Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results

[seventieslord]

I remember thinking how far out in left field that list felt when it was released. I'm even more convinced now.

Not that I'm excusing their list at all, but, if you look at our top 200, it's probably the top 160 NHL players of all-time circa 2017, plus 40 more international, pre-nhl, early Western, and active players who didn't have a case four years ago.

So although they had players on it who wouldn't make this list, apples to apples it's about 160 players long, not 200.

 

[Professor What]

Not that I'm excusing their list at all, but, if you look at our top 200, it's probably the top 160 NHL players of all-time circa 2017, plus 40 more international, pre-nhl, early Western, and active players who didn't have a case four years ago.

So although they had players on it who wouldn't make this list, apples to apples it's about 160 players long, not 200.

Probably a little poorly stated on my part. It wasn't that the entire list was utter rot, but there were enough that were head scratchers to make me wonder where it came from (hence the left field line). That enough of those players have fallen far enough on our list to make the different views pretty clear more or less reinforced that in my mind. But yeah, my last post probably came off stronger than I intended.

 

[seventieslord]

Probably a little poorly stated on my part. It wasn't that the entire list was utter rot, but there were enough that were head scratchers to make me wonder where it came from (hence the left field line). That enough of those players have fallen far enough on our list to make the different views pretty clear more or less reinforced that in my mind. But yeah, my last post probably came off stronger than I intended.

Yeah, I understand. I just took a look and depending on who you count (Vezina, Benedict, Cleghorn, nighbor, Lalonde, and Malone could be pre NHL or just snubbed NHLers, and deciding which active players we added to the list so far had no realistic top-160 case 4 years ago is subjective), there are about 45 players in our 195 who just wouldn't have been in consideration based on the parameters of their list.

So as much as we'd like to say, "the NHL had four players on their top-100 list who wouldn't even make our top-200!" It would be more accurate to say they wouldn't make our top-155.

Still, it's damning.

 

[Professor What]

Yeah, I understand. I just took a look and depending on who you count (Vezina, Benedict, Cleghorn, nighbor, Lalonde, and Malone could be pre NHL or just snubbed NHLers, and deciding which active players we added to the list so far had no realistic top-160 case 4 years ago is subjective), there are about 45 players in our 195 who just wouldn't have been in consideration based on the parameters of their list.

So as much as we'd like to say, "the NHL had four players on their top-100 list who wouldn't even make our top-200!" It would be more accurate to say they wouldn't make our top-155.

Still, it's damning.

Well said, and I think it kind of hits on something that drives me absolutely crazy about the NHL. At times, it's almost as though they think hockey has never taken place outside of their own arenas. They don't even recognize the NHA despite the fact that we all know that for all intents and purposes, it was the same league, and I really feel like they could do much more to see to it that the Eastern Bloc and other early Europeans got the attention they deserve. The thing is, I love the sport, but there are times that I hate the league.

Okay... Getting off of soapbox now...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yeah, I understand. I just took a look and depending on who you count (Vezina, Benedict, Cleghorn, nighbor, Lalonde, and Malone could be pre NHL or just snubbed NHLers, and deciding which active players we added to the list so far had no realistic top-160 case 4 years ago is subjective), there are about 45 players in our 195 who just wouldn't have been in consideration based on the parameters of their list.

So as much as we'd like to say, "the NHL had four players on their top-100 list who wouldn't even make our top-200!" It would be more accurate to say they wouldn't make our top-155.

Still, it's damning.

Yes, you're right on this. It's not an apples to apples comparison and I didn't mean for it to come across as such. Saying that the NHL's top 100 list had 4-6 players that we didn't think qualified for the top ~160 is more accurate.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well said, and I think it kind of hits on something that drives me absolutely crazy about the NHL. At times, it's almost as though they think hockey has never taken place outside of their own arenas. They don't even recognize the NHA despite the fact that we all know that for all intents and purposes, it was the same league, and I really feel like they could do much more to see to it that the Eastern Bloc and other early Europeans got the attention they deserve. The thing is, I love the sport, but there are times that I hate the league.

