Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Canadiens1958]

Not sure what your issue is with non-participants. Discussion isn't restricted to the voters.

Contribution isn't restricted to the voters would be more accurate.

Some of the non-voters are prolific without any contribution.

This is an issue. Since replying only makes the situation worse.

 

[MXD]

Not sure what your issue is with non-participants. Discussion isn't restricted to the voters.

I'm concerned with relevance and accuracy. I see that you chose to focus on something else.
Also, O6 is comprised between PreWWII and 1990, the same way 4 is comprised between 3 and 6.

 

[Theokritos]

Also, O6 is comprised between PreWWII and 1990, the same way 4 is comprised between 3 and 6.

I can't follow you. The discussion (initiated by Wrigley) was about Larry Robinson ("one of the best, if not the best, post-O6 defensive dman") dropping and the players who moved past him were listed, with the conclusion (by TheDevilMadeMe) being: "Greater respect for pre-WW2 and post-1990 players this time around." In this context, pappyline's reply ("IMO, it shows declining respect for original 6 players") was a bit puzzling, for how is it a sign of declining respect for O6 players when a post-O6 player is passed by pre-WW2 and post-1990 players?

Not that the opinion itself (O6 players are now underrated) isn't a possibily legit one that couldn't be discussed. Personally I don't agree with that opinion, but I don't doubt pappyline is capable of making a case we could debate about. It's just that the specific instance of Larry Robinson dropping in the rankings can hardly be part of any such case since he wasn't even an O6 player to begin with.

 

[wetcoast]

Contribution isn't restricted to the voters would be more accurate.

Some of the non-voters are prolific without any contribution.

This is an issue. Since replying only makes the situation worse.

I guess opinions, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.

Every post, well almost all of them anyways, is a contribution to the project.

But making sweeping generalizations like 06 players are being disrespected without quantifying how isn't helpful either.

I'm not sure exactly why Mikita and Robinson both dropped but it appears that the voters, on the whole, thought there were other players who were simply better, right?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Robinson fell from 31 to 37. I think he's one of the best, if not the best, post-O6 defensive dman.

Well, as people less than half my age say, I feel you, 'cuz earlier, I wrote:

I don't view myself as a particular critic of Potvin, nor an enthusiastic advocate for Robinson- but really, a couple of years down-the-road, members and lurkers are going to look at the space that we put between these two and wonder "W in T actual F??"

But you know what? Maybe I am, in context, an enthusiastic advocate for Robinson. Still, a little perspective will help all of us (me too!). Five players whose careers were complete went around Robinson. Three of them, Fetisov, Makarov, and Cook- moved by fully on the merits, I'd say. The two others, Brodeur and Sakic- they weren't decisions I would have made, but The Tribe Has Spoken.

Robinson wasn't anywhere near the biggest decliner- there are four others:
Esposito (20 to 27)
Clarke (21 to 29)
Mikita (15 to 24)
Sawchuk (24 to 35!)

The 1½ word summary for each of these drops are (respectively) but Orr, but Filthy-Factor, but Playoffs, and but Inconsistency. I know this is over-glib-- and really, the truly curious should be encouraged to look at the full discussions to get something more than the Classics Illustrated versions of why evaluations were made as they were.

 

[Theokritos]

But making sweeping generalizations like 06 players are being disrespected without quantifying how isn't helpful either.

I'm not sure exactly why Mikita and Robinson both dropped but it appears that the voters, on the whole, thought there were other players who were simply better, right?

Perhaps you should address the posters who actually made those statements you refer to. As far as I can see, Canadiens1958 is not among them.

 

[wetcoast]

Perhaps you should address the posters who actually made those statements you refer to. As far as I can see, Canadiens1958 is not among them.

Perhaps not in this thread but he has made statements other threads to this regard in line with his general comments about non voting.

Some of the non-voters are prolific without any contribution

To be fair though I should have multi quoted it and the comment was made in general to those who make such claims not directly towards Canadians1958.

