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

[ImporterExporter]

Compiler? I mean sure - you can set your standards anywhere you want of course. But if Jagr's offense is that of a compiler - so is the offense of every single hockey player in the history of the sport outside of maybe.....3-5 guys?

Lemieux and Gretzky went top 4 and also didn't put much of an effort in 2/3 zones (maybe he's even worst than other 2 - but point is one dimensional forwards can still go high if their 1 dimension is impressive enough - and his offense sure is impressive).

As for playoffs. No true signature run, nope. To each their own in how they weight that. He's generally produced very well and consistently in the playoffs offensively, but hockey is a team game and you can't win without a good team and without the rest of the team contributing too. He's still 5th all-time in playoff scoring (1st outside of Edmonton). You can probably label him more of a compiler in the playoffs.

I said, outside of a few seasons, namely his 4 consecutive Art Ross wins.

And the difference between Gretzky and Mario is they were legendary in the postseason, multiple times, especially 99.

99 and 66 were both much better offensive talents on the whole and when the big games came they almost always rose to the occasion, unlike 68 who again, had a couple of real great series but overall never really carried a team from start to finish.

 

[The Macho King]

Hmmm... tough crowd.

Here follows the "kind of crappy" competition that Jagr faced in his Ross nods.
#1: Peak Lindros, Zhamnov (annus mirabilis, granted) & Sakic. We'll be talking about Joe before Christmas.
#2: Prime Forsberg (we'll be taking about him before this project's over), Bure, and twilight Gretzky
#3: Prime Selänne (be discussing him later, too), Peak Kariya, Prime Forsberg & Sakic
#4 Bure, Recchi, Peak Kariya & Prime Selänne
#5 Sakic- others also ran... but 3 points ahead of Sakic on a loaded Colorado championship team is no small feat.

So- eight names mentioned above, seven Hall-of-Famers- and several of whom I fully expect to be discussing later in this project.

I won't strenuously object to considering Hašek over Jagr, really... but Jagr's comparisons to Crosby still look really favorable for Jagr, from where I sit.

Some good players, but Sakic isn't being discussed (entirely) for his offense. He was a playoff god and a terrific two-way player. Same with Forsberg. Lindros (meh), Selanne (meh - I'm not that high on him), Bure (meh), Recchi (uber-meh). Some good players - but if you look at not only the players he's winning against, but his point totals - they look pretty bad. Some of this is DPE related, but goal-scoring didn't drop *that* precipitously yet (peak DPE was in the 00s).

And really, outside of those 5 trophies, I don't think he has the rest of a resume that competes. He is decidedly *not* a two-way player, he wasn't a terrific playoff performer (certainly didn't elevate his game), and I think even during that era Hasek was considered a better player (Hart trophy voting probably supports that, but also just from my memory I always thought the consensus was Hasek was the best player in the league).

 

[The Macho King]

Jagr’s playoff resume is unimpressive for a player with as many Art Ross trophies as he has.

Still though Jagr is not the worst playoff performer up for vote this round..maybe not even bottom 3.

I want you to show your work here. I think I have him at the bottom with Mikita (although Mikita does have probably one signature run where he led the playoffs in scoring).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Some good players, but Sakic isn't being discussed (entirely) for his offense. He was a playoff god and a terrific two-way player. Same with Forsberg. Lindros (meh), Selanne (meh - I'm not that high on him), Bure (meh), Recchi (uber-meh). Some good players - but if you look at not only the players he's winning against, but his point totals - they look pretty bad. Some of this is DPE related, but goal-scoring didn't drop *that* precipitously yet (peak DPE was in the 00s).

And really, outside of those 5 trophies, I don't think he has the rest of a resume that competes. He is decidedly *not* a two-way player, he wasn't a terrific playoff performer (certainly didn't elevate his game), and I think even during that era Hasek was considered a better player (Hart trophy voting probably supports that, but also just from my memory I always thought the consensus was Hasek was the best player in the league).

