Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[bobholly39]

I agree that colluding would be a problem. It would undermine the integrity of what we're doing, and if that's the case, we might as well just stop, because it would become worthless.

It's less about colluding than it is about avoiding an exercise in futility for me, which it would be if we waste too much time arguing about him.

We're ranking 126th this week. Let's say hypothetically McDavid ends up....129th. Or 133rd. Does it really matter? By the time this very project is over (and hence, current NHL regular season is done), McDavid will likely have done enough to rise significantly up from that ~133rd ranking. And within 2 years, he'll almost surely be top 100 worthy or more. And so on.

I think wasting pages of posts debating where McDavid should rank in February of 2021 seems pointless to me.

He'll be my #1 in this round and every round forward till he's in, since he's clearly a better player than the rest. He has the best single season of anyone here. And he probably even has 4 better single seasons than anyone else left here.

 

[MXD]

I'm not suggesting he was a star. A goal and an assist in two games was his stat line. That doesn't change the fact that most 18-year-olds aren't really physically ready to play in the NHL, or often even the AHL. Take another year off of that and make them 17, and that's exponentially more true. I mean, is Gretzky's ability to play in the WHA at 17 not one of the first concrete pieces of the puzzle to show the beast that he was going to become? No matter what you do in juniors, it doesn't reflect what Gretzky did in the pros, while a 17-year-old putting up 110 points in a a rival league to the NHL speaks volumes. Sixteen? That's even more exponential.

As for Kamensky? Yeah, playing at sixteen is still a big deal. But, it's worth pointing out that he went pointless in his games, and he didn't make CSKA Moscow either at that age either. His seventeen-year-old record is nothing compared to Bure's, and honestly, I don't see anything in his Soviet League record that's comparable to Bure other than the freakish ability to play with grown men at a young age. I can't see any reason to put any further weight into that comparison since Bure actually delivered on the promise far, far more than Kamensky ever did.

Bure's season with Kamsenky was also the first where Bure cracked 30 points. Something Kamensky had done before.

Also, Sergei Samsonov played his first games at 15 in that league, which wasn't as good as it was when Bure did, but was still a pro league populated with men.

 

[seventieslord]

VsX summary

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7 YEAR	10 YEAR
Adam Oates	100.0	95.9	93.3	86.7	85.4	85.3	83.5	79.1	76.7	75.7	90.0	86.2
Doug Bentley	101.4	98.1	95.0	87.3	81.1	76.8	66.7	63.6	48.5	48.1	86.6	76.7
Gilbert Perreault	95.0	90.5	89.1	84.6	81.7	80.0	79.3	74.4	73.3	67.9	85.7	81.6
Pavel Bure	100.0	98.9	95.8	89.2	76.7	74.3	61.4	51.7	50.5	28.8	85.2	72.7
Paul Kariya	94.4	91.5	90.8	90.0	80.2	77.9	69.8	66.7	63.3	61.3	84.9	78.6
Alex Delvecchio	96.7	88.5	83.3	83.1	82.1	80.7	79.1	79.0	78.6	77.6	84.8	82.9
Pavel Datsyuk	91.5	88.2	86.0	82.1	78.2	76.3	75.6	69.1	64.2	59.6	82.5	77.1
Connor McDavid	112.4	105.9	100.0	100.0	53.9						67.5	47.2
Guy Lapointe	72.4	62.0	58.2	57.1	51.9	48.9	47.4	45.0	38.5	21.8	56.9	50.3
Scott Niedermayer	62.6	62.1	60.5	59.4	53.6	44.0	43.0	40.4	38.3	37.5	55.0	50.2
Rod Langway	33.3	30.3	27.3	26.5	25.8	25.0	19.3	15.1	12.8	12.2	26.8	22.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Since someone might ask - McDavid's VsX based on his five seasons to date (including his injury-shortened rookie campaign) is ~94, which puts him on par with Selanne, Ullman, Geoffrion and Schmidt. If we drop his rookie season and just look at his four best years, he's already in the the top 20 (ahead of Sakic, Bathgate, Malkin, Trottier, and Ovechkin). This excludes the in-progress 2021 season entirely (he's leading the league as of today).

I didn't bother posting Krutov's VsX, which would be based on a single, disappointing season.

