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

[ImporterExporter]

I don't really get focusing on Thornton as he is known as an all-time bad playoff performer regardless of what you think of him otherwise... (top 100 player for me, rather him than Francis)

I know you're having a bad time, but people want to 'scream' and 'hold their nose' on here with regards to Crosby (and Kessel)? Not seeing it...

Did you see what the Sharks, Thornton and Pavs did through 3 rounds? Got the finals and were completely shut down for 6 games.

It matters.

As for the latter part I saw the constant "Kessel was robbed" narrative, including the HoH board and really all people could point to was 23 points. If you actually break down the biggest moments of the biggest games, Sid was in on most of them.

Again, I'm not saying Sid's first Smythe was great. Hell it wasn't even average. But Kessel wasn't robbed. If he was robbed then Kuznetsov was robbed even more. That's all I'm saying. Kessel didn't do anything so extraordinary that he should have been a lock.

But enough (directing this mainly at myself haha) with the hot dog master, he's not up for discussion.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

What are people's thoughts on Jagr's first four years? He did he not reach his prime until 94/95 which left him catching up to OV who had his legacy season by his fourth year after being drafted.

Now there's an interesting assertion apropos Jagr. He suffered from delayed development, and didn't enter into his prime until the ripe old age of 22.

Besides, the sound of the engraving tool etching his name into something kind of makes it a little more difficult to hear whatever it is that's trying to be said here.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Somehow I still see Eddie Shore at the bottom of the list of defencemen.

He's somebody I ranked a handful of spots to high initially I think. He was a pretty poor playoff guy, cost Boston a lot there. Impressive regular season resume but with more nuanced views think it's a bit overblown. He'll drop based on what some folks have already laid out.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Did you see what the Sharks, Thornton and Pavs did through 3 rounds? Got the finals and were completely shut down for 6 games.

It matters.

As for the latter part I saw the constant "Kessel was robbed" narrative, including the HoH board and really all people could point to was 23 points. If you actually break down the biggest moments of the biggest games, Sid was in on most of them.

Again, I'm not saying Sid's first Smythe was great. Hell it wasn't even average. But Kessel wasn't robbed. If he was robbed then Kuznetsov was robbed even more. That's all I'm saying. Kessel didn't do anything so extraordinary that he should have been a lock.

But enough (directing this mainly at myself haha) with the hot dog master, he's not up for discussion.

Thing is, I'd have Crosby #1 here.

Crosby (all around resume that is excellent)
Hasek (insane peak)
Bourque (amazing longevity and you never got the feeling he was a let down in the playoffs - his teams just weren't good enough)
Morenz (very close to some others here, bit hard to judge as I also feel like his reputation outweighs the actual results...)

The rest is for the next round IMO.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Thing is, I'd have Crosby #1 here.

Crosby
Hasek
Bourque
Morenz

The rest is for the next round IMO.

That's likely my top 4 as of now. I'm a big Lidstrom fan but as boring dominant as he was as a 2 way player, I'm just not sure I can get him over those 4 you listed.

Probably have Jagr, Mikita and Shore in the bottom group right now.

 

[bobholly39]

Bob Holly's post at the top of the page, where he compares Crosby to Hasek. He is not factoring in Hasek's pre-nhl career. He is comparing them strictly based on their nhl careers. Hasek clearly has Crosby beat on longevity once his career from the 1980's is taken into consideration. This doesn't matter too much to me, I expect Hasek to get voted in soon.

I did a more in depth comparison of Crosby and Hasek (and bourque and roy) in the previous round. In there i definitely did consider Haseks pre-nhl career and Crosby still came ahead by a good bit.

Haseks overall career has Crosby beat on longevity ur right. But strictly nhl wise longevity is close and probably in Crosbys favor in terms of # of seasons and playoffs.

If someone is going to convince me to rank Hasek above Crosby i need to be convinced his peak is substantially higher. Theres not been a lot of arguments made around it so far.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nobody here is saying that. But Jagr didn't start playing on expansion level rosters until the very late 90's. Without Mario he never carried Pitt, even before the team went into the dumps. Certainly never did in NY or beyond.

Hasek wasn't playing for crap teams either. Buffalo was obviously not on the level of the actual dynasties that were around, but that narrative can go both ways.

89-90 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
90-91 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
91-92 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
92-93 Buffalo was in the playoff with Hasek but he wasn't their full time starter yet.

Dom needed to actually join a dynasty to finally win a Cup btw. Ironic.

The expansion, weak team argument can only be believed if we deny 2017-18 Las Vegas going to the SC finals. General point, not attributing to IE.

Was Fleury better than Hasek? Karlsson more valuable than Jagr?

Does beating Las Vegas cheapen Ovechkin's SC? Does it deserve an *?

Trying to score cheap, invalid points does not work. Only deflates the value of actual achievements.

