Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[wetcoast]

If we add Duncan Keith before Ed Belfour, I’ll just assume you’re all Defensemen.

Who is Ed Belfour?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Still no Lindros.

Will be interesting to see how far apart Forsberg & Lindros end up.

 

[Sentinel]

Kharlamov is a top 40-50 player, slotted correctly

Will you agree that in the 1971-1976 Kharlamov was in the top five players in the world (Orr, Hull, Espo, Clarke)? And would he not have legitimate claim for #1 in some moments? If so, he should definitely be higher than he is.

Makarov is in the same boat as Fetisov. I also think that he's the best Russian player ever and could warrant a top 12-18, but no higher then that.

I have him at 11.

 

[wetcoast]

Will you agree that in the 1971-1976 Kharlamov was in the top five players in the world (Orr, Hull, Espo, Clarke)?

I guess there is a case here but still being top 5 in a 5 year period over 100 plus years that we are looking at could mean that he theoretically could be just in the top 100 right?

Needs a lot more context.

And would he not have legitimate claim for #1 in some moments? If so, he should definitely be higher than he is.

What is a moment? A game or time period where Orr is injured?

Hull is more or less out of his peak at this time, over guys are in the mix instead.

I have him at 11.

I can see a case for Makarov at 11 but it's not a slam dunk case.

 

[MXD]

If we add Duncan Keith before Ed Belfour, I’ll just assume you’re all Defensemen.

It's so blatant, that even I am on the goalie union's side for this one...

They're extremely similar as far as I'm concerned. Both tend to be somewhat underrated as playoff performers as well.

 

[Sentinel]

I guess there is a case here but still being top 5 in a 5 year period over 100 plus years that we are looking at could mean that he theoretically could be just in the top 100 right?

What is a moment? A game or time period where Orr is injured?

Hull is more or less out of his peak at this time, over guys are in the mix instead.

Orr lost Harts to Clarke and Esposito. Kharlamov was better than Clarke and just as good as Espo. Hull was past his prime, like you said. The claim for Kharlamov to be #1 in the world at that time is legit (though, of course, debatable). If you have that case and you have the bag of trophies to back it up, I don't see how you are not in the Top 40. Hell, Malkin had fewer seasons as World's top five player, and his competition is worse than Valery's.

 

[wetcoast]

Orr lost Harts to Clarke and Esposito. Kharlamov was better than Clarke and just as good as Espo. Hull was past his prime, like you said. The claim for Kharlamov to be #1 in the world at that time is legit (though, of course, debatable). If you have that case and you have the bag od trophies to back it up, I don't see how you are not in the Top 40. Hell, Malkin had fewer seasons as World's top five player, and his competition is worse than Valery's.

I know that Phil and Clarke won the Hart but seriously no one ever thought they were better players than Orr from the 71-75 time period you mention.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What an obtuse misuse of the transitive property...

Which isn't to say anything about the claim itself...but, the logic used to get there is substandard.

 

[VMBM]

Kharlamov's so called problem is his (lack of) longevity, but at his peak he was mostly as good as his legend has it in my opinion (eye test); he always got a little ''extra attention" from opponents.

 

[Theokritos]

I know that Phil and Clarke won the Hart but seriously no one ever thought they were better players than Orr from the 71-75 time period you mention.

This. There really isn't any case for Kharlamov as the best player in the world in his day.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Keith's Norris voting is seriously disappointing outside his winning years I must say. And I don't feel like he was neglected or whatever either...he did mix great years with rather pedestrian seasons...his run in 2015 was something for the history books, though. Amazing post-season.

I thought Bill Gadsby would be up for voting by now, maybe next round then...not sure what his playoff reputation is like.

 

[Sentinel]

This. There really isn't any case for Kharlamov as the best player in the world in his day.

Call me crazy, but I prefer to think that when a player loses Hart trophy to his own teammate (more than once), that player is not the best player in the world.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Call me crazy, but I prefer to think that when a player loses Hart trophy to his own teammate (more than once), that player is not the best player in the world.