My Soviet league VsX equivalencies have Krutov at the following:

100
86
86
84
83
76
71
62
60
55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

7 year: 83.7
10 year: 76.4

It's up to each individual whether they care what those numbers say, but the 1980s Soviet numbers are based typically on Makarov. They are based on taking a subjective look at Makarov's dominance of the soviet league and the dominance of non-Gretzky players in the NHL, then deciding where he should slot in, sort of working in reverse from what caliber of player we at HOH have decided Makarov is.

That said, Makarov's 10 year score comes out to 99.4 and his 7-year comes out to 104.9, (so he's about equal to Crosby and ahead of Richard), so maybe they overrate him by about 5%. If a recalibration is in order, it would drop Krutov by the same relative amount.

So in any case, whatever you think of Krutov's numbers, he doesn't make me yell "OMG he belongs on the list right now" or "what is he doing up for already?" - he seems a perfectly appropriate offensive player for this round.

 

[seventieslord]

Bure's points per game are higher than Kariya, regular season and playoffs. Same for plus/minus.

I did a quick, rough comparison of Bure and Kariya offensively two rounds ago:

I'm still trying to get a sense for how to value Bure as a point producer. I realize that raw points and rankings don't do him justice and obviously a lot of consideration is being made of his "per game" value for him to even be available for voting at this stage of the project.

I know that scoring levels changed a lot from his first peak to his second one, but if you take a look at that entire span (1992-93 through 2000-01) and sort by points per game, here is what you get:

NHL Stats

- Obviously, Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros and Sakic are gone.
- Then we have Lafontaine whose absolute peak is captured in this period and not much else
- Then there are Selanne, Forsberg and Gretzky, long since added to the list
- But then.... Turgeon. Who's got no hope of making this list. And even more comparable, Paul Kariya. (then, low-GP Neely, and then Bure).

Kariya will likely get a chance here but not for a bit still. People are not nearly as split on how good he was, even though his personal accomplishments are practically identical (3-3-4-7 in pts vs 2-3-5-7, 4-5-7 in PPG vs 3-7-7-8). This timeframe cuts off two very good seasons, a couple of good ones, and includes his rookie year (I gave Bure the benefit of cutting his off). Bure averaged 1.12 adjusted points per adjusted game to Kariya's 1.05, but by the end of Kariya's age 32 season he had nearly the same career GP as Bure and 1.13 adjusted pts per adjusted game.

It feels like Kariya more or less had a Bure career by 2006 and then added to it, slightly, after that. There are reasons to prefer Bure - linemates, playoffs - and I would definitely vote Bure over Kariya. Kariya's point collaboration score through his prime is 1.67 - the mark of a standard superstar player with average (on the aggregate) linemates. Bure's are through the roof at 2.07 - driven mostly by his 1994 and 2001 seasons.

Still, this raw points per game comparison doesn't do it for me - does someone have a VsX per game spreadsheet put together, where we can see how he stacks up against other players of his era by his best per-game seasons? I still don't think I like Bure for this round but I'm open to changing my mind before the deadline.

If we're just talking about RS points, there's no reason to like Bure over Kariya. Kariya adds worthwhile seasons and leads in RS longevity, but Bure has other advantages (goals machine, one man show, playoffs).

 

[Professor What]

It's less about colluding than it is about avoiding an exercise in futility for me, which it would be if we waste too much time arguing about him.

We're ranking 126th this week. Let's say hypothetically McDavid ends up....129th. Or 133rd. Does it really matter? By the time this very project is over (and hence, current NHL regular season is done), McDavid will likely have done enough to rise significantly up from that ~133rd ranking. And within 2 years, he'll almost surely be top 100 worthy or more. And so on.

I think wasting pages of posts debating where McDavid should rank in February of 2021 seems pointless to me.

He'll be my #1 in this round and every round forward till he's in, since he's clearly a better player than the rest. He has the best single season of anyone here. And he probably even has 4 better single seasons than anyone else left here.

It was suggested earlier that we all just vote him #1 and be done with it. If that's how individuals choose to handle it, that's fine, but just deciding to do that as a group would be disingenuous. I was one of the ones who expressed doubt about his inclusion originally, but I was eventually convinced that it wasn't a problem. Now, I'm back to where I started, and the gloss over it as a group approach would only make that worse, in my opinion. But, he's here now, and as such, the point of this exercise should be to do the best we can to get a snapshot in time. Say we did it again in two years. If we do our best job to get it right now and then, we'll have an idea of how the board thinks he's risen over time. There should be some value in that, right?