Okay... Getting off of soapbox now...

As we find ourselves saying entirely too often — they no incentive to do the right thing, just the profitable thing. And the profitable thing is for the public to believe that NHL is the only brand of hockey that counts, has ever counted, and ever will count.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Curtis Joseph was first in voting and Harry Lumley last.

Is there really that big a gap between the two?

Would it have shocked anyone if it was the other way around?

 

[seventieslord]

Curtis Joseph was first in voting and Harry Lumley last.

Is there really that big a gap between the two?

Would it have shocked anyone if it was the other way around?

Yes. But by no means should Lumley have been last.

 

[Professor What]

As we find ourselves saying entirely too often — they no incentive to do the right thing, just the profitable thing. And the profitable thing is for the public to believe that NHL is the only brand of hockey that counts, has ever counted, and ever will count.

True, sad, and infuriating. [mental eye daggers aimed at Bettman and the rest of his ilk, including those who went before]

 

[tarheelhockey]

Curtis Joseph was first in voting and Harry Lumley last.

Is there really that big a gap between the two?

Would it have shocked anyone if it was the other way around?

Just speculating, but Lumley could be closer than it appears. From a voter psychology perspective, there’s probably a natural hesitation to rank 5 goalies at the top of a ballot.

I counted 17 top-3 votes toward goaltenders in that round. Lumley got none of them. But he was ranked on the same number of ballots as Holmes and only one fewer than Rayner. The big gap comes from his not getting high-end votes... I hope I’m making sense here, but his last-place ranking looks like a bit of a mirage caused by people rating him 5th among the goalies, which caused him to plummet to the bottom of the entire group because he had the fewest high-end rankings. Unless someone was willing to stack their ballot with goalies, he had no chance.

Point being, if someone makes a good case for him over Holmes and Rayner then we should expect to see him leapfrog not just those guys, but several other players as well.

 

[seventieslord]

We should make a final decision on Worsley here. It sounds like the only people who've said anything about it all think he should be going in now based on last week's voting. Is there anyone at all opposed to this?

 

[MXD]

We should make a final decision on Worsley here. It sounds like the only people who've said anything about it all think he should be going in now based on last week's voting. Is there anyone at all opposed to this?

I'm not opposed to this.
(It was very obvious, I just wanted you to have moar notifications)

 

[tarheelhockey]

We should make a final decision on Worsley here. It sounds like the only people who've said anything about it all think he should be going in now based on last week's voting. Is there anyone at all opposed to this?

I don't love it, but looking at his voting pattern and given that he would now be up against a weaker set of competition (especially with Joseph gone), adding him seems like a fait accompli anyway. May as well let the discussion focus on other players.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Savard and Shanahan are now on our list.

Whether they're ultimately included or not, Cournoyer and Sittler are up debate this round.

That leaves us with four of the NHL's top 100 list who never even came up for voting - Gainey, Gartner, Lafontaine and Nieuwendyk.

For what it's worth, I had Gainey in the top 200 on my original list, Gartner in the top 220, and no room for Lafontaine or Nieuwendyk. I think Gainey would have been interesting to discuss, the other three really don't have a strong case for top 200 (let alone top 100).

those are certainly the correct four. gainey is the only one i probably would have considered.

gartner...

when he retired he was 18th in points, 5th in goals

when he was inducted he was 19th in points, still 5th in goals

ten years after his last game, he was 27th in points, 6th in goals

when the top 100 list was made, he was 31st in points, 7th in goals

he's still sitting strong at 31st in points, but now is 8th in goals but it doesn't look like anyone will approach him for a long long time

i wonder how far down the all time list gartner would have to fall where his paper accomplishments no longer put him in conversations. for ex, i wonder if there had never been a lockout, could messier have scored the 15, yzerman the 17, and mario the 19 goals needed to pass him?

and would people then say, in 2017, well gartner has the tenth most goals of all time, he has to be a top 100 player? or is that low enough that you just sort of accept him there as a statistical eyesore?

