr the edge in the regular season although Crosby has a PPG dominance argument in his favour.

Give Crosby the clear edge in the playoffs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

From my perception, Lafleur was much better in the playoffs than Jagr was, and I think he has a slightly better regular season peak (and that he clearly has a better peak if we're to include PO ni peak) as well, though it's probably arguable and.

...But I don't quite know why there's a discussion about this, considering Lafleur isn't up for voting (...and for cause, I might add), and that he's probably not even the best winger who is not yet available.

If you don't want me to discuss him, don't provoke me : D

No issue with a more in-depth look at playoffs but if you're going to give *any* value to how they fared against top centers, you have to consider the likelihood of facing such top centers in each era to weight the importance of it correctly. I maintain that in a 30 team league, it's more important to be good in a vacuum - even if you maybe suffer against 2-3 players specifically - than it is to be good against specific players. So I don't think that's worth that much in Crosby's case (unless you can show a trend where he faces top centers multiple times in important situations which led to poor results). But in a 30 team league i don't think that's likely

If your top center can't go power vs. power against other top centers, you don't control your own destiny.You're the equivalent of Roger Federer at the French Open hoping Nadal don't make the Final.

 

[Batis]

He just won the Cup, bruh.

No, but even if I have warmed up a little to Ovechkin, and even if he had an inspiring playoff run last spring (even though Kuznetsov was better), he's still a player with a very distinct peak (2007–2010), and a very distinct fall from that peak, and a subsequent transformation to something that wasn't close to that peak neither stylistically or effectively, something of a post peak Brett Hull hybrid with better skating. And with a few semi-suspect international showings.

Jagr's certainly better than that, even with all his own faults. (they're really close on my own list though, I just recognized)

That is putting it very mildly. Considering how great of a player Ovechkin is his international career has been very underwhelming so far. When Ovechkin and Malkin were coming up through the ranks I was half expecting another golden era for Russian hockey. All of the blame for the Russian failures in recent best-on-best tournaments should obviously not fall on Ovechkin but a whole lot of it should in my opinion. Especially considering that most of the scoring Ovechkin has done on the international stage has been in the group stage and then he has gone completely cold in the knockout stage. If we only look at the knockout stage (including the bronze medal game in 2006 and the qualification playoff game in 2014) this is Ovechkins stats in best-on-best tournaments.

World Cup 2004: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2006: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
Olympics 2010: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2014: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
World Cup 2016: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Total: 8 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts

Compare this to Crosbys numbers at the knockout stage of best-on-best tournaments.

Olympics 2010: 4 gp, 2 g, 0 a, 2 pts
Olympics 2014: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
World Cup 2016: 3 gp, 1 g, 5 a, 6 pts
Total: 10 gp, 4 g, 5 a, 9 pts

Sure Crosby has had more support on Team Canada but it is not as if Ovechkin has lacked offensive support on the Russian national team.

And here you have Jagrs numbers at the knockout stage of best-on-best tournaments.

Olympics 1998: 3 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Olympics 2002: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
World Cup 2004: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2006: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Olympics 2010: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2014: 2 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts
Total: 13 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts

Nothing special from Jagr either but still very clearly superior to Ovechkins numbers. Especially considering that Jagr generally has had less offensive support on the Czech team than Ovechkin has had on the Russian. Those Czech teams were more balanced though and had more success (Olympic gold in 98 and Olympic bronze in 06).

 

[MXD]

... And I don't want to dwell on this point, because it was pretty much obviously going to happen, but I'm really disappointed with the fact that we have no player who spent the bulk of his career in Europe that became available for voting, and that is much more problematic to me than the fact there's a lot of Canadiens at the top.

It's not like I'd have Sergei Makarov at the top of this round (like, at all) but he'd feel at home with this group, and will probably look VERY good next vote.

 

[Sentinel]

Still no Makarov? Shame.

I'm starting to feel all people who hurt Canada internationally are getting a shaft here. Hasek, Jagr, Makarov, Ovechkin are all bound to be lower then I would have them.

 

[Sentinel]

... And I don't want to dwell on this point, because it was pretty much obviously going to happen, but I'm really disappointed with the fact that we have no player who spent the bulk of his career that went up for the voting, and that seems much more problematic to me than the fact there's a lot of Canadiens at the top.

This sentence feels incomplete

 

[MXD]

This sentence feels incomplete

That's because it was

 

[MXD]

Still no Makarov? Shame.

I'm starting to feel all people who hurt Canada internationally are getting a shaft here. Hasek, Jagr, Makarov, Ovechkin are all bound to be lower then I would have them.

Ovechkin did such a thing?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Initial impressions:

Probably some combination of Crosby, Morenz, and Shore for top-3.

As outlined in the preliminary thread, Messier marginally over Bourque - as they were direct contemporaries with Messier generally being considered the better of the two. Playoff edge as well. Potvin after both.