And it's not like somebody, say Crosby, wasn't going up against other elite all time offensive players head to head. Ovechkin is up on the board this round and is a generational talent. Malkin, near generational IMO. McDavid clearly is and showed up 3 years back.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I see two clear tiers in this round IMO

In no particular order within tiers

Group 1
Lidstrom
Shore
Bourque
Crosby
Morenz
Hasek

Group 2
Messier
Potvin
Ovechkin
Plante
Mikita

 

[The Macho King]

I see two clear tiers in this round IMO

In no particular order within tiers

Group 1
Lidstrom
Shore
Bourque
Crosby
Morenz
Hasek

Group 2
Messier
Potvin
Ovechkin
Plante
Mikita

Lidstrom clearly in tier 2. I don't see what separates him from Potvin.

I'd be more inclined to put Ovi in tier one as well.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lidstrom clearly in tier 2. I don't see what separates him from Potvin.

I'd be more inclined to put Ovi in tier one as well.

I totally disagree on Potvin V Lidstrom

 

[K Fleur]

I want you to show your work here. I think I have him at the bottom with Mikita (although Mikita does have probably one signature run where he led the playoffs in scoring).

Player’s who I think have atleast comparable playoff resume’s are: Hasek, Mikita, and Ovechkin.

Hasek’s playoffs don’t do much for me. I don’t think the ‘99 Sabres were as bad of a team as they’re made out to be. The ‘02 Red Wings were the best team money could buy. Lost his starting job to a Chris Osgood of all people in ‘08

Ovechkin has his signature run now, but it’s the first time he’s ever been out of the 2nd round, and outside of that it’s a bunch of times disappointing in the first or 2nd round. Three separate presidents trophy winning teams going down in the first and second rounds.

With Mikita’s it’s well documented the Hawk’s and his playoff struggles.

Jagr lacks a signature run, but he was often getting exceptionally weak team’s(depth wise) farther than they had any business going. I mean can you even tell me a Penguins defenseman worth talking about from 98-01?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Player’s who I think have atleast comparable playoff resume’s are: Hasek, Mikita, and Ovechkin.

Hasek’s playoffs don’t do much for me. I don’t think the ‘99 Sabres were as bad of a team as they’re made out to be. The ‘02 Red Wings were the best team money could buy. Lost his starting job to a Chris Osgood of all people in ‘08

Ovechkin has his signature run now, but it’s the first time he’s ever been out of the 2nd round, and outside of that it’s a bunch of times disappointing in the first or 2nd round. Three separate presidents trophy winning teams going down in the first and second rounds.

With Mikita’s it’s well documented the Hawk’s and his playoff struggles.

Jagr lacks a signature run, but he was often getting exceptionally weak team’s(depth wise) farther than they had any business going. Plus he was stellar for the ‘92 Pens when Mario went down for whatever that’s worth.

He was 43 years old for gods sake

 

[The Macho King]

I totally disagree on Potvin V Lidstrom

Well we can have that discussion now, so I'll dig into my arguments later.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Goalie data, as we have a couple available to us here...

Goalie playoff data that I have compiled in good faith, but also manually...(I have made some adjustments to account for GP that weren't really relevant games played, so if you see me off in playoff GP compared to the legend, that's me removing a 20 minute relief appearance that wasn't relevant or some such)...

Giving up the first goal of the game:
Plante 41 in 110 GP (every 2.68 GP)
Hasek 49 in 114 GP (every 2.33 GP)
Roy 107 in 247 GP (every 2.31 GP)
Sawchuk 48 in 103 GP (every 2.15 GP)
Brodeur 96 in 204 GP (every 2.13 GP)
Dryden 55 in 112 GP (every 2.04 GP)
Hall 68 in 114 GP (every 1.68 GP)

By year...

Patrick Roy	GP	W	L	GA	First Goal
1986	20	15	5	39	10
1987	6	4	2	22	3
1988	8	3	4	24	5
1989	19	13	6	42	9
1990	11	5	6	26	6
1991	13	7	5	40	7
1992	11	4	7	30	5
1993	20	16	4	46	6
1994	6	3	3	16	3
1996	22	16	6	51	9
1997	17	10	7	38	7
1998	7	3	4	18	3
1999	19	11	8	52	8
2000	17	11	6	31	6
2001	23	16	7	41	9
2002	21	11	10	52	8
2003	7	3	4	16	3
Total	247	151	94	584	107

