Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by quoipourquoi, Nov 11, 2018.

  1. Dr John Carlson

    Dr John Carlson Light is all over us

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,978
    Likes Received:
    1,734
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    I rip and run.
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    I'd like to see Malkin in the next vote, but it's not a shame that he's unavailable this round. Easy to forget that while his per-game impact is extremely high, he only has 3 or 4 full seasons that make him relevant at this stage.

    Five straight years between his Hart season and last season where he missed 26% of Pittsburgh's total games really hurts him. And it's not like his missed time can be chalked up to freak injuries like Crosby's puck to the jaw.
     
  2. canucks4ever

    canucks4ever Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    101
    I agree 100% with the Forsberg/Lindros comparisons, Bure is far below them in my opinion.

    I hope lindros sneaks into the bottom of the list because a peak lindros had the impact of a top 20 all time great.
     
  3. Sentinel

    Sentinel Registered User

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    8,132
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Home Page:
    Kharlamov. Has a claim as a top 3 player in the world in 1970-1976 (yeah, tell me he was worse than Clarke).
     
  4. Sentinel

    Sentinel Registered User

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    8,132
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Home Page:
    I rank Bure ahead of Lindros.
     
    ehhedler likes this.
  5. ehhedler

    ehhedler thus edler

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Bure is clearly below Forsberg, but he's not far below Lindros, accomplishment wise. If Lindros was another player (which is, not Eric Lindros), who could stay healthy, then perhaps he could have been far ahead, but he wasn't. I certainly understand if someone wants to rank him above Bure, but the accomplishments just aren't there to put him far ahead. He won a tight Hart/Ross/Pearson in a lockout season, that's it more or less. Full season and he likely gets injured and Jagr pulls ahead. Lindros had a great 97 playoffs, but Bure's in 94 was slightly better (16 game point streak, Churla elbow, PPG over a final series going the distance).

    Lindros, for whatever reason/reasons, couldn't step into the shoes of a leader during the Nagano Olympics, his team missed the final and he was below PPG. Bure captained Russia to the final game and was selected best forward of the tournament.
     
  6. ImporterExporter

    ImporterExporter I troll harder than Poppy

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,151
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Oblivion Express
    I think context matters. Where is the shot coming from? What is it doing for possession. How many shots are getting to the net?

    Why is it that hockey is so resistant to anything "new" when it comes to evaluating play (not saying you are personally). There are people who still think +/- on the surface matters. I'm talking about the fact that players on the ice when an empty net goal is given up earn a minus. How ridiculous is that? The damn net is empty! What if you're skating off behind an odd man rush and a goal happens while you're still technically on the ice? You get a plus. Did you deserve it?

    There are absolutely times when the Caps have been to focused on feeding 8 that they give up other quality chances. How many of those 8000+ shots were literally .00001% chance attempts? I don't know but I'm sure they exist. Dismissing that and the disparity between his peers smacks of....something lol.

    We need to get beyond raw data when evaluating this game. I'm not slighting 8's goal scoring. He scored those goals. Nobody can take that away from him.

    BUT. And I think there is some merit to that but, his goal scoring totals are gotten by taking such a massive amount of shots relative to his peers. So A, nobody else in the league is shooting as much as Ovechkin. Not even close. I've shown the numbers quite clearly. And then, B, on top of that, his competition for goal scoring supremacy in this era is very weak. There is no Gordie Howe challenging him. There is no Mario, or Richard, or Hull.

    Crosby scored 50 in a season. Good chance he hits 60+ in 2011. Are you, or anyone else really going to argue that if Sid cared more about being a goal scorer he couldn't have hit 50+ in more than a few seasons? What if he took another 200 shots a season? Same with Stamkos if he hadn't suffered so many debilitating injuries + MSL being a geezer by the time Stammer hit his stride. Ovechkin has literally launched 100% more shots on net (misses included) than those guys. Is he doubling them up in totals? No.

    Your question about being a net positive or not is certainly a good question and one that probably can't be completely answered but how much has success has Ovechkin and his teams had since 2006? It literally took them 13 years to win a Cup. Before that, never once, not once did they go past the 2nd round. It's certainly not all 8's fault. But he's not blameless either.