In the future I will make an effort not to compound one general assertion with another.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, as people less than half my age say, I feel you, 'cuz earlier, I wrote:But you know what? Maybe I am, in context, an enthusiastic advocate for Robinson. Still, a little perspective will help all of us (me too!). Five players whose careers were complete went around Robinson. Three of them, Fetisov, Makarov, and Cook- moved by fully on the merits, I'd say. The two others, Brodeur and Sakic- they weren't decisions I would have made, but The Tribe Has Spoken.

Robinson wasn't anywhere near the biggest decliner- there are four others:
Esposito (20 to 27)
Clarke (21 to 29)
Mikita (15 to 24)
Sawchuk (24 to 35!)

The 1½ word summary for each of these drops are (respectively) but Orr, but Filthy-Factor, but Playoffs, and but Inconsistency. I know this is over-glib-- and really, the truly curious should be encouraged to look at the full discussions to get something more than the Classics Illustrated versions of why evaluations were made as they were.

Clearly the but Filthy-Factor was not used across the board as Chelios moved up.

And the But Orr-Factor somehow trumped the but dynasty and/or other all-time greats- Factor from the 50s Canadiens.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Not sure what your issue is with non-participants. Discussion isn't restricted to the voters.

[START]
This season's non-participant interlocutors could become the Panelists of future seasons.

And, in addressing them, we have the option of engaging and aiding understanding of History, OR we can act like a coterie of wanna-be Zarathustras, [con]descending from the Mountaintops. If we choose the latter, people would not be blamed for viewing us as though we're a bunch of Elitist Dooshes.
[/END]

 

[Canadiens1958]

Historically non-participants allowed to kibbitz do not become participants. Simply too much effort to do the homework and research.

Likewise participants who make reading more difficult for others by constantly changing colours get ignored since life is too short to bother adjusting.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Historically non-participants allowed to kibbitz do not become participants. Simply too much effort to do the homework and research.

Hmmm...

Curious... what bases did you apply- to arrive at the conclusion contained in the second sentence quoted, above?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Participation in too many such projects.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Participation in too many such projects.

Thanks for the straightforward response.

And the But Orr-Factor somehow trumped the but dynasty and/or other all-time greats- Factor from the 50s Canadiens.

We still have time to make partial atonement for that...
.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Will 41-50 be updated soon? I noticed the voting for the last round finished nearly a week ago but the results have not been updated here.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Robinson fell from 31 to 37. I think he's one of the best, if not the best, post-O6 defensive dman.

One of maybe - definitely not the best post 06 defenseman. Bourque, Lidstrom and Potvin all placed ahead of him, without too much surprise.

You need to read much more carefully. I never said that. I've been watching the NHL for over half a century.

 

[Nick Hansen]

You need to read much more carefully. I never said that. I've been watching the NHL for over half a century.

Yeah, but Lidstrom was better I'd say. And I think Potvin and Bourque were more impactful as all around packages.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lurking here with a shameless advertising post, if anyone is interested we've opened signups for ATD 2019 looks like it'll be a smaller draft but any and everyone is welcome.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Lurking here with a shameless advertising post, if anyone is interested we've opened signups for ATD 2019 looks like it'll be a smaller draft but any and everyone is welcome.

I'm going to leave this post here for a week and then delete it, but I think it's worth noting that that ATD, like the top-100 project, is a great way for anyone interested to familiarize themselves with a huge number of historical players in a short time.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Comparison of 2019 project to 2008 project through 49 picks

I'll probably do a more in-depth review once the project is complete, but we're now (nearly) at the halfway point. I compared our results to our original list from 2008 (the 2009 project was abandoned partway).

