Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[The Macho King]

I'm struggling with this between Sid and Ovi at the moment. It "feels" wrong to have a big gap between them on the list, but when I objectively compare Ovechkin to the names available for voting this round, He will fall somewhere in the middle third of the vote, which would put 7 or 8 names between them.

Loom at it this way - of the thousands of possibilities in hockey history, their separation is comparatively incredibly small. 7-8 players (or so) out of 10000? That's pretty damn close.

 

[pappyline]

I'm struggling with this between Sid and Ovi at the moment. It "feels" wrong to have a big gap between them on the list, but when I objectively compare Ovechkin to the names available for voting this round, He will fall somewhere in the middle third of the vote, which would put 7 or 8 names between them.

I had Ovie and Crosby right next to each other. Maybe Crosby went too soon.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I'm the biggest Ovechkin fan in this thing and I think the gap right now between Crosby and Ovechkin seems fair...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm the biggest Ovechkin fan in this thing and I think the gap right now between Crosby and Ovechkin seems fair...

Highly respect that coming from a big Ovi fan. I have no issue with saying Ovechkin's regular season resume puts him right there with Sid. Hell if somebody argued he's better than Sid as far as regular season goes, I'm open to that as well. I give Ovi big marks for playing a hard, physical game, at least offensively, and yet still remaining healthy year in and year out.

But the real gap is in postseason and international play. That is why there is and should be a gap IMHO. For now.

Both look like they have plenty left in the tank so we'll see where it all shakes out!

 

[ImporterExporter]

The only blemish I see thus far is Jagr.

I just can't wrap my head around how he jumped 9 spots from a decade ago, with nothing to note since 2008 done in his career, over players far more accomplished across postseason and international play. Messier comes to mind immediately. The only thing he has on Messier as a player is offensive ability and yet MM managed to snag more Hart's than Jagr somehow in a tougher time frame.

Jagr will give you roughly 25 more points a year than Messier but Messier will give you a complete game, PK at a high rate and lead teams to titles while not routinely dropping the ball in crunch time. It's why i value Art Ross's a hellova lot less than other awards. Jagr was a self serving, me first player, who played on teams that chased points because they rarely defended. At least players like Gretzky and Lemieux did amazing things in the postseason, routinely. They might have been offensive only players as well but they dominated the game more and did more when it mattered most.

Then there's him over Red Kelly.

 

[bobholly39]

The only blemish I see thus far is Jagr.

I just can't wrap my head around how he jumped 9 spots from a decade ago, with nothing to note since 2008 done in his career, over players far more accomplished across postseason and international play. Messier comes to mind immediately. The only thing he has on Messier as a player is offensive ability and yet MM managed to snag more Hart's than Jagr somehow in a tougher time frame.

Jagr will give you roughly 25 more points a year than Messier but Messier will give you a complete game, PK at a high rate and lead teams to titles while not routinely dropping the ball in crunch time. It's why i value Art Ross's a hellova lot less than other awards. Jagr was a self serving, me first player, who played on teams that chased points because they rarely defended. At least players like Gretzky and Lemieux did amazing things in the postseason, routinely. They might have been offensive only players as well but they dominated the game more and did more when it mattered most.

Then there's him over Red Kelly.

Again with the Jagr hate?

How can you possibly think you've not already said that often enough already?

He's ranked. Move on

 

[Killion]

Both look like they have plenty left in the tank so we'll see where it all shakes out!

Indeed so.... From the REARVIEW MIRROR. Why are they being discussed AT ALL I/E?. Uh? Stop Please.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I am just putting my thoughts to this point in the appropriate place. Jagr sticks out like a sore thumb to me because some have tunnel vision on points and Art Ross trophies. So were the 5 people who had Plante NR'd last round. Sorry. Part of having, and hearing opinions. The other active thread is for discussing other players now. Hence why I'm here which is an overview thread of the entire project.

I think this project has largely been fantastic minus some of the personal attacks between a few people which have since been shut down. But i'll continue to voice my support and displeasure as I see it and I would hope any member that is taking hours out of their day to bring forth information/hearty discussion to the table, would do the same.

When we get another few rounds in, I'll have some more generalized views.