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dominik Hasek	GP			GA	FG
1992	2	0	2	8	1
1994	7	3	4	13	3
1995	5	1	4	18	4
1997	3	1	1	5	1
1998	15	10	5	32	5
1999	19	13	6	36	7
2000	5	1	4	12	2
2001	13	7	6	29	6
2002	23	16	7	45	9
2007	18	10	8	34	10
2008	4	2	2	10	1
Total	114	64	49	242	49

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jacques Plante	GP			GA	FG
1953	4	3	1	7	2
1954	8	5	3	14	3
1955	11	6	3	29	1
1956	10	8	2	18	3
1957	10	8	2	17	4
1958	10	8	2	20	5
1959	11	8	3	26	3
1960	8	8	0	11	0
1961	6	2	4	16	4
1962	6	2	4	19	5
1963	5	1	4	14	4
1969	10	8	2	14	4
1970	6	4	1	8	1
1971	2	0	2	7	1
1972	1	0	1	5	1
1973	2	0	2	10	0
Total	110	71	36	235	41

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3rd period/OT lead management

"Surr. 3rd lead" means that goalie's team had a lead in the 3rd period and lost it.
"Surr. 3rd/OT tie" means that goalie's team was even with opponent in the 3rd period or OT and lost it.

Note: You can lose surrender a 3rd period lead AND a 3rd/OT tie in the same game. You can surrender them multiple times in a game, in fact. The per-game metric does not reflect the amount of leads or ties had, it is exactly what it says: per game.

Surrendered 3rd per lead:
Sawchuk 7 in 103 (every 14.71 GP)
Dryden 9 in 112 (every 12.44 GP)
Plante 10 in 110 (every 11 GP)
Brodeur 25 in 204 (every 8.16 GP)
Hall 15 in 114 (every 7.60 GP)
Hasek 16 in 114 (every 7.13 GP)
Roy 44 in 247 (every 5.61 GP)

By year...

Patrick Roy	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd lead
1986	20	15	5	39	2
1987	6	4	2	22	2
1988	8	3	4	24	2
1989	19	13	6	42	4
1990	11	5	6	26	1
1991	13	7	5	40	1
1992	11	4	7	30	1
1993	20	16	4	46	5
1994	6	3	3	16	0
1996	22	16	6	51	6
1997	17	10	7	38	3
1998	7	3	4	18	3
1999	19	11	8	52	2
2000	17	11	6	31	1
2001	23	16	7	41	4
2002	21	11	10	52	6
2003	7	3	4	16	1
Total	247	151	94	584	44

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dominik Hasek	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd lead
1992	2	0	2	8	1
1994	7	3	4	13	0
1995	5	1	4	18	0
1997	3	1	1	5	1
1998	15	10	5	32	4
1999	19	13	6	36	1
2000	5	1	4	12	0
2001	13	7	6	29	3
2002	23	16	7	45	1
2007	18	10	8	34	4
2008	4	2	2	10	1
Total	114	64	49	242	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jacques Plante	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd lead
1953	4	3	1	7	0
1954	8	5	3	14	1
1955	11	6	3	29	1
1956	10	8	2	18	0
1957	10	8	2	17	0
1958	10	8	2	20	1
1959	11	8	3	26	2
1960	8	8	0	11	2
1961	6	2	4	16	0
1962	6	2	4	19	0
1963	5	1	4	14	0
1969	10	8	2	14	2
1970	6	4	1	8	0
1971	2	0	2	7	1
1972	1	0	1	5	0
1973	2	0	2	10	0
Total	110	71	36	235	10

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3rd period/OT lead management

"Surr. 3rd lead" means that goalie's team had a lead in the 3rd period and lost it.
"Surr. 3rd/OT tie" means that goalie's team was even with opponent in the 3rd period or OT and lost it.

Note: You can lose surrender a 3rd period lead AND a 3rd/OT tie in the same game. You can surrender them multiple times in a game, in fact. The per-game metric does not reflect the amount of leads or ties had, it is exactly what it says: per game.

Surrendered 3rd period/OT tie:
Plante 15 in 110 (every 7.33 GP)
Sawchuk 22 in 103 (every 4.68 GP)
Dryden 24 in 112 (every 4.67 GP)
Roy 59 in 247 (every 4.19 GP)
Brodeur 53 in 204 (every 3.85 GP)
Hasek 34 in 114 (every 3.35 GP)
Hall 36 in 114 (every 3.17 GP)

By year...