Bure's season with Kamsenky was also the first where Bure cracked 30 points. Something Kamensky had done before.

Also, Sergei Samsonov played his first games at 15 in that league, which wasn't as good as it was when Bure did, but was still a pro league populated with men.

I'm not sure how the fact that Kamensky scored 30 points before Bure is relevant, considering the fact that Kamensky is five years older. Given that, I'd sure hope he did. As for Samsonov, yes, the ability to compete against grown men at that age is extremely impressive, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the Russian League after the collapse of the Soviet Union was anywhere near the level of the old Soviet League. It would have been more AHL at best, I'd think.

 

[DitchMarner]

16th in Selke voting means less than nothing. It means some Edmonton beat writers threw votes at him. Draisaitl received Selke votes last season and he is a black hole defensively.

McDavid is an odd inclusion here for active players when there are a few others with as good or better cases. But he has half the games of Bure, who rightly gets dinged for his longevity, so I'm intrigued to hear the arguments.

Which active players would you say have better arguments?

Depending on how much you like defense/winning, I guess you can argue for Toews or Kopitar. Maybe Bergeron.

From more offensive players, Stamkos' top point scoring finishes aren't that far off (I think 2, 2, 5, 5 versus 1, 1, 2, 2) and he has a longer prime and has been a better goal scorer. Career-wise, I think you can argue he's slightly ahead of McDavid ATM, though that will change. Would you say Kucherov has had a better career than Connor?

 

[MXD]

Which active players would you say have better arguments?

Depending on how much you like defense/winning, I guess you can argue for Toews or Kopitar. Maybe Bergeron.

From more offensive players, Stamkos' top point scoring finishes aren't that far off (I think 2, 2, 5, 5 versus 1, 1, 2, 2) and he has a longer prime and has been a better goal scorer. Career-wise, I think you can argue he's slightly ahead of McDavid ATM, though that will change. Would you say Kucherov has had a better career than Connor?

Only forwards?
Shea Weber's Norris line looks really similar to Jack Stewart AS Line, and that's without take into account that it should really be better than it is (he should really have two Norris; and while they wouldn't be historically strong Norris, they would still be Norrises), and his playoff woes in the NHL are alleviated somewhat by his internationnal successes.
Victor Hedman Norris line looks really similar to Ivan Johnson AS Line, and he has a Smythe to boot.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My Soviet league VsX equivalencies have Krutov at the following:

100
86
86
84
83
76
71
62
60
55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

7 year: 83.7
10 year: 76.4

It's up to each individual whether they care what those numbers say, but the 1980s Soviet numbers are based typically on Makarov. They are based on taking a subjective look at Makarov's dominance of the soviet league and the dominance of non-Gretzky players in the NHL, then deciding where he should slot in, sort of working in reverse from what caliber of player we at HOH have decided Makarov is.

That said, Makarov's 10 year score comes out to 99.4 and his 7-year comes out to 104.9, (so he's about equal to Crosby and ahead of Richard), so maybe they overrate him by about 5%. If a recalibration is in order, it would drop Krutov by the same relative amount.

So in any case, whatever you think of Krutov's numbers, he doesn't make me yell "OMG he belongs on the list right now" or "what is he doing up for already?" - he seems a perfectly appropriate offensive player for this round.

Plus, Krutov added a decent amount of toughness (his nickname was "tank" overall), and was a responsible defensive player. So just based on "regular season" stats, he gets a little boost over the "offense-only" players.

Also, he was a big game player, as he performed arguably as well as Makarov in the Canada Cups:

1981 Canada Cup:
Makarov 3 goals, 6 assists, 9 points in 7 games
Krutov 4 goals, 4 assists, 8 points in 7 games

1984 Canada Cup:
Makarov 6 goals, 1 assist, 7 points in 6 games
Krutov 3 goals, 5 assists, 8 points in 6 games

1987 Canada Cup:
Makarov 7 goals, 8 assists, 15 points in 9 games
Krutov 7 goals, 7 assists, 14 points in 9 games

Overall:
Makarov 16 goals, 15 assists, 31 points in 22 games
Krutov 14 goals, 16 assists, 30 points in 22 games

By the way, if you look at career scoring in the Canada Cups, Gretzky is ahead of everyone by a laughable amount, then Makarov/Krutov, then the pack: All-time Statistics Canada Cup - Eurohockey.com

I don't know if Krutov makes my top 5, but he does look pretty attractive compared to the other new candidates.