Significant individual changes

So far we've had seven players jump 10+ spots:

• Sidney Crosby (NR to 12th) - he had just started his career when we did the project more than a decade ago, but has firmly established himself as one of the greatest players of all-time.
• Alex Ovechkin (NR to 22th) - same as Crosby.
• Frank Nighbor (+75, from 95th to 20th) - new evidence obtained over the past decade shows that he was regarded as the best forward of his era (assuming Morenz is part of the next generation), and was an elite defensive forward.
• Sergei Makarov (+51, from 77th to 26th) - new research uncovered his consistently excellent performance in the scoring race and MVP voting in the Soviet leagues; less style but more substance than Valeri Kharlamov (see below).
• Frank Boucher (+17, from 59th to 42nd) - both Boucher and his longtime linemate Bill Cook (up nine spots) are ranked higher now - possibly because we're giving more credit to their time in other pre-consolidation professional leagues?
• Nicklas Lidstrom (+11, from 26th to 15th) - since he was voted in (April 2008), Lidstrom added two more Norris trophies and two deep playoff runs.
• Viacheslav Fetisov (+10, from 35th to 25th) - similar to Makarov, we now have more detailed information about how he was regarded in the Soviet league, which shows how far above his peers he stood.

Other risers include Patrick Roy, Jaromir Jagr, King Clancy and the aforementioned Bill Cook (all +9), and Cyclone Taylor and Henri Richard (both +8).

We've had five players drop 10+ spots:

• Terry Sawchuk (-16, from 19th to 35th) - we don't really have any new information about Sawchuk, but many people criticized him for not accomplishing a whole lot after his dominant first five years.
• Ted Lindsay (-15, from 23rd to 38th) - again, not much new has been uncovered, but people are taking a more critical look at how much he benefited late in his career by playing with Howe. Also, in 2008, Lindsay had a good argument for being the 2nd best left-winger in NHL history. Him being clearly passed by Ovechkin probably hurts.
• Valeri Kharlmov (-13, from 30th to 43rd) - Kharlamov was an exceptionally skilled, almost artistic player, but the now-uncovered data from the Soviet leagues was somewhat disappointing.
• Newsly Lalone (-10, from 29th to 39th). I wouldn't say that there's been a lot of new evidence against Lalonde, but he's fallen because several of his peers (Taylor, Cook and Nighbor) have jumped significantly. I think his decrease corrected where he should have been ranked among the top players born in the late 19th century. Last time we had him clearly first; now he's 4th, which I think is more accurate based on what we know today.
• Stan Mikita (-10, from 14th to 24th). Several reasons for his drop. Some of the decrease is due to us taking a closer (and harsher) look at his playoff resume; some is due to him being passed by a similar (but superior) player in Crosby; some is because we've taken a dimmer view on his longevity (never a top ten scorer in his thirties); and some is due to placing more emphasis on the fact that, at the time, it was a near-consensus that Hull was the better player.

Three more players are going to drop at least 10 spots by virtue of not yet being ranked on our list. Milt Schmidt was 31st last time, so he's going to fall at least 19 spots - people are questioning how "thin" his resume is, with a few elite seasons and lots of inconsistent ones. Bernie Geoffrion was ranked 39th previously, so he's going to drop at least 11 spots. He's dropping due to relatively poor two-way play, and questions about how important he was to such a strong team. Bill Durnan was 44th last time, and isn't even up for voting yet, so his best possible finish is 55th, which is an 11 spot drop - perhaps due to a significant part of his short career taking place during the talent-depleted WWII era?

Other players with large falls include Mike Bossy and Ken Dryden (9 spots each), and Guy Lafleur (8 spots).

Only three players have stayed in the same spots - Wayne Gretzky remained in 1st, Mario Lemieux in 4th, and Bobby Hull in 5th.

General trends

Overall, this project (so far) is harsher on players from the first sixty years of NHL history. Of the 27 players born between 1902 and and 1957 currently on the current list, 17 of them have dropped by at least three spots, and 24 of them have risen by no more than one spot, or fallen (an average decrease of nearly six positions for these 24 players). This doesn't include players who aren't yet on our list, but we know will fall significantly (such as Schmidt, Geoffrion, and Durnan). One of the few exceptions in this category, Henri Richard, has a very clear reason for his increase (newly uncovered data showed that he was an elite ES scorer and received relatively little PP TOI).