Of the two O6 players, Jacques Plante is probably next on-deck.

I like Jagr more outside of the 1994-2001 time frame than Hasek outside of it.

Alex Ovechkin is my wild card. Under the top-3, but maybe anywhere else.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ecstatic to *finally* see Jaromir Jagr show up. I really feel he had a case against both Hull and Richard and disappointed we didn't get to make it. To me Jaromir Jagr is:

- Arguably the 5th best peak in hockey history (after the big 4). Both on height of peak - but also length, he does fantastic in both metrics
- Arguably the greatest longevity for a player (certainly a winger) after Gordie Howe in hockey history (he has a few holes in his overall career with a few off years - but he lasted longer than most as a high caliber player, which is what i mean by longevity)

Obviously - based on the fact that he wasn't available last round, let alone in the first round, I take it many people around here aren't as high on him as I am. I hope he gets a fair share though. Other metrics on which he does well:

- International Resume. Nothing Gretzky-like, but many very strong performances over the long run
- Playoffs. Not many of those "single heroic smythe-worthy runs" maybe - but i think his overall resume still shows a consistent performer year over year (looking forward to analyzing more in-depth).

His case will rest majorly on offensive contributions. That's not a bad thing. He was an offensive winger (like Hull - already voted in) - but did that better than almost anyone.

Bobby Hull was much better defensively, could play C and LW, kill penalties, handle specific defensive assignments.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Still no Makarov? Shame.

I'm starting to feel all people who hurt Canada internationally are getting a shaft here. Hasek, Jagr, Makarov, Ovechkin are all bound to be lower then I would have them.

Yeah, where is all of the 1996 Team USA?!

 

[MXD]

... I should probably do these, too :

- Hasek at the very top. This one isn't moving an inch.
- I said at the end of last round that Crosby, Bourque and Morenz were grouped... They'll remain such here, and joined by...
- Jacques Plante, if everything holds.
- Niklas Lidstrom is dropping a bit from my initial list, but it's mostly due to others rising.
- Jagr and Hasek will get lots of scrutiny : not that I'm moving Hasek or anything, but Jagr's placement will be heavily-dependant on how he looks vs. Hasek.
- Works from last round are the reason why Eddie Shore looks viable in this group... But I still think he'll never look good in a comparison with Potvin. Like, I can see Shore > Lidstrom, but Shore > Potvin is a very hard case to make. ... And of course, I have Lidstrom > Potvin
- Ovechkin is available while Makarov isn't? Boohoo.
- Stan Mikita sticks out like a sore thumb here. But I've said the same about Shore last round, and while I DID rank Shore last, I could at least see the argument for ranking him higher, and he starts this round in pretty good position.

 

[bobholly39]

If your top center can't go power vs. power against other top centers, you don't control your own destiny.You're the equivalent of Roger Federer at the French Open hoping Nadal don't make the Final.

Few things.

1. It's a team game. It's not an individual sport. What would me more relevant is a player's ability to play against a top team - and not the 1 on 1 matchup vs a specific player.

2. Everything we look at here is being adjusted for era. I'm not saying the idea that a center has to be able to matchup against another top center should have 0 merit - but you should be able to provide data and proof about how often that happens, to see how relevant it is. If this happens a lot more often in Morenz's era than Crosby's era (which is what I expect) - than it shouldn't be as important a metric for Crosby as Morenz.

And this is true of any other matchup with players like Messier, Bourque, Hasek who played in a bigger league vs smaller league, not just Crosby. I argued the same thing for the Hasek vs Roy matchup last round (and I get that centers actually "matchup" more than goalies, but same logic).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Few things.

1. It's a team game. It's not an individual sport. What would me more relevant is a player's ability to play against a top team - and not the 1 on 1 matchup vs a specific player.

2. Everything we look at here is being adjusted for era. I'm not saying the idea that a center has to be able to matchup against another top center should have 0 merit - but you should be able to provide data and proof about how often that happens, to see how relevant it is. If this happens a lot more often in Morenz's era than Crosby's era (which is what I expect) - than it shouldn't be as important a metric for Crosby as Morenz.

And this is true of any other matchup with players like Messier, Bourque, Hasek who played in a bigger league vs smaller league, not just Crosby. I argued the same thing for the Hasek vs Roy matchup last round (and I get that centers actually "matchup" more than goalies, but same logic).

With Crosby vs. Morenz we're in hair-splitting territory.

Between 2008 and 2015, to win the cup you had to face Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Toews or Bergeron (by the way coincidence that all the top two-way power centers are present on the list of players you were likely to face to challenge for the cup? In fairness they all had a great #1 D behind them, so that's that).Could add Kesler to the list.

It was almost certain that you'd end up facing one of them.How you do against such a player is pretty important, even if it's not the entire story.