Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Killion]

I'm not saying that Red Kelly didn't help, he did, but there was a ton of reasons why those Leafs won 3 straight in the 60's.

That didnt just all boil down to Red....... Correct....Yet to hear some talk... Got MORONS on my team.

 

[Sentinel]

I am spot on the Big Four, Beliveau, Roy, and Lidstrom.

 

[Killion]

I am spot on the Big Four, Beliveau, Roy, and Lidstrom.

4th being?

 

[seventieslord]

4th being?

I think he means "the big four" plus those three.

 

[bobholly39]

I am spot on the Big Four, Beliveau, Roy, and Lidstrom.

Surprised to see you have Roy so high - and almost expected you to have Lemieux at 5 with Hasek at 4.

7 right is pretty good

 

[Michael Farkas]

We keep using that word "right"...

 

[Sentinel]

Surprised to see you have Roy so high - and almost expected you to have Lemieux at 5 with Hasek at 4.

7 right is pretty good

Yeah, I caved it to the popular opinion. Hasek is my #5 and Roy #7.

 

[Sentinel]

4th being?

This actually made me laugh out loud.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That's a great quote but Johnny Bower and the stacked Leaf lineup sure helped as well.

Jean and the Habs started to slip the 2 previous playoffs, losing both times to the Black Hawks, before the Leafs first SC in the 60's.

I'm not saying that Red Kelly didn't help, he did, but there was a ton of reasons why those Leafs won 3 straight in the 60's.

No doubt. Other contributors to that dynasty will make this list as well.

But it speaks very highly to Kelly's all-around skill set that Imlach identified him, a defenseman, to be his ace-in-the-hole center in an effort to counter the great Jean Beliveau. And four Cups with Kelly at center suggest that Imlach had a supreme eye for talent.

 

[VanIslander]

Yeah, I caved it to the popular opinion. Hasek is my #5 and Roy #7.

I had Hasek at 7th and Roy at 8th in the 2nd round of voting. They both moved up (Roy a lot more) from my initially submitted 120-name list because there were some great detailed discussions of goaltending.

 

[ResilientBeast]

So I looked at my old list, I made a conscious effort to not look at what I thought going into the exercise and let the arguments presented sway me without a firm ranking.

Of the first 29 - I have 27 in various different places with the two others currently up for vote which makes me happy that my initial list while a little scattered featured the right players.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

I have no problem with OV's ranking. What would it have been w/o a SC win?

 

[MXD]

I have no problem with OV's ranking. What would it have been w/o a SC win?

As far as I'm concerned, and if we take for granted he played the exact same way in the 2018 playoffs (which is something of flimsy proposition, I know), the same.

 

[The Macho King]

As far as I'm concerned, and if we take for granted he played the exact same way in the 2018 playoffs (which is something of flimsy proposition, I know), the same.

Eh - if he's stuck in the second round again, no matter how he played he would have suffered. I'm not thrilled with his ranking, but it's fine. I think he's probably the worst playoff performer we've put in so far (but admittedly that's without deep checking so there may be one or two that have a worse resume), and by far the worst international resume.

 

[MXD]

Eh - if he's stuck in the second round again, no matter how he played he would have suffered. I'm not thrilled with his ranking, but it's fine. I think he's probably the worst playoff performer we've put in so far (but admittedly that's without deep checking so there may be one or two that have a worse resume), and by far the worst international resume.

I was impling that he'd play the same amount of games, too.

 

[bobholly39]

I have no problem with OV's ranking. What would it have been w/o a SC win?

First - thank you for changing the subject.

For me personally i don't think the no SC would change his ranking too horribly much. I already weight him as a mostly decent playoff performer - who simply hadn't managed to achieve a lot of team success yet. But I expect a few people here would have been a real stickler for him not making it past round 2, and it likely knocks him down a bit. Behind Lafleur, at least.

To me I think where the real money is for Ovi is in getting a 2nd smythe/cup. Before the 1 he was by far the weakest playoff performer. Now? He's still near the bottom, comparable to Jagr and a few others. But you give him a 2nd smythe/cup? All of a sudden his playoffs start to look quite strong - and he can move up the ranks significantly.

I mean Messier is ranked right above Ovi. Ovechkin has been a higher profile player than Messier almost his whole career. But Messier is killer in the playoffs. If Ovechkin raises his stock further in playoffs, i think he'll continue to climb the ranks in coming years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You all know I have to lock this thread on 1000 posts, right? Maybe save some room for 2019 and beyond instead of talking about hockey registrations in a project thread?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Update the list in OP or I'll contribute to the participation discussion.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

I would like to see the comments be more directly related to this project.

Clarke fell from 21 to 29 and there's no guarantee Robinson makes 30-34. Is this committee more offense minded than past ones? (I realize was Clarke was great offensively also.)

 

[ImporterExporter]

I would like to see the comments be more directly related to this project.

Clarke fell from 21 to 29 and there's no guarantee Robinson makes 30-34. Is this committee more offense minded than past ones? (I realize was Clarke was great offensively also.)

Not sure how much you've been following but it absolutely is. There are folks that are very, very enamored with raw offensive stats involved. Jagr rose, I think, 9 spots from the 2009 list despite not doing a damn thing of note since 2009. Paul Coffey is up for discussion now with a chance to go in the 35-40 range, which would be a bigger jump from his 46th spot a decade ago.

Some people just aren't willing to admit that not playing defense inherently makes scoring points easier.

But to each their own I guess.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Not sure how much you've been following but it absolutely is. There are folks that are very, very enamored with raw offensive stats involved. Jagr rose, I think, 9 spots from the 2009 list despite not doing a damn thing of note since 2009. Paul Coffey is up for discussion now with a chance to go in the 35-40 range, which would be a bigger jump from his 46th spot a decade ago.
Some people just aren't willing to admit that not playing defense inherently makes scoring points easier. But to each their own I guess.

Thanks for replying and agreed with your defense comments. The Bulls won 6 rings not from Jordan and Pippen's offense, but from them being 2 of the best defensive players of all time. I may not post again, but I'll probably be watching and enjoying.

 

[MXD]

I would like to see the comments be more directly related to this project.

Clarke fell from 21 to 29 and there's no guarantee Robinson makes 30-34. Is this committee more offense minded than past ones? (I realize was Clarke was great offensively also.)

Well...
Ovechkin, Crosby and Frank Nighbor.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll say it - the 2008 and 2009 lists over-represented players who played from about 1940-1980. The positional rankings sorted a lot of that out.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think the 1970s decade in general has been looked at with a little more critical an eye. Orr and Howe have flipped places and Lafleur, Esposito, and Clarke all dropped.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I think the 1970s decade in general has been looked at with a little more critical an eye. Orr and Howe have flipped places and Lafleur, Esposito, and Clarke all dropped.

...to the Greater Glory of Us All!