 

[tarheelhockey]

i wonder how far down the all time list gartner would have to fall where his paper accomplishments no longer put him in conversations.

If anything, I wonder if people will start to like Gartner a little better when he no longer occupies an offensively-high spot on the goal rankings. Conversations about him inevitably start with "yeah he compiled a lot of goals BUT" and go downhill from there. Maybe if he were 15th or something, it would actually play slightly in his favor.

 

[Professor What]

If anything, I wonder if people will start to like Gartner a little better when he no longer occupies an offensively-high spot on the goal rankings. Conversations about him inevitably start with "yeah he compiled a lot of goals BUT" and go downhill from there. Maybe if he were 15th or something, it would actually play slightly in his favor.

Compiler or not, high-scoring era or not, while Gartner isn't the type of player I'd put on this list (he was at 200 on my original list -- he'd be slightly lower now), I don't really have any problem with his being in the Hall. The fact is, 700 goals is a lot. No average joe gets that number. He might not have ever had an elite peak, but he was very good for a very long time, and I think that demands some respect. Hopefully, the fact that it now takes an Ovechkin to get 700 will shine some light on that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Compiler or not, high-scoring era or not, while Gartner isn't the type of player I'd put on this list (he was at 200 on my original list -- he'd be slightly lower now), I don't really have any problem with his being in the Hall. The fact is, 700 goals is a lot. No average joe gets that number. He might not have ever had an elite peak, but he was very good for a very long time, and I think that demands some respect. Hopefully, the fact that it now takes an Ovechkin to get 700 will shine some light on that.

I think the 700 goals is what brings so much negativity to Gartner. When he was active, it was all about how he was the fastest guy in the league and the most consistent 30-goal scorer in history. Analysts seemed almost apologetic about his career totals, kind of like how they are with Marleau now, where they emphasize all the reasons he deserves it for being a good reliable hard-working guy. It really wasn't till after he retired and scoring rates dropped really fast that I remember seeing pushback on him as overrated.

I think @vadim sharifijanov has an interesting point. If Gartner retires ever so slightly earlier, he's 11th all time in goals right now. Meaning he's behind Mario and Messier and Yzerman... a slight bump and he's behind Selanne too. Now look at the next names on that list: Robitaille, Shanahan, Andreychuk. If he were at that spot on the list, I have a feeling we'd be talking in pretty positive terms about him. He might actually have ended up higher on our collective rankings than he did by hanging on and hitting the 700 mark, at the expense of being a perennial punching bag (which Andreychuk also is, but I'd take Gartner over Andreychuk in a heartbeat).

 

[seventieslord]

With Gartner, you'll always run into casual fans who nonetheless want to rank players and they'll tell you "Gartner is 8th all-time in goals, surely he has to be on a top-x list" and I break that argument down like this:

- Gartner compiled a lot of career goals by coming off age at the exact right time, playing a long time and staying healthy. But he wasn't even the 8th best goal scorer of his generation. He wasn't a better goal scorer than Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Yzerman, Messier, Kurri, Robitaille, Bossy, Makarov... Probably not even Goulet.

- Goals aren't everything. If we're just talking about offensive contributions from forwards, then points are much more important. You can add a lot of forwards from his generation who were better producers then him, including Stastny, Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis, Oates, and on a peak and prime basis, there are even guys like Nicholls, LaFontaine, Krutov and more. So it's arguable that he's not even a top 20 offensive forward of his own generation.

- Offense isn't everything, and regular season isn't everything. There are a handful of forwards from his generation that you could argue are close enough to him offensively that they're all around games bridge the gap, or that their playoff resumes bridge the gap. Or both. He may not be a top 25 all around forward of his loosely defined generation.