Patrick Roy	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd/OT tie
1986	20	15	5	39	2
1987	6	4	2	22	1
1988	8	3	4	24	3
1989	19	13	6	42	3
1990	11	5	6	26	2
1991	13	7	5	40	6
1992	11	4	7	30	2
1993	20	16	4	46	5
1994	6	3	3	16	1
1996	22	16	6	51	2
1997	17	10	7	38	5
1998	7	3	4	18	2
1999	19	11	8	52	7
2000	17	11	6	31	2
2001	23	16	7	41	8
2002	21	11	10	52	5
2003	7	3	4	16	3
Total	247	151	94	584	59

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dominik Hasek	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd/OT tie
1992	2	0	2	8	2
1994	7	3	4	13	2
1995	5	1	4	18	1
1997	3	1	1	5	0
1998	15	10	5	32	6
1999	19	13	6	36	4
2000	5	1	4	12	2
2001	13	7	6	29	4
2002	23	16	7	45	7
2007	18	10	8	34	5
2008	4	2	2	10	1
Total	114	64	49	242	34

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jacques Plante	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. 3rd/OT tie
1953	4	3	1	7	0
1954	8	5	3	14	0
1955	11	6	3	29	2
1956	10	8	2	18	1
1957	10	8	2	17	3
1958	10	8	2	20	0
1959	11	8	3	26	3
1960	8	8	0	11	0
1961	6	2	4	16	3
1962	6	2	4	19	1
1963	5	1	4	14	0
1969	10	8	2	14	0
1970	6	4	1	8	0
1971	2	0	2	7	2
1972	1	0	1	5	0
1973	2	0	2	10	0
Total	110	71	36	235	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Managing momentum/game script/compounding problems...

Surrendering a goal within ~2 minutes of any other goal is deflating and cancels the emotion of your goal or really lets the game get off the rails for you...

Note: 2 minutes is not a solid number, because the difference between 2:00 and 2:07 is irrelevant, the shift length, amount of whistles, the time of the game, the overall score, and many other factors (road/home, etc.) factor into this...I made a judgment call on some of these. To my knowledge, it never, ever exceeds three minutes though. Full disclosure: There are times when I take a goal that happens 2:34 after another, but a time where I won't take one that's 2:10 after another based on my sense of the game script...this happens very rarely, but I want to say the words. In a near-future post, I will compile something called "Garbage Time Goals" - garbage goals are not tabulated in any other category, including this one. So giving up boom-boom, two quick ones at 18:24 and 19:01 of the 3rd period to make 8-1 then 8-2 is not relevant. Further, spanning a period does not count (i.e. a goal at 19:01 of the 1st and then 0:24 of the 2nd does not register here...that would take a greater game script read and more liberties than I thought I should be afforded).

Surrender a goal within 2 mins. of any other goal...(maybe this should be a per goal rate instead of per game? I'm providing the data, yous can interpret it)
Brodeur 37 in 204 (every 5.51 GP)
Hasek 21 in 114 (every 5.43 GP)
Roy 48 in 247 (every 5.15 GP)
Plante 29 in 110 (every 3.79 GP)
Hall 40 in 114 (every 2.85 GP)
Dryden 41 in 112 (every 2.73 GP)
Sawchuk 44 in 103 (every 2.34 GP)

By year...

Patrick Roy	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. Goal w/in 2
1986	20	15	5	39	2
1987	6	4	2	22	2
1988	8	3	4	24	2
1989	19	13	6	42	3
1990	11	5	6	26	4
1991	13	7	5	40	6
1992	11	4	7	30	2
1993	20	16	4	46	5
1994	6	3	3	16	2
1996	22	16	6	51	4
1997	17	10	7	38	3
1998	7	3	4	18	0
1999	19	11	8	52	5
2000	17	11	6	31	2
2001	23	16	7	41	0
2002	21	11	10	52	4
2003	7	3	4	16	2
Total	247	151	94	584	48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dominik Hasek	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. Goal w/in 2
1992	2	0	2	8	0
1994	7	3	4	13	1
1995	5	1	4	18	3
1997	3	1	1	5	1
1998	15	10	5	32	4
1999	19	13	6	36	2
2000	5	1	4	12	0
2001	13	7	6	29	1
2002	23	16	7	45	1
2007	18	10	8	34	3
2008	4	2	2	10	5
Total	114	64	49	242	21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jacques Plante	GP	W	L	GA	Surr. Goal w/in 2
1953	4	3	1	7	0
1954	8	5	3	14	2
1955	11	6	3	29	0
1956	10	8	2	18	4
1957	10	8	2	17	4
1958	10	8	2	20	1
1959	11	8	3	26	4
1960	8	8	0	11	3
1961	6	2	4	16	2
1962	6	2	4	19	1
1963	5	1	4	14	2
1969	10	8	2	14	1
1970	6	4	1	8	0
1971	2	0	2	7	2
1972	1	0	1	5	1
1973	2	0	2	10	2
Total	110	71	36	235	29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Garbage time goals.