 

[The Macho King]

Only forwards?
Shea Weber's Norris line looks really similar to Jack Stewart AS Line, and that's without take into account that it should really be better than it is (he should really have two Norris; and while they wouldn't be historically strong Norris, they would still be Norrises), and his playoff woes in the NHL are alleviated somewhat by his internationnal successes.
Victor Hedman Norris line looks really similar to Ivan Johnson AS Line, and he has a Smythe to boot.

I honestly assumed Weber was already in...

Anyway I'm not going to waste ink on players that aren't available. I do want to hear the arguments of a player with no longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which active players would you say have better arguments?

Depending on how much you like defense/winning, I guess you can argue for Toews or Kopitar. Maybe Bergeron.

From more offensive players, Stamkos' top point scoring finishes aren't that far off (I think 2, 2, 5, 5 versus 1, 1, 2, 2) and he has a longer prime and has been a better goal scorer. Career-wise, I think you can argue he's slightly ahead of McDavid ATM, though that will change. Would you say Kucherov has had a better career than Connor?

It depends on if you care at all of the length of a player's prime. If you do, then McDavid looks questionable. If you don't, well, obviously he looks amazing.

A 7-year average was picked as a standard for VsX as "the average length of a pre-expansion player's prime" with 10-years picked for post-expansion players.

Even just looking at 7-year VsX:

Stamkos: 90.2 (!!!)
Getzlaf: 83.7
Kucherov: 80.1
Kopitar: 79.2
Toews: 73.7
Bergeron: 68.0
McDavid: 67.5

Yes, it's a totally artificial construct to average 4 amazing seasons with 3 essential zeros, but it does show how McDavid seriously lacks longevity, even compared to someone like Kucherov.

 

[MXD]

I honestly assumed Weber was already in...

Anyway I'm not going to waste ink on players that aren't available. I do want to hear the arguments of a player with no longevity.

My point was mostly to stop focusing on goals, goals, goals (or points points points) because such a focus is the better way to end up ignoring better players altogether becase they happened to play a position that's less conductive to scoring goals or points.

 

[The Macho King]

My point was mostly to stop focusing on goals, goals, goals (or points points points) because such a focus is the better way to end up ignoring better players altogether becase they happened to play a position that's less conductive to scoring goals.

Oh I agree and I am a member of the church of "defensemen and goaltenders exist!"

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here's my perspective on McDavid, and the last thing I'll say about him as I really think our efforts are better spent on players who are less well-known to everyone in the room.

McDavid is the consensus best player of the past 5 years. There is a minority view to the contrary, but ask a typical hockey fan who's the best player in the league and McDavid is the unhesitating answer.

Only three other players in this group ever held serious claim to being the best player: Datsyuk, Phillips, Stuart.

We were all alive for Datsyuk and we already have our opinions on his claim as the top player circa 2008/09, so I'll leave that alone other than to point out -- his time at the "best overall" level was 2 years, maybe 3 if we're being generous.

Phillips and Stuart. Here's the tricky part...
- Russell Bowie's crazy-dominant peak ran from around 1901-1905
- Tommy Phillips' peak ran from around 1905-07
- Hod Stuart's peak ran from around... maybe 1903-07?

You can probably see where I'm going with this. All three of Bowie, Phillips, and Stuart couldn't have simultaneously been the greatest player in the world. Each of them had support for that title, and each of them probably did actually experience windows of time when they were better than the other two. But Bowie is the only one who held that distinction for an extended period, and that is the reason he went onto the list in our second vote.

Now, it's not that there aren't warts to McDavid's argument. But we're talking about a guy who has been the consensus best player in the world for 5 years and 387 games. We have already voted in a guy who was the consensus best player in the world for 5 years and 80 games. The difference between these players is a probably 100-fold increase in competition for that title, plus a handful of off-peak years which are largely irrelevant to their argument.