Rankings I'm really glad about:

Beliveau (one of my favorite players all time. wish I could have seen him grace the ice)
Roy (my pick for greatest goalie ever, should be a top 10 player, great to see happen)
Crosby (Has done and won just about everything you can, by age 30, multiple times in most cases)
Lidstrom (The boring superstar. A metronome of excellence on defense)

Rankings that seem just right:

Bourque (2nd greatest longevity, behind only Gordie IMO)
Hasek (human highlight reel. greatest regular season peak of any goalie ever.)
Shore (7th was too high last time, he's right about where he should be now IMO)

Rankings I'm most miffed on:

Jagr (mid 20's player IMO, which is where he was 10 years ago)
Morenz (not THAT miffed, just a bit high for my taste)

 

[Theokritos]

This is indeed the appropriate place to discuss the placement of Jaromír J., but at this point we've heard the back and forth arguments multiple times. With the player already voted in and the project still going on, it doesn't strike me as productive to rehash the debate again and again, no matter in which thread. So let's give this topic a break for the time being, shall we?

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is indeed the appropriate place to discuss the placement of Jaromír J., but at this point we've heard the back and forth arguments multiple times. With the player already voted in and the project still going on, it doesn't strike me as productive to rehash the debate again and again, no matter in which thread. So let's give this topic a break for the time being, shall we?

Understood and acknowledged.

Won't hear about it again from me.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

My opinion may not mean as much since I'm not a voter in this, but I think the biggest explanation for Jagr's jump in positions is a mix of seeing him continue to play (longevity is important to many people) and the general opinion of him improving since his return to the NHL. I don't believe anyone was thinking "I like him more now than back then so I'll rank him higher" but it may have subconsciously affected how some people view him.

Or maybe it's because there are different voters this time and opinions can change over the course of a decade. That one makes more sense

 

[The Macho King]

My opinion may not mean as much since I'm not a voter in this, but I think the biggest explanation for Jagr's jump in positions is a mix of seeing him continue to play (longevity is important to many people) and the general opinion of him improving since his return to the NHL. I don't believe anyone was thinking "I like him more now than back then so I'll rank him higher" but it may have subconsciously affected how some people view him.

Or maybe it's because there are different voters this time and opinions can change over the course of a decade. That one makes more sense

Without relitigating it - Jagr's return wasn't meaningful longevity. For instance, the fact that Chelios played until he was 133 isn't going to be a huge mark in his favor. No one brought up Howe's 1980 season (or really even his WHA years) to bolster his case. Jagr collecting paychecks and attempting to play at least one game for every franchise in the NHL should not have been a factor (and to be fair, I don't necessarily think it was).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Jagr getting two not-insignificant looks at RW all-star voting at the ages of 41 and 43 two eras removed from the era he came into the league in, though, does help his longevity case...

 

[wetcoast]

I had Ovie and Crosby right next to each other. Maybe Crosby went too soon.

He looks pretty good where he is.

Very few players have had as much impact for as long as he has.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Jagr getting two not-insignificant looks at RW all-star voting at the ages of 41 and 43 two eras removed from the era he came into the league in, though, does help his longevity case...

Agreed. I didn't completely ignore his 13/14 and 15/16 seasons when evaluating longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jagr getting two not-insignificant looks at RW all-star voting at the ages of 41 and 43 two eras removed from the era he came into the league in, though, does help his longevity case...

4th and 5th place finishes in right wing All-Star voting (at a weak time for RW) are pretty insignificant when discussing the top 20 players of all-time.

 

[Captain Bowie]

4th and 5th place finishes in right wing All-Star voting (at a weak time for RW) are pretty insignificant when discussing the top 20 players of all-time.

I don't think the AS placements were what was impressive specifically. Finishing on the cusp of top 20 and leading your team in scoring, at the age of 41 and 43, is not completely irrelevant when analyzing longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think the AS placements were what was impressive specifically. Finishing on the cusp of top 20 and leading your team in scoring, at the age of 41 and 43, is not completely irrelevant when analyzing longevity.

Longevity as a productive player, yes. Longevity as an elite player, no. Depends what you care about.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Longevity as a productive player, yes. Longevity as an elite player, no. Depends what you care about.

I suppose, though "productive" and "elite" might be a matter of semantics.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I suppose, though "productive" and "elite" might be a matter of semantics.

Call it what you want, but there's a big difference between a mostly offense-only forward finishing just out of the top 20 in scoring, and competing for the Art Ross.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lucky for Jagr it's longevity in both...across three eras he's an impact player...

So, yes, getting significant voting at his position in a season that 99.9% of NHLers aren't good enough to play in is a nice garnish on top of being the best player in the world from the first time Lemieux quit until he came back and even through that time until he got to Washington...before re-surfacing on a new team (with just a bunch of milk bags on it and young Lundqvist), in a new era, and was a John Madden faceoff loss away from being the MVP again...at the age of 34...