    That includes 3 President trophy winning teams and multiple other 1st place teams within their division/conference. So those folks who will surely show up can spare me the whining about the Pens had more talent, the rest of the team always dropped the ball and 8 was great, yada, yada, yada. Ovechkin has almost always played on very, very strong rosters that often were better than most of the teams in the league. Why is it that they routinely came up short?

    If anything, I'd say that dismissing the notion that an unbalanced offensive scheme revolving around setting up 8 so that he could launch repeated bombs played into that. Might not have been the key. But I think it mattered.


    Completely disagree. See above.


    You have such a narrow view on analytics sir. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but if you only care about raw totals, then you really don't need to be involved in complex studies.

    No, if player A scored 55 goals on 600 total shots attempted and player B scores 52 goals on 500 total shots attempted, then player B is, IMO, every bit the goal scorer that player A is. Efficiency does matter. At least to some extent IMO. This is a team game. Teams win Cups. Is it any wonder why Crosby and the Pens have been to 4 Cup finals, despite never once being a President trophy winning team? Do I need to point out how few times the Pens actually had a better record than the Caps in the regular season?
     
  7. wetcoast

    wetcoast Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    316
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    To the above post, it's pretty clear that some teams can have alot of regular season success and still do poorly in the playoffs due to poor team construction.

    See the Canucks under the Sedins and Vigneault as coach.

    Or those Pens teams led by Jagr in the late 90's.

    Not all teams that have very good to great regular seasons are set up structurally for great playoff runs.

    Put another way, the Capitals led by Ovechkin in the 2010 playoffs didn't lose because Ovechkin was shooting too much or his his "real shooting %" was low, it was because Halak did his best Bernie Parent impersonation in that first round.
     
  8. canucks4ever

    canucks4ever Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Accomplishments,sure. I just think in a vacuum, lindros, Forsberg and Malkin are vastly superior.
     
  9. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    38,355
    Likes Received:
    2,194
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    In this round? King Clancy.
     
  10. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I don't think your context really applies in his peak years. Wasn't he generating offense besides him actually scoring in his earlier years? Seems like he got a lot of assists from rebounds being scored from the havoc he could create when he drove the net. I think there is also something to be said about simply getting the puck on net much more than anyone too.

    IMO, there is no argument that he was able to get the puck in the net better than anyone else regardless of deployment or shots taken. I don't think you can argue efficiency to bring another player up to his level. Raw goal totals count. If another player put up a similar amount, then I think you would have a point but this is not the case.

    I think you are arguing against his goal totals being viewed more valuable than Crosby's point totals. I don't think the majority in HOH feel that way or feel that OV's game was as conducive to team success as Crosby's.
     
    Nick Hansen likes this.
  11. bobholly39

    bobholly39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Trophy Points:
    126
    You're saying a bunch of different things and changing the subject like 10x in 2 paragraphs.

    I'm not saying raw points is all that matters in hockey. How you got that from my post i'd like to know - maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

    What i'm saying is that PP vs ES, or P/60 or sh% are all means to an end. The end is actually getting the goal, or point.

    In the case of your example of a player scoring 55 goals vs one scoring 52 goals - well with no additional data I'd be tempted to say the one with 55 goals had the better season. Assists, overall play, defensive play, intangible, heck even leadership qualities may change the answer since 55 and 52 are so close - but insomuch as looking strictly at goal totals, 55 > 52. I don't care about # of shots. If anything the guy with 100 more shots sounds like he had the puck more often and helped control the flow of the game more.

    How we get from talking about a made up player with 55 goals and one with 52 goals to talking about Crosby being better than Ov because cup counting i'm not sure...
     
    Nick Hansen likes this.
  12. Canadiens1958

    Canadiens1958 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    18,911
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Lake Memphremagog, QC.
    Giving up the puck 100 more times for a maximum benefit of 3 goals seems like sub .500 strategy.
     
    ImporterExporter likes this.
  13. bobholly39

    bobholly39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Trophy Points:
    126
    It's all guesswork without more data. It also means you had the puck long enough to generate those extra 100 shots, and hence kept the puck away from the opposite team for that much longer. And there's no guarantee that a shot = turning the puck over - as rebounds are often given.