 

[bobholly39]

That's likely my top 4 as of now. I'm a big Lidstrom fan but as boring dominant as he was as a 2 way player, I'm just not sure I can get him over those 4 you listed.

Probably have Jagr, Mikita and Shore in the bottom group right now.

Thats my top 4 too although im not as high on lidstrom as u and am much higher on Jagr

If anyone is going to upset that top 4 its Jagr or maybe OV for me. Plante too i suppose - not enough talk of him so far.

In fact would like to see someone tackle Jagr vs Bourque.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Man if Bourque had even just a standard "good" postseason resume in relation to other players already listed or up for discussion now, he'd be a guy you could argue as high as 5th. His peak is great and his longevity at a high rate of play is 2nd to only Gordie Howe IMO.

Hope he gets one of the next few permanent spots.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lidstrom has a chance to leap frog Bourque for me actually...I want to go back and watch some more early Lidstrom...I don't remember much about him before the '97 Final.

Early Bourque (the first 10 years) dissuaded me from voting him in last round...he made a lot more questionable defensive decisions, even in 1v1 situations, and it made me uncomfortable...I want to be clear though, my prelim list had him in the top 10, so when I say I got "uncomfortable" it's a matter top 10 vs not top 10. I also had him back to back with Lidstrom. Lidstrom now has the opportunity to jump in...

I think Sedinery said it upthread, but I am almost certainly not letting Shore off the mat here either...he's the worst defenseman available to us imo, and that's coming from someone who doesn't love Potvin or his era of dominance that much (again, relative to my peers here...Potvin was my 7th d-man...two of which have not become available yet)...

Uninteresting note, I had Shore/Hasek/Ovechkin back to back to back...and it's semi-likely that I'm the lowest on at least two of them...I probably cut Hasek down too much, he's starting to grow on me as the discussion continues...that said, if I was king for a day, we wouldn't have any goalies yet (suck on that one, qpq...).

My early impression is that Lidstrom/Bourque/Crosby/Morenz will be in the black...I think Jagr will be too...speaking just for me, of course, it seems like there's gonna be midterm-election-like response to Hasek not getting in last vote...I'm not entirely sure I have a problem with that, I'm also quite sure I don't matter in that regard...

Oh, one last point for anyone who cares what I think...going back and watching Bobby Hull in the playoffs, he was much, much more impactful than Mikita was...naturally, I'm not going to just stop there and dust my hands of the situation...but I'm not in a hurry to get Mikita on the board...

 

[ImporterExporter]

The expansion, weak team argument can only be believed if we deny 2017-18 Las Vegas going to the SC finals. General point, not attributing to IE.

Was Fleury better than Hasek? Karlsson more valuable than Jagr?

Does beating Las Vegas cheapen Ovechkin's SC? Does it deserve an *?

Trying to score cheap, invalid points does not work. Only deflates the value of actual achievements.

Agreed. I don't hold beating Las Vegas against the Caps or Ovechkin...and I despise them as a Pittsburgh fan haha. They earned that Cup, Ovechkin stepped up and Kuznetsov more or less pulled an 09 Malkin, stealing some thunder from the team's captain down the stretch, namely in the finals.

I've just never been one to give Hasek some mythical position because he took Buffalo from a 1st round exit team to a franchise that could contend for deeper runs and even got the finals once.

As i correctly pointed out, Buffalo was already a playoff team before Hasek got there. And they still didn't get out of the 1st round until 97-98.

The notion Hasek somehow propelled Buffalo to insane heights from the depths of hell is utter fantasy.

With that being said, I still have him as a top 15 player all time. I just never understood how somebody could put him above Roy. At all.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't rush to induct Morenz quite yet if you are one of those who thought an ineligible contemporary of his was likely better. Let's have the arguments available once the guy is eligible.

If someone is better than the other candidates this round, he should be voted above them, regardless of who is unavailable.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well Richard making it over Hasek/Bourque/Morenz/Crosby is a travesty, but alas here we are.

One 15 year span (of primes) is grossly overrepresented in the top 9, and one team in that span makes up 1/3rd of the top 9. That boggles my mind how one dynasty claims 3 of the top 9 when no player from equally impressive dynasties as the 70s Habs, 80 Islanders and Oilers, or 60s Leafs have made it in, and only one player has made it in from the 50s Red Wings. I respect Old Time hockey, but this is supposed to be era neutral, while this is turning into "glorify the 50s and early 60s to the detriment of every other era".

I'd say it would be closer to a travesty if he didn't make it over those players.

There were no equally impressive dynasties. Only the 1950's Canadiens won 5 Cups in a row. And Richard won 3 more & Beliveau 5 more outside of that dynasty.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sources to do some research:

Google News Archive Search
www.newspapers.com (need subscription, 7$ a month or 20$ a month depending which level you take)
Vault Archive (sports illustrated archive)

 

[bobholly39]

If someone is better than the other candidates this round, he should be voted above them, regardless of who is unavailable.