- But that doesn't mean he's a borderline top 25 player of his generation. In the top 25 players you've got to have room for 4 to 5 goalies and seven or eight defenseman probably. You've got to think Bourque, Coffey, Stevens, MacInnis, Chelios, Roy, Hasek, Fuhr are all ahead of him, just to name a few. All of this combined makes Gartner a borderline top 40 player of his generation.

- Lastly, his isn't the only generation that matters. It covers a span of about 11 birth years surrounding his (1956-1966), and although it's a very strong generation, there are at least 10 other similarly sized generations worthy of consideration who would all contribute a comparable number of players to any top 100 or top 200 list. With that in mind, it's very easy to completely run out of room for Mike Gartner when naming the best 200 players of all time.

 

[ted2019]

With Gartner, you'll always run into casual fans who nonetheless want to rank players and they'll tell you "Gartner is 8th all-time in goals, surely he has to be on a top-x list" and I break that argument down like this:

- Gartner compiled a lot of career goals by coming off age at the exact right time, playing a long time and staying healthy. But he wasn't even the 8th best goal scorer of his generation. He wasn't a better goal scorer than Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Yzerman, Messier, Kurri, Robitaille, Bossy, Makarov... Probably not even Goulet.

- Goals aren't everything. If we're just talking about offensive contributions from forwards, then points are much more important. You can add a lot of forwards from his generation who were better producers then him, including Stastny, Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis, Oates, and on a peak and prime basis, there are even guys like Nicholls, LaFontaine, Krutov and more. So it's arguable that he's not even a top 20 offensive forward of his own generation.

- Offense isn't everything, and regular season isn't everything. There are a handful of forwards from his generation that you could argue are close enough to him offensively that they're all around games bridge the gap, or that their playoff resumes bridge the gap. Or both. He may not be a top 25 all around forward of his loosely defined generation.

- But that doesn't mean he's a borderline top 25 player of his generation. In the top 25 players you've got to have room for 4 to 5 goalies and seven or eight defenseman probably. You've got to think Bourque, Coffey, Stevens, MacInnis, Chelios, Roy, Hasek, Fuhr are all ahead of him, just to name a few. All of this combined makes Gartner a borderline top 40 player of his generation.

- Lastly, his isn't the only generation that matters. It covers a span of about 11 birth years surrounding his (1956-1966), and although it's a very strong generation, there are at least 10 other similarly sized generations worthy of consideration who would all contribute a comparable number of players to any top 100 or top 200 list. With that in mind, it's very easy to completely run out of room for Mike Gartner when naming the best 200 players of all time.

Gartner was never even a consideration to go on my list.

 

[Professor What]

I think the 700 goals is what brings so much negativity to Gartner. When he was active, it was all about how he was the fastest guy in the league and the most consistent 30-goal scorer in history. Analysts seemed almost apologetic about his career totals, kind of like how they are with Marleau now, where they emphasize all the reasons he deserves it for being a good reliable hard-working guy. It really wasn't till after he retired and scoring rates dropped really fast that I remember seeing pushback on him as overrated.

I think @vadim sharifijanov has an interesting point. If Gartner retires ever so slightly earlier, he's 11th all time in goals right now. Meaning he's behind Mario and Messier and Yzerman... a slight bump and he's behind Selanne too. Now look at the next names on that list: Robitaille, Shanahan, Andreychuk. If he were at that spot on the list, I have a feeling we'd be talking in pretty positive terms about him. He might actually have ended up higher on our collective rankings than he did by hanging on and hitting the 700 mark, at the expense of being a perennial punching bag (which Andreychuk also is, but I'd take Gartner over Andreychuk in a heartbeat).

I know that's the case for some people, but it's something I've always had a problem with. I have no problem with a player's last ineffective years not boosting them, but it bothers me when people argue that their career is brought down by those years. Please not that I'm not criticizing anyone who simply points it out, so that's not directed at anyone in this conversation. For me personally, Gartner's career simply is what it is. But I'm also not purporting to speak for anyone other than myself, so anyone that sees him lower than I do, it just is what it is.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I know that's the case for some people, but it's something I've always had a problem with. I have no problem with a player's last ineffective years not boosting them, but it bothers me when people argue that their career is brought down by those years. Please not that I'm not criticizing anyone who simply points it out, so that's not directed at anyone in this conversation. For me personally, Gartner's career simply is what it is. But I'm also not purporting to speak for anyone other than myself, so anyone that sees him lower than I do, it just is what it is.