I will leave this in the same place I left my argument for Bowie -- this comes down in large part to a philosophical conflict about what makes a "great" player. It's not irrational to say Bowie shouldn't be on our list at all. It's not irrational to say McDavid shouldn't be there at all. But if you think these guys should be on the list, then they should go on immediately because they are, quite simply, better players than the rest of this field.

 

[tarheelhockey]

P
By the way, if you look at career scoring in the Canada Cups, Gretzky is ahead of everyone by a laughable amount, then Makarov/Krutov, then the pack: All-time Statistics Canada Cup - Eurohockey.com

I don't know if Krutov makes my top 5, but he does look pretty attractive compared to the other new candidates.

FWIW, Gretztky's lead is less-laughable if we account for GP. He paced for about 40 points if he had played the same number of GP as Makarov/Krutov.

Now... a 40-to-30 lead is still crazy dominance. But it was Gretzky, who in some of those seasons was outscoring the rest of the NHL by a much larger margin than that. Being within 25% of him during that time period is actually pretty respectable and implies a higher level of competition than what he was experiencing in the NHL.

 

[Batis]

Plus, Krutov added a decent amount of toughness (his nickname was "tank" overall), and was a responsible defensive player. So just based on "regular season" stats, he gets a little boost over the "offense-only" players.

Just to add to this here is a quote from Ron Reusch during the 1987 Canada Cup regarding the defensive game of Krutov.



"There is Krutov. Most valuable player in the Soviet Union last year. Most think now he is probably their best forward, he's gone by Makarov. And the thing they like to talk about Krutov, the thing they keep mentioning is not only is he a great offensive player with great speed, great balance and all of those things, but he is also a terrific defensive player, great backchecker, plays a total game."

Later in that same game there is a good example of Krutov's backchecking where he manages to catch up to Gretzky.

By the way, if you look at career scoring in the Canada Cups, Gretzky is ahead of everyone by a laughable amount, then Makarov/Krutov, then the pack: All-time Statistics Canada Cup - Eurohockey.com

Krutov's performances in Canada Cup competition also become even more impressive when we take into account how well the Krutov-Makarov pair did on the penalty kill in those tournaments.

Canada Cup 1981

1. Vladimir Golikov: 4 gp: 8 min, 23 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
2. Sergey Shepelev: 4 gp: 7 min, 27 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
2. Victor Shalimov: 4 gp: 7 min, 24 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
4. Sergey Makarov: 4 gp: 6 min, 15 sec: 1 goal forward, 2 goals against
5. Viktor Zhluktov: 4 gp: 6 min, 7 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
6. Irek Gimaev: 3 gp: 5 min, 28 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
7. Vladimir Krutov: 4 gp: 4 min, 58 sec: 1 goal forward, 2 goals against
7. Alexander Skvortsov: 4 gp: 4 min, 58 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
9. Alexander Maltsev: 1 gp: 2 min, 38 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
10. Nikolay Drozdetsky: 4 gp: 1 min, 45 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
11. Igor Larionov: 4 gp: 0 min, 4 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against

Canada Cup 1984

1. Sergey Makarov: 6 gp: 8 min, 59 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
2. Vladimir Krutov: 6 gp: 8 min 38 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
3. Anatoly Semenov: 6 gp: 8 min, 19 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
4. Sergey Svetlov: 6 gp: 7 min, 50 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
5. Alexander Skvortsov: 6 gp: 7 min, 11 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
6. Irek Gimaev: 6 gp: 6 min, 9 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
7. Mikhail Varnakov: 6 gp: 5 min, 49 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
8. Sergey Shepelev: 5 gp: 1 min, 31 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
9. Vladimir Kovin: 6 gp: 1 min, 23 sec: 0 goals forward,1 goal against
10. Igor Larionov: 5 gp: 0 min, 58 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
10. Mikhail Vasiliev: 4 gp: 0 min, 57 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against

Note: During this tournament Gimaev played both the defence and forward position on the penalty kill. I still included him here and this is his combined stats from both positions.