Goals that have only an impact on statistics and, in the vast majority of cases, do not impact the game...goals that were scored against a team up or down 3 or more in the 3rd period and goals that were scored against a team up or down 5 or more goals at any time were rinsed out...

Garbage time goals (new playoff GAA with these goals, but not minutes removed by a lazy, lazy man)
Plante 30 (2.12 -> 1.85)
Brodeur 30 (2.02 -> 1.88)
Sawchuk 24 (2.53 -> 2.30)
Roy 23 (2.30 -> 2.21)
Hall 18 (2.79 -> 2.63)
Dryden 18 (2.41 -> 2.25)
Hasek 12 (2.02 -> 1.92)


Roy was left in as a means of comparison...seemed kosher...

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, he probably doesn't have a Hasek in '99...though, it would have been nice if Jagr had gotten a chance to end Hasek's run in the ECF...because Jagr's finest series is beating New Jersey on one leg in the 1999 ECQF...

2001 was a cinderella run to the ECF with a goalie who had just been called up in Johan Hedberg...they swiped yet another series from Washington in dramatic fashion...then beat a better Buffalo team rallying from 3-2 down. Before finally bowing out to the best team in the league (NJ) in the ECF...

I mean, he's out there playing with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina trying to run through Hasek, Brodeur, CuJo, Kolzig, etc. ...I'm not sure how much more juice could be squeezed out of those teams really...

In 2001, the top five players in ice time on the team were all forwards (!)...that's crazy in almost any era...the top D logged 19 minutes a game and it's freakin' Darius Kasparaitis. Then Andrew Ference, fine. Not a #2, but whatever, at least he belonged in the league even though he was just 21 at the time...then Jeff Norton, Janne Laukkanen, Hans Jonsson, Ian Moran and Jiri Slegr...we swapped out Norton for Bob Boughner in the playoffs...ya know...to upgrade or whatever...

That's not a who's who on defense...it's a "who's that?" Sick joke. Pens made the playoffs every year from 1997 to 2001, but only started the same goalie twice (old Billy Goat Barrasso in '98 and '99)...otherwise journeymen Ken Wregget, Ron Tugnutt and future journeyman Johan Hedberg manned the nets...

Crosby with Guentzel and Sheary. Cannot pick teammates/linemates.

 

[MXD]

Tiers?

Tier 1 :
Hasek

Tier 2 :
Bourque
Crosby
Morenz
Plante

Tier 3 :
Everybody else but Mikita

Tier 4 :
Mikita.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Two reasons we should consider having a fairly sizable gap between Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita:

1. Bobby Hull, not Stan Mikita was the star of the 1960s Blackhawks in the minds of almost all observers

Look at the AP poll of the sports writers and sportscasters for "Best Player of the 1960s" (published Jan 29, 1970). If it is an argument for Hull, it is also an argument against Mikita.

The full results were this:

hull: 436.5
howe: 145.5
orr: 19
mikita: 7
Beliveau, P Esposito, Plante: 2
Worsley, Geoffrion: 1

I guess a writer picked Hull and Howe as tied for them to each have half a point.

A very young Bobby Orr already showing up is similar to a young Maurice Richard already showing up in 1950.

In addition to Hull, also impressive that Howe finished clear #2 in what was the 2nd best decade of his own career.