Just quoting this for extra emphasis.

Please adhere to this or it jeapordizes integrity of voting imo.

 

[MXD]

(Your post on Morenz/Crosby)
Either way I don't have Morenz near the bottom of my list this round. I just think at this point Sid has passed him by a decent margin.

I'm actually glad to see that you're arguing in good faith... And Crosby having passed Morenz is absolutely and totally defensible. I just wanted to make sure you weren't going for the old trick of making a player worse than he actually was.

Carry on

 

[MXD]

Agree on Morenz suffering some (to what degree we may never truly know) from lack of complete assists pre consolidation especially.

Which reminds me that I really should be working on finishing my table and finding a suitable format...

 

[daver]

Some assert Jagr was simply not given the minutes or role before that rather than not being nearly as good as he was in his prime. If it's the latter, then this is one reason why he OV are very close as Jagr did put up higher quality seasons in his prime than OV did but OV has more pretty good seasons than Jagr.

Just wondering if Jagr could have hit the ground running more than he did or do his numbers speak forthemselves regardless of his usage and minutes early on?

 

[quoipourquoi]

i don't necessarily remember it this way. i would say that through the '80s it was probably the other way around. bourque by the mid-80s establishing himself as one of the league's "mortal MVPs" (my term for the best guy after gretzky/mario) while messier, while tremendous, still having question marks about benefitting from being in a second banana situation.

I think you may be underselling Mark Messier’s reputation in the 1980s. I mean, even Bourque himself told Messier at the 1987 Canada Cup that if Bourque was a General Manager, Messier would be the player he’d pick to start a franchise.

Gretzky and Messier both turned 24 in January. Because of Gretzky`s unparalleled excellence, Messier probably never again will be a first-team All-Star. But a case can be made that he is the second best center in the National Hockey League.

''Wayne was hurt, and I moved Messier to center the game after we lost that game (11-0) in Hartford,'' recalled Sather. ''I knew he was able to play center, and he wasn`t as dominating as he could be on left wing. A good center is much more effective than a good wing. By putting Mark at center, I was giving him more faceoffs, getting him more involved with carrying the puck and making plays and putting him in a position to be more effective at forechecking. Very few centers have his size coupled with his skating ability.''

The best all-around player in the NHL today (and has been for several seasons)

It isn't enough for Messier, 27, to be one of the NHL's five best players and to be the leading scorer in the playoffs (at the end of the second round he had 20 points in nine games) for a team that is a strong favorite to win its fourth Stanley Cup in five years. Winning—on the ice or on the links—is all-important to Messier.

What exactly is the benefit of being “second banana” when it is pretty well established that it choked off his powerplay production and shifted him from a Left Wing position where he was coming off having collected three-consecutive All-Star selections to one where he was unlikely to continue receiving accolades?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thats my top 4 too although im not as high on lidstrom as u and am much higher on Jagr

If anyone is going to upset that top 4 its Jagr or maybe OV for me. Plante too i suppose - not enough talk of him so far.

In fact would like to see someone tackle Jagr vs Bourque.

Kind of like Orr vs. Gretzky. 200 foot player against offensive monster. Except Bourque played forever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"I think you may be underselling Mark Messier’s reputation in the 1980s. I mean, even Bourque himself told Messier at the 1987 Canada Cup that if Bourque was a General Manager, Messier would be the player he’d pick to start a franchise."

I think Bourque said that to all the boys.

 

[MXD]

Kind of like Orr vs. Gretzky. 200 foot player against offensive monster. Except Bourque played forever.

... And Jagr kinda did the same as well.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Not gonna lie, my body IS ready to vote Messier #1 if someone massages my brain in that direction throughout the week.

Best playoff performer this round with Plante, managed to grab two Hart with 66/99 still in their prime, all-around play, leadership, longevity.I'm not totally convinced Crosby is better.

 

[Sentinel]

Not gonna lie, my body IS ready to vote Messier #1 if someone massages my brain in that direction throughout the week.

I really hope someone will massage your brain in the opposite direction.

I'd say it would be closer to a travesty if he didn't make it over those players.

There were no equally impressive dynasties. Only the 1950's Canadiens won 5 Cups in a row. And Richard won 3 more & Beliveau 5 more outside of that dynasty.

Islanders won WAY more series in a row than 50s Canadiens. Their last one -- against what was possibly the greatest offensive machine of all time. It was easier to stand out when there were only two good teams in the league.

 

[Sentinel]

Somehow I still see Eddie Shore at the bottom of the list of defencemen.

He must have done something to your grandfather. I can't believe we still need to defend a 4 Harts / 8 Norrises defenseman.