Canada Cup 1987

1. Vladimir Krutov: 8 gp: 19 min, 17 sec: 4 goals forward, 4 goals against
2. Vyacheslav Bykov: 8 gp: 18 min, 48 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
3. Sergey Makarov: 8 gp: 17 min, 29 sec: 4 goals forward, 3 goals against
3. Andrey Khomutov: 8 gp: 17 min, 26 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
5. Anatoly Semenov: 8 gp: 12 min, 3 sec: 1 goal forward, 1 goal against
6. Sergey Svetlov: 4 gp: 6 min, 24 sec: 1 goal forward, 1 goal against
7. Andrey Lomakin: 8 gp: 5 min, 26 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
8. Igor Larionov: 8 gp: 1 min, 37 sec: 0 goals forward, 1 goal against
9. Yury Khmylev: 8 gp: 1 min, 16 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
10. Alexander Semak: 6 gp: 1 min, 6 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
11. Valery Kamensky: 8 gp: 0 min, 44 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
12. Sergey Nemshinov: 4 gp: 0 min, 35 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against
13. Sergey Priakin: 8 gp: 0 min, 22 sec: 0 goals forward, 0 goals against

As you can see in this post Krutov was in on 5 goals forward and 6 goals against over the course of 32 minutes and 53 seconds of shorthanded ice time in the available footage from Canada Cup competition. Makarov was in on 5 goals forward and 5 goals against over 32 minutes and 43 seconds of shorthanded ice time.

 

[Theokritos]

Also, Sergei Samsonov played his first games at 15 in that league, which wasn't as good as it was when Bure did, but was still a pro league populated with men.

Yes, but it would be hard to exaggerate just how much worse the league got. In 1988-89, there was 1 (one) prime-aged Russian players employed abroad. In 1994-95, there more than 120 Russian players employed abroad.

 

[MXD]

Yes, but it would be hard to exaggerate just how much worse the league got. In 1988-89, there was 1 (one) prime-aged Russian players employed abroad. In 1994-95, there more than 120 Russian players employed abroad.

I know.
But it would be hard to exaggerate the gap between "Sergei Samsonov" and "worth talking about in this project, too".

 

[Professor What]

Oh I agree and I am a member of the church of "defensemen and goaltenders exist!"

One of my favorite things to gripe about is the underrepresentation of defensemen in Hart voting, so I feel you there.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Ugh, none of the guys I wanted (Kopitar, Stamkos, Lehman) made it.

Anyway, I guess it's good we can compare Phillips and Stuart, but none of the new guys really do it for me.

Delvecchio and Perreault are almost guaranteed to be my top 2. Bentley looks pretty good too, and I think Niedermayer?

I could only put him so high on my initial list TDMM

I am a little surprised to not have seen him by now, hopefully he makes an appearance soon

McDavid, I have a hard time not having in my top 4 immediately.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Does this look right? Spitballing on impressions without doing a lot of deep-diving research just yet.

By peak
McDavid
Datsyuk
Phillips
Niedermayer
Stuart
Krutov
Bure
Lapointe
Kariya
Langway
Perreault
Oates
Delvecchio
Bentley

By consistency/longevity
Delvecchio
Oates
Bentley
Perreault
Lapointe
Niedermayer
Datsyuk
Kariya
Langway
Bure
Stuart
Krutov
McDavid
Phillips

Struggling a little with Oates and Delvecchio. As I said earlier, I feel like Oates was the better player in a typical season, but I'm not entirely sure he had either the better peak or longevity. It's a weird paradox.

Bentley is at least somewhat starting to come into the conversation for me, but I still feel like it's too early for him. I hold 1949 as his best season and it's still considerably below some of the other peaks we see here. He has good consistency and longevity for that era, but it's not so amazing that it stands up to an all-timer like Delvecchio.

Bure vs Krutov is honestly quite difficult and a fascinating comparison as I think more about it. I have Krutov fairly high in this group, verging on top-5. I'm thinking that might (somewhat unexpectedly) nudge Bure into my top-5.

Hod Stuart's placement in my mind seems to shift if I think of his peak as "best player in the world" or "best defenseman". Those distinctions are different enough to really impact his ranking. I'm leaning toward the latter which is why he looks the way he does above.

Now that I think of it, Datsyuk/Niedermayer has some parallels to Phillips/Stuart.

I agree with TDMM that Kariya is an interesting figure for comparison to several of these guys, but at the same time he has no real shot this round.