I think it is one of those instances where you have to seriously question the voters. It just doesn't jive with the legend of Orr, or the tapes... (video is not flattering to Espo IMO, watch the 1974 finals against Clarke and Philly)

 

[Sentinel]

I think it is one of those instances where you have to seriously question the voters. It just doesn't with the legend of Orr, or the tapes...

It wasn't one isolated incident. He lost twice to Clarke and twice to his teammate Esposito.

To be fair, Kharlamov also lost MVP to his teammates: Firsov, then Tretiak. So I'd say he is clearly in the same boat as the five Canadians listed above him.

 

[MXD]

The problem with this line of reasoning is it would lead to the absurd result that 90% of the forwards are better than the best D-Men.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Call me crazy, but I prefer to think that when a player loses Hart trophy to his own teammate (more than once), that player is not the best player in the world.

You're crazy. There's no other reasonable conclusion that can be rendered.

 

[Theokritos]

You're crazy. There's no other reasonable conclusion that can be rendered.

Let's be fair. The Hart trophy confronts us with headscrachers time and time again. For me the conclusion is that the definition is too fluid (Is "the most valuable" the same as "the best"?; and then there is the "to his team" aspect that is sometimes taken very seriously and sometimes not...) for the Hart trophy to serve as a constant in historic considerations.

I don't view the "Soviet MVP" in the same light. Why? Because it wasn't really a "MVP" award at all. In fact the award was named and defined as "Best Player of the Season".

 

[Canadiens1958]

Soviet League MVP or the CSKA MVP???

Soviet MVP (ice hockey) - Wikipedia

Amazing 1:1 correspondance for over 20 seasons. Only Konovalenko and Maltsev - tied were non-CSKA players.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Exhibit ZZZ of why proper talent evaluation is essential to the process. That way you don't have the hurdle of combining someone else's unvetted opinion(s) combining with the uncertainty of vaguely interpreted definitions and then later ascribing them to and as your own ideas decades after the fact...

 

[MXD]

There's also some ... distinction that needs to be made. The '60ies, pre-expansion at least, was probably the strongest era, overall. However, it wasn't exactly the golden age for D-Men. Doesn't there weren't any good D-Men; just that, well, there's a reason absolutely no one that I know of consider Pierre Pilote a better player than Larry Robinson, despite Pilote winning more awards.

 

[wetcoast]

This. There really isn't any case for Kharlamov as the best player in the world in his day.

I agree and was just pointing out how great Orr was in response to the OP.

 

[pappyline]

Keith's Norris voting is seriously disappointing outside his winning years I must say. And I don't feel like he was neglected or whatever either...he did mix great years with rather pedestrian seasons...his run in 2015 was something for the history books, though. Amazing post-season.

I thought Bill Gadsby would be up for voting by now, maybe next round then...not sure what his playoff reputation is like.

It is inexplicable to me that Gadsby is not up for voting by now. Yet Pronger and Stevens are already ranked and both were ranked as soon as they appeared on the ballot.

 

[wetcoast]

It is inexplicable to me that Gadsby is not up for voting by now. Yet Pronger and Stevens are already ranked and both were ranked as soon as they appeared on the ballot.

I'm actually kind of surprised that he hasn't been up for discussion yet but this project really seems to be heavy with "winning SC" players.

Both Pronger and Steven's come with some great playoff credentials.

Gadsby not so much.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Keith's Norris voting is seriously disappointing outside his winning years I must say. And I don't feel like he was neglected or whatever either...he did mix great years with rather pedestrian seasons...his run in 2015 was something for the history books, though. Amazing post-season.

I thought Bill Gadsby would be up for voting by now, maybe next round then...not sure what his playoff reputation is like.

I'm probably higher on Keith than most (he made my top 100, Toews and Kane did not make my list). I think he really got shafted in Norris voting in 2013 in particular. PK Subban and Kris Letang being the winner/finalists that year was the moment I really stopped treating current awards voting with any sort of seriousness. That was also the year of the Ovechkin double AST fiasco, and players from the Eastern Conference basically swept the awards and all-stars despite it being much weaker than the West that year.

 

[Theokritos]

Posts limit reached, discussion continues here.