Gartner did have seasons of 35 and 32 goals at ages 36 & 37. Both seasons he played all 82 games. So he was still a productive player.

The next season he had only 12 and retired.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think @vadim sharifijanov has an interesting point. If Gartner retires ever so slightly earlier, he's 11th all time in goals right now. Meaning he's behind Mario and Messier and Yzerman... a slight bump and he's behind Selanne too. Now look at the next names on that list: Robitaille, Shanahan, Andreychuk. If he were at that spot on the list, I have a feeling we'd be talking in pretty positive terms about him. He might actually have ended up higher on our collective rankings than he did by hanging on and hitting the 700 mark, at the expense of being a perennial punching bag (which Andreychuk also is, but I'd take Gartner over Andreychuk in a heartbeat).

with gartner, i think if he was a star he would have one of the all-time worst playoff records for a star. only he wasn't actually a star. to me, those two things say it all about his career in an all-time sense.

if gartner's career totals are next to selanne, robitaille, and shanahan, i feel like the difference between his career and theirs would be glaring.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, Gartner is not an example of a player whose last years would take away from his legacy - if you even subscribe to that theory, which I don't.

 

[Professor What]

Gartner did have seasons of 35 and 32 goals at ages 36 & 37. Both seasons he played all 82 games. So he was still a productive player.

The next season he had only 12 and retired.

His last season is the only one that could even theoretically be held as a detraction. I was only responding to the concept being brought up in the form of what if he'd fallen just short of 700. Keep that last season, or drop it, I don't think it should make that much difference, but it definitely shouldn't detract from the whole career -- a stance I hold whether we're talking about one season or five.

with gartner, i think if he was a star he would have one of the all-time worst playoff records for a star. only he wasn't actually a star. to me, those two things say it all about his career in an all-time sense.

if gartner's career totals are next to selanne, robitaille, and shanahan, i feel like the difference between his career and theirs would be glaring.

I do agree with this. I've never considered Gartner to have ever been a true star. I don't think there's any point of his career that can be pointed to where it could reasonably be said he had that distinctive peak. He's much more an example of an extreme run of very good, while never being elite. Of course, the thing is, I kind of respect that. If I had a team, I'd love to have a Mike Gartner on it, because I'd know what I was going to get out of him year after year after year. I think there's a clear value in that. But yeah, as far as blowing me away at his best, those other guys have a clear advantage.

 

[seventieslord]

Player	Total	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	NR
Lester Patrick	105	4	2	2	2	1	1		1	1	1	1
Vyacheslav Starshinov	85	3		2	2	3		1			3	2
Ryan Getzlaf	84	2	3	2	1		1	1		2	1	3
John LeClair	74	2	1		2	2	2	1	1	1		4
Chuck Rayner	72	1		3	1	1	1		5	2	1	1
Harry Cameron	72	2	1		2	2	2			3	1	3
Yvan Cournoyer	55		3	1	1		1	1		1	2	6
Harry "Hap" Holmes	49		3	1	1			1		1	1	8
Frank Foyston	48			2		2	1	3		1	1	6
Darryl Sittler	48		1		1	2	3		1	1		7
Roy Conacher	45		1	2	1				4		1	7
Didier Pitre	43		1	1		1	2	2			2	7
Larry Murphy	42	1			2	1		1	1	2	1	7
Tom Barrasso	36	1					1	4	1	1		8
Harry Lumley	22					1	1	1	2		1	10

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

- Lester Patrick gets in easily
- Starshinov got what I thought was a surprising amount of support following the discussion
- Getzlaf just buries Sittler
- Leclair very closely edges out Rayner and Cameron for the 200th spot.