The Anson Record - Google News Archive Search

Simply put, if "star power" was an argument for Hull, it is an argument against Mikita

2. Unlike Hull, Mikita's offensive prime ended with the 1960s.

Points

1961-62 NHL 77 (3rd)

1962-63 NHL 76 (3rd)

1963-64 NHL 89 (1st)

1964-65 NHL 87 (1st)

1965-66 NHL 78 (2nd)

1966-67 NHL 97 (1st)

1967-68 NHL 87 (1st)

1968-69 NHL 97 (4th)

1969-70 NHL 86 (3rd)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3. Does it matter that Mikita was no longer a top 10 scorer when he was really racking up praise for his all-round game?

According a poor showing in 1968-69, the Black Hawks recommitted to a more defensively responsible brand of hockey and from 1969-70 to 1972-73, they won 4 consecutive (edit: divisional) regular season titles. And in the 1970s, Mikita started racking up praise for his all-round game.

Only a few years back Bobby Hull was the same dominant force for Chicago that Bobby Orr is now for Boston. The Hawks played hockey only one way. Offense, offense and more offense. But then they finished in the basement two years ago and decided to change their entire style. They became a defensive club and Bobby Hull, the celebrated golden jet, had to change along with them whether he liked it or not.

The change came hard for Hull. "I was used to having the puck all the time, skating with it, and playing 45 minutes of the game," he says. "After the club and I had a little contract difficulties I guess I didn't have the right attitude to begin with. When I came back the team was playing very well defensively. They wanted us wingmen to just go up and down in a straight line and simply watch the guy we were playing against so that they wouldn't do anything against you.

"That's what I did, I started going up and down and watching my guy and I just got into playing the different style of hockey. Oh, every once in a while you like to go back, pick up the puck and go with it, I expect you always have something left that you had before."

Bobby Hull showed everybody he did last Sunday afternoon.

That was the old Bobby Hull out there, not the new one. He was playing offensively, not defensively. He was playing the way he always had for most of the 14 years he has been with the Hawks.

Now with the Montreal Canadiens coming up in the finals, Hull will return to the Hawks' present style of play. That means he'll ne playing defensively again because that figures to be the way all the rest of the Hawks are going to play the Canadiens. Why abandon a successful formula, one that brought you two straight division championships and this far up to now?

Don't become startled though if Bobby Hull suddenly returns to his old way. Particularly if the series goes right down to the wire.

"Every once in awhile you like to go back, pickup the puck and go with it...

But the thing is, Mikita was already declining offensively at this point.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I see two clear tiers in this round IMO
In no particular order within tiers
Group 1
Lidstrom
Shore
Bourque
Crosby
Morenz
Hasek
Group 2
Messier
Potvin
Ovechkin
Plante
Mikita

où est Jaromir??

 

[ResilientBeast]

où est Jaromir??

Forgot he was available. Might be even lower for me. Ovechkin belongs on this list higher than Jagr

 

[MXD]

According a poor showing in 1968-69, the Black Hawks recommitted to a more defensively responsible brand of hockey and from 1969-70 to 1972-73, they won 4 consecutive regular season titles. And in the 1970s, Mikita started racking up praise for his all-round game.

Nitpicking.... but important nitpicking. I think.

The Black Hawks won 4 divisionnal regular season titles (as opposed to regular season titles) between 1969-70 and 1972-1973.

This matters, because, for 3 of these 4 seasons, the Black Hawks :

- Were not the best team of the Regular Season (AKA, wouldn't have won the President's Trophy)
- Were in the Western division, AKA the weak division.

For the fourth season (actually, the first), the Hawks were tied for the title of best team in the Eastern division (with the Bruins). That was the infamous season where the Habs were eliminated with 92 pts on goal differential.

 

[sr edler]

I grew up watching Jagr, saw him play A LOT being a Pens fan.

He was routinely a passenger to Mario and never really carried a team on his back outside of a game here or a few series over his career. I'm sorry but he's a guy I'll put behind Ovechkin and most others on this list because he was a 1 way player who never really MADE Pittsburgh or others better as a TEAM. At least Ovechkin (also being a 1 way player) can lay claim to greatest goal scorer ever (I have him 2nd) and finally got his career defining playoff run and Cup, something Jagr never did.

He would have made for an amazing fantasy hockey player and was breathtaking to watch as an offensive weapon but he loafed, was widely rumored around Pittsburgh to be a real prick in the locker room,off the ice.