The breakdown by positions is fairly similar through the first forty-nine spots. This project has 17 centers, 13 defensemen, 7 goalies, 7 RWs, 4 LWs, and 1 rover. (I'm counting Kelly as D, Messier as C, Ovechkin as LW, and Taylor as rover). The previous project had 16 centers, 12 defensemen, 8 goalies, 8 RWs, 4 LWs, and 1 rover - a change of no more than one player at each position.

Finally, in terms of nationality - so far our project has 41 Canadians, 4 Russians, 2 Czechs, 1 Swede, and 1 American. This is more multicultural than last time - there were 43 Canadians, 2 Russians, 2 Czechs, 1 Swede, and 1 American. At a first glance, that doesn't sound like much (two Canucks traded for two Russians). But last time, there were only two non-Canadians in the top 25 (with one also ranked 26th); this time, we have five in our top 25 (again, with one more ranked 26th).

 

[VMBM]

The lack of Firsov continues to be galling. Mahovlich over Firsov? Ugh.

You'd think that the available YouTube footage from the 1960s/early 1970s with Firsov would have raised his profile a bit, but it doesn't look like it. It's not like I expected a Makarov type of rise, but at least something. For example, Batis did a nice analysis on him (featuring also video clips) which heavily suggested that along with his offensive exploits, he was at least good, if not excellent, defensive player and penalty killer (there are some quotes to back it up too).

Maybe he has that "Soviet player of the '60s" tag too much, I don't know.

 

[Theokritos]

You'd think that the available YouTube footage from the 1960s/early 1970s with Firsov would have raised his profile a bit, but it doesn't look like it. It's not like I expected a Makarov type of rise, but at least something.

I fully understand the sentiment, but just for the record: In the original project back in 2008, Firsov was ranked #84, so there is still some time for him to move up quite a bit.

 

[VMBM]

I fully understand the sentiment, but just for the record: In the original project back in 2008, Firsov was ranked #84, so there is still some time for him to move up quite a bit.

Good call. No, I didn't bother to check that.

Was thinking maybe too much of the Non-NHL Europeans project where he finished above Tretiak and just after Kharlamov. Obviously this is a different kind of project with (mostly) different participants, and more with a North American view.

 

[seventieslord]

You'd think that the available YouTube footage from the 1960s/early 1970s with Firsov would have raised his profile a bit, but it doesn't look like it. It's not like I expected a Makarov type of rise, but at least something. For example, Batis did a nice analysis on him (featuring also video clips) which heavily suggested that along with his offensive exploits, he was at least good, if not excellent, defensive player and penalty killer (there are some quotes to back it up too).

Maybe he has that "Soviet player of the '60s" tag too much, I don't know.

I think he kinda does, and I think he kinda should, to an extent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You'd think that the available YouTube footage from the 1960s/early 1970s with Firsov would have raised his profile a bit, but it doesn't look like it. It's not like I expected a Makarov type of rise, but at least something. For example, Batis did a nice analysis on him (featuring also video clips) which heavily suggested that along with his offensive exploits, he was at least good, if not excellent, defensive player and penalty killer (there are some quotes to back it up too).

Maybe he has that "Soviet player of the '60s" tag too much, I don't know.

YouTube footage also shows the quality of the opposition.

 

[wetcoast]

You'd think that the available YouTube footage from the 1960s/early 1970s with Firsov would have raised his profile a bit, but it doesn't look like it. It's not like I expected a Makarov type of rise, but at least something. For example, Batis did a nice analysis on him (featuring also video clips) which heavily suggested that along with his offensive exploits, he was at least good, if not excellent, defensive player and penalty killer (there are some quotes to back it up too).

Maybe he has that "Soviet player of the '60s" tag too much, I don't know.

I think that is probably the most of it, the level of competition at the WC and OG during his primes wasn't really all that good.

Considering that Forsberg had a longer elite prime, in the NHL, and only went in the last round, one wonders if firsov really deserves to come up on this list.

Is he any better than Federov who was a playoff warrior and an elite NHL season for the ages in his Hart year?