    Like I said - all guesswork.

    Scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals - without further data supplied, 55 goals > 52 goals.

    Still waiting to hear how this leads to Cup counting means Crosby > Ovi.
     
    Dr John Carlson likes this.
  14. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Doesn't one have to get the puck first in order to give it up? And who says that each missed shot goes to the other team?
     
  15. Canadiens1958

    Canadiens1958 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    18,911
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Lake Memphremagog, QC.
    No guesswork, look at the 2017-18 data and get back to us.

    2017-18 NHL Summary | Hockey-Reference.com

    Then breakdown shots within a team.

    Basically a team cannot afford long game stretches without scoring.
     
  16. Theokritos

    Theokritos Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,521
    Likes Received:
    827
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Calculating points per shot (instead of goals per shot) would account for that, no?
     
    seventieslord likes this.
  17. bobholly39

    bobholly39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Trophy Points:
    126
    I don't know - i'm not sure what the argument even is anymore with so much back and forth.

    My argument was that on an individual basis - in a given season - I care about actual points, and actual goals. Efficiency is a means to the end - the end is the actual point, or the actual goal, not how many shots it takes to achieve it.

    If player 1 takes 600 shots and scores 50 goals
    And if player 2 takes 400 shots and scores 40 goals

    Everything else being equal (or with lack of further data) - 50 > 40 goals. Same idea for points instead of goals.

    Now if someone wants to further analyze one specific player in one specific season and try to calculate how many of his missed shots lead to turnovers, vs how many of his attempted shots are actually beneficial because his teams keeps the puck very long before each shot vs how many rebounds off of his shots give his team back puck control vs any other number of components - then sure we might be able to come up with a proper analysis of whether more shots in a specific season by a specific player can sometimes be a bad thing.

    But without that - to me more shots is always a good thing, especially if it leads to more actual goals (or points).
     
  18. ImporterExporter

    ImporterExporter I troll harder than Poppy

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,151
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Oblivion Express
    How much success have the Caps had since 8 came into the league with him being the sole focal point offensively? Bombing near or twice as many shots as anyone else in the league?

    If you think shots are simply an inherently good thing I'd suggest you/we evaluate things beyond simple raw totals.
     
  19. bobholly39

    bobholly39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Trophy Points:
    126
    How many nuclear bombs have gone off on Earth since Ovechkin has come into the league? 0. I guess Ovi for world peace is a good thing.

    Logic gap = Logic gap.
    Reading comprehension = Reading comprehension
     
  20. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I have been more gassy since OV entered the league. I am thinking now there isn't a connection.
     
  21. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    More than every other team except the Pens, Hawks, and Kings, maybe the Wings and Bruins.
     
    Dr John Carlson likes this.
  22. ImporterExporter

    ImporterExporter I troll harder than Poppy

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,151
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Oblivion Express
    13 years, once past the 2nd round.

    What is the outlier?
     
  23. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    OV legitimately is a Top 5 -10 playoff performer of his era. Yes, his playoff resume does not quite live up to his RS resume which can be reasonably viewed as his game not being as conducive to playoff success as two other notable players' games. This certainly seems to be reflected in his HOH ranking.

    I am sensing a Jagr-like multi-page debate so I will leave it at that.
     
  24. Mike Farkas

    Mike Farkas Grace Personified

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    9,353
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    PA
    More dimension = less restricted by advanced scouting.

    Players that lack it or lack the hockey smarts to adapt sufficiently, often fail. Unless you're the most technically skilled player in the league by a good margin, like Maurice Richard for instance. Ovechkin, Stamkos, Housley, etc. not nearly good enough to do it on talent alone...thus, consistent failure when the chips are down.

    Luckily, for some, the ship gets buoyed with them on board...let's see Stamkos this playoffs now that he's, what, like the 5th best player on the Lightning...6th? Whatever it is...

    Not that anyone can win one alone, of course...but you also want to ensure there isn't a (near) single point of failure by channeling your game plan through a one-dimensional player...
     
    Canadiens1958 likes this.
  25. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    17,011
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Is this mike on?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"