His scoring numbers are quite impressive, no doubt but I see him as an elite compiler outside of a few peak seasons. And given his lack of effort in 2/3 of the zones I won't budge much on him. Saw him way to much and know all the numbers. He's a guy who did a lot for himself but rarely made his teams that much better IMO. Never once led the playoffs in goals, assists or points. Not one damn time. Never won a Cup beyond his first 2 seasons.

He's near the bottom of my list. Convince me otherwise!

Sorry, but this rant feels like a "this player quit on my favorite team so I don't like him anymore" type of rant. Anyone can watch any team in the modern era through television, you don't have to be a fan of a particular team to do that. And I'm a guy who recognizes Jagr had faults and/or shortcomings as a player, I had him down at 19th on my submitted list, but calling him a "passenger" and a "compiler" is a bit too much, in my opinion.

 

[K Fleur]

He was 43 years old for gods sake

He was 3rd in AS team voting, and 5th in Vezina trophy voting at 42 years old, but fair enough

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Forgot he was available. Might be even lower for me. Ovechkin belongs on this list higher than Jagr

I agree with Ovechkin over Jagr, but I honestly thought I'd be in the minority.

This is the post I made recently in the "where should Ovechkin rank all-time" thread:

"Really, the only thing Bobby Hull has over Ovechkin at this point is longevity, and even that isn't by that much.

I think I'd rank Ovechkin over Jagr at this point. Similar quality peaks, but Ovechkin's longevity as an elite player is actually quite a bit longer than Jagr's at this point, and Ovechkin has the signature playoff run (not to mention leadership) that always alluded Jagr. Jagr, of course, beats everyone but Howe in terms of longevity as a productive player, but that just isn't as important to me."

I should amend the Bobby Hull statement because Ovechkin stopped being Bobby-like 7 or 8 years ago and became more Brett-like. But I still hold by what I said about him vs Jagr.

 

[ResilientBeast]

He was 3rd in AS team voting, and 5th in Vezina trophy voting at 42 years old, but fair enough

The fact he was that good at 43 years old should be commended. But he was also 43 years old and that was his last season in the NHL

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Tier 3 :
Everybody else but Mikita

Tier 4 :
Mikita.

BWAHaHAhahaha SO true!

Mikita rides the gate in this pace-line. Easiest decision yet.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

That doesn't really convince me that any of them was better than Denis Potvin.It's basically three different ways of counting good regular seasons, which is a legit argument but not the only way to evaluate them.

If we zoom out, Potvin is basically the ''overall'' best defenseman in the NHL from 74-75 to 83-84, a 10 years window.And there's a good case he peaked the highest.

So was Bourque since Day 1 until the 2 or 3 final seasons of his career. Considering he played 22 seasons, that means he was basically the "overall" best defenseman for a window of 15 years at least if not for 18 or 19 years and he was still a first All-Star Team and second for the Norris in his final season (lost to Lidstrom). But Potvin had a highest peak than Bourque though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Sorry, but this rant feels like a "this player quit on my favorite team so I don't like him anymore" type of rant. Anyone can watch any team in the modern era through television, you don't have to be a fan of a particular team to do that. And I'm a guy who recognizes Jagr had faults and/or shortcomings as a player, I had him down at 19th on my submitted list, but calling him a "passenger" and a "compiler" is a bit too much, in my opinion.

When Mario was healthy he was a passenger the vast majority of the time. Are there instances where he had a better game or maybe even series? Sure. Malkin's done that with Sid around (think 2009 Cup finals). But Jagr benefited from not being the sole focus of teams when 66 was playing. He didn't have to play D. He didn't take important face offs. His game revolved around producing results in one zone, and quite frankly, in the regular season.

I have nothing against Jagr beyond his actual shortcomings as a player. And I'm not some kid who holds grudges against players I don't personally know. Him leaving Pittsburgh has no bearing where I rank him or how I view him. I saw a ton of his career. Beyond scoring a lot of points with a great offensive peak, he's not that impressive to me. His longevity isn't THAT great, even though he played forever and his postseason is very bland for a guy who had multiple dominant seasons in the regular season.

 

[The Macho King]

Bourque's peak is still getting severely underrated here.