And I feel like I'm dangerously forgetting/underrating Perreault.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Does this look right? Spitballing on impressions without doing a lot of deep-diving research just yet.

By peak
McDavid
Datsyuk
Phillips
Niedermayer
Stuart
Krutov
Bure
Lapointe
Kariya
Langway
Perreault
Oates
Delvecchio
Bentley

By consistency/longevity
Delvecchio
Oates
Bentley
Perreault
Lapointe
Niedermayer
Datsyuk
Kariya
Langway
Bure
Stuart
Krutov
McDavid
Phillips

Struggling a little with Oates and Delvecchio. As I said earlier, I feel like Oates was the better player in a typical season, but I'm not entirely sure he had either the better peak or longevity. It's a weird paradox.

Bentley is at least somewhat starting to come into the conversation for me, but I still feel like it's too early for him. I hold 1949 as his best season and it's still considerably below some of the other peaks we see here. He has good consistency and longevity for that era, but it's not so amazing that it stands up to an all-timer like Delvecchio.

Bure vs Krutov is honestly quite difficult and a fascinating comparison as I think more about it. I have Krutov fairly high in this group, verging on top-5. I'm thinking that might (somewhat unexpectedly) nudge Bure into my top-5.

Hod Stuart's placement in my mind seems to shift if I think of his peak as "best player in the world" or "best defenseman". Those distinctions are different enough to really impact his ranking. I'm leaning toward the latter which is why he looks the way he does above.

Now that I think of it, Datsyuk/Niedermayer has some parallels to Phillips/Stuart.

I agree with TDMM that Kariya is an interesting figure for comparison to several of these guys, but at the same time he has no real shot this round.

And I feel like I'm dangerously forgetting/underrating Perreault.

Biggest disagreements:

I'm higher on Bentley's peak than you are.

In terms of longevity, McDavid is easily last, relative to his era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm higher on Bentley's peak than you are.

I don't think you're alone on that. I don't look at Bentley's war years of being of major significance, and I don't see his 1947 as being of particularly high value in the context of this group. Pretty sure there are others here who would strongly disagree with both of those judgments.

Full disclosure: I had Bentley #179 on my original list, which is higher than I ranked 3 players that I have already voted for or plan to vote for. So my opinions on him are fluid... I just don't see the peak value based on the level of competition and the degree to which he was able to exceed it.

In terms of longevity, McDavid is easily last, relative to his era.

It's those last 4 words that give me trouble. We have Phillips who only played 7 relevant seasons for a total of 100 games. We have McDavid who is currently dominating his 6th season and approaching 400 games.

It's true that Phillips had better longevity relative to his era, in the sense that Phillips played probably 75% of a "normal" career in his era whereas McDavid has played probably 30% or so of his. But that also feels an awful lot like we're holding McDavid to a bar that's twice as high. Holding the modern player to a higher longevity standard makes sense if we're comparing him to a full-career guy like Bowie or Bentley, but not so much if we're talking about a early retiree who could have played longer and simply chose not to. At that point, why are we penalizing him less than the modern guy?

 

[DitchMarner]

Oates has a better peak than Perreault, no?

In terms of raw totals, he peaked at 142 points while Perreault peaked at 113. As far as adjusted points are concerned, Oates' best total is 115 while Perreault's is 98 (seems shockingly low for such a talented player).

Oates was a top three scorer three times, Perreault once.

Oates' best Hart finish is fourth; Perreault's is fifth.


Could be splitting hairs, but I'd probably give Oates the nod.

 

[The Macho King]

Oates has a better peak than Perreault, no?

In terms of raw totals, he peaked at 142 points while Perreault peaked at 113. As far as adjusted points are concerned, Oates' best total is 115 while Perreault's in 98 (seems shockingly low for such a talented player).

Oates was a top three scorer three times, Perreault once.

Oates' best Hart finish is fourth; Perreault's is fifth.


Could be splitting hairs, but I'd probably give Oates the nod.

Oates had linemates that contributed a lot to his success. I think its Perrault quite easily personally.

 

[Professor What]

Oates had linemates that contributed a lot to his success. I think its Perrault quite easily personally.

While I tend to agree with that, I can't help but notice how much stronger Brett Hull's scoring was with Oates. He was a great scorer without him, but an all-time elite with him.