My list is not sorted by "best 43 year old seasons"...but it's impressive he can be impactful, like that, on a playoff team, 25 years into his career...even on this stage.

 

[The Macho King]

If that's actually affecting people's votes...

...

I mean shit - was he a top 50 player a single season when he came back? That should be completely f***ing irrelevant.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Since others have chimed in I'll say this.

Jagr's career value almost entirely centers around the regular season. He chased points while never adapting his game to make the team better. And then in the postseason his production plunged. Often. At least Guy Lafleur was a demon in the playoffs. Same with Esposito.

Art Ross trophies never excited me much. At least not on the surface.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Two things...take them as you will...whoever "you" is in this case...

A) We're painting a picture. This isn't a math problem, this isn't a counting exercise. Otherwise, you wouldn't need logic and reasoning.

B) IE's post, with all due respect, is "almost entirely" incorrect in my eyes...maybe I'm a Jagr homer and he's a Jagr hater and we cancel...but he was a monster in plenty of playoffs...'92, '96, '99, '01, immediately came to mind...he definitely adapted his game where it called for it...'92 in the Penguins major forechecking alteration to come back from 3-1 from Washington...embraced Florida/Boston structural changes compared to what he was used to playing...Lafleur and Esposito had a lot more help in the postseason...Jagr had some friends like Robert Lang and Jan Hrdina, but they can't be counted on in a series situation, and the teams were built with no bottom six forwards or defensemen...it was already demonstrated statistically (in case it wasn't blatantly obvious to those who watched those Jagr prime years) how alone Jagr was besides the line that he was on...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Two things...take them as you will...whoever "you" is in this case...

A) We're painting a picture. This isn't a math problem, this isn't a counting exercise. Otherwise, you wouldn't need logic and reasoning.

B) IE's post, with all due respect, is "almost entirely" incorrect in my eyes...maybe I'm a Jagr homer and he's a Jagr hater and we cancel...but he was a monster in plenty of playoffs...'92, '96, '99, '01, immediately came to mind...he definitely adapted his game where it called for it...'92 in the Penguins major forechecking alteration to come back from 3-1 from Washington...embraced Florida/Boston structural changes compared to what he was used to playing...Lafleur and Esposito had a lot more help in the postseason...Jagr had some friends like Robert Lang and Jan Hrdina, but they can't be counted on in a series situation, and the teams were built with no bottom six forwards or defensemen...it was already demonstrated statistically (in case it wasn't blatantly obvious to those who watched those Jagr prime years) how alone Jagr was besides the line that he was on...

Mike we agree on quite a bit but you're flat out wrong on so many things here.

I don't think you understand what "monster" means and the way you apply it is a slap in the face to guys who actually put up monster playoffs. Do i really need to show you and others what a monster playoff really is. A playoff, not a game or even a series.

Jagr NEVER ONCE led the postseason in scoring or any meaningful stat. And he's certainly not a guy you point to and say, "well he sacrificed offense to penalty kill or play stiffling defense". He didn't do any of that. Ever. His intangibles were completely centered around one zone of 200 feet of ice and I have a problem with that. Especially when he was routinely outplayed by "lesser" hockey players in April/May.

92?
-He was fourth on the Pens in scoring, barely over a PPG, in an era where scoring was insanely high. Oh, i know, he was 19 years old. I don't care. That's not a monster playoff. He did next to nothing in the Cup final. Ron Francis was the man against the Rangers after Mario went down. Both offensively and defensively. Period. I might have been younger then but I had a decent idea what was going on and watching those games now, it's abundantly clear that Jagr had a few great moments mixed in with decent stuff, and also there's. Nowhere close to a monster playoff.

The Pens won that title on the backs of Mario (when he was there) Barrasso and Francis and then MAYBE Jags.

96?
-3rd round exit where Jagr was crap in the 3rd round against FLORIDA? Not a monster playoff. You can't have a monster playoff when you bow out in round 3 and played like crap in the 3rd round exit. Next.

99?
-Bounced in round 2 and he was outscored by 3 by Martin Straka. Monster? Um no.

01?
-Wow, Pens get back to round 3 (Mario was around, per the norm when the Pens got to this point or beyond). 12 points in 16 games. Amazing production from peak Jagr! Behind a 35 year old Lemieux and Straka again.

This is why I have such disdain for the guy but really people who create false narratives about him. I was there, I was watching him most nights. He scored a lot of points in the REGULAR SEASON on teams that rarely or never defended so they had to score a lot to keep up. And when the chips were down way more often than not Jagr was nowhere to be found or was being outpointed by lesser players.