Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time

[blueandgoldguy]

Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present

 

[ResilientBeast]

Top-300 (201-300)

Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present

Please no

The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)

 

[rmartin65]

Please no

The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)

I regret that I have but one like to give for this post.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Please no

The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)

I like this idea. I also would love if we could put out a 3-10 book reading list for prep beforehand.

 

[Professor What]

I felt like we were really splitting hairs by the end of 200; top 300 would be rather chaotic. Connected to that, the work that would go into putting together a list of 300+ players to start with would be crazy. It would be so easy to overlook players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For top 50 players from 2000-present, you could make a series of polls in the polls section. Get more voters. I feel 2000-present is about what the "main board" can handle

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please no

The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)

Yes, best before consolidation - preliminary research over the summer; first rounds of the weekly threads timed to coincide with the start of the 2022-23 hockey season.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present

The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."

It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however.

Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."

It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however.

Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]

If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:

1. Firsov
2. Mikhailov
3. Maltsev
4. Martinec
5. Holecek
6. Vasiliev
7. Krutov
8. Petrov
9. Suchy
10. Kasatonov
11. Tremblay
12. Brewer
13. Pospisil
14. Joseph
15. Alfredsson
16. Yakushev
17. Elias
18. Starshinov
19. Leclair

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:

1. Firsov
2. Mikhailov
3. Maltsev
4. Martinec
5. Holecek
6. Vasiliev
7. Krutov
8. Petrov
9. Suchy
10. Kasatonov
11. Tremblay
12. Brewer
13. Pospisil
14. Joseph
15. Alfredsson
16. Yakushev
17. Elias
18. Starshinov
19. Leclair

Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'

Conversation worth having, I think.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'

Conversation worth having, I think.

Agreed actually. I’ve thought that what we’ve missed out on in terms of sharing the knowledge of the HoH in the top 100/200 projects has been conveying some kind of consensus on the relative importance of a player’s contributions to the history of the game, which goes beyond how they compared head-to-head against top peers in their primes and the rarity of their NHL achievements.

Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.

Mogilny isn’t in the Hall of Fame, and he’s not on the top 200, but I’d argue he’s infinitely more “HoF worthy” than Alfredsson or LeClair. Partly because he was such a thrill to behold, but certainly because of his story. And I still don’t think he tops the list of notable snubs.

In Sweden, whenever someone makes a top 10 of the greatest Swedish players of all time, Sven Tumba must feature lest one would look ignorant to forget perhaps not the best, but arguably the most important player in the history of Swedish hockey.

I’ve seen the idea of an all-Swede/all Hank and Dan Hall of Fame class mentioned around the boards, but I’d much prefer the message of a completely non-NHL class of deserving players to celebrate the history of the game rather than celebrating the back-to-back Art Ross twin curiosity/Conn Smythe/Conn Smythy runs of Swedes at this point. Unless I’m forgetting something obvious, don’t think there’s any decisive “first ballot” guy whose just become eligible in the last few years at any rate, so now would be a great time to strike.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:

1. Firsov
2. Mikhailov
3. Maltsev
4. Martinec
5. Holecek
6. Vasiliev
7. Krutov
8. Petrov
9. Suchy
10. Kasatonov
11. Tremblay
12. Brewer
13. Pospisil
14. Joseph
15. Alfredsson
16. Yakushev
17. Elias
18. Starshinov
19. Leclair

Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.

 

[Professor What]

Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.

Yeah, it's a rather annoying assumption that many make, even if they don't vocalize it. For example, I don't know if Tumba should go in just as a player, but he should be in without a doubt as a builder. I believe we'd be missing some names we know how if not for his contributions to growing the sport in Sweden. That's the kind of resume that's more deserving than some that get in.

Edit: Actually, I should say you don't even have to leave North America to find that. Isn't there some guy named Creighton?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.

If the HHOF is so establishment that WHA guys and union men have to pay a price...what are you expecting to happen with a bunch of evil commie pinkos...?

Obviously a facetious remark, but the avenue in for these guys is appreciably uphill and coated with salted butter...

 

[tarheelhockey]

If the HHOF is so establishment that WHA guys and union men have to pay a price...

Notably, the next two guys are Tremblay and Brewer. Then Pospisil.

 

[Theokritos]

Obviously a facetious remark, but the avenue in for these guys is appreciably uphill and coated with salted butter...

It could be worse.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Just noticed a few "errors" in the rankings at the top of page 1.

Hod Stuart is listed as a C but should be listed as D

Nikita Kucherov is listed as a LW but should be RW.

 

[seventieslord]

Just noticed a few "errors" in the rankings at the top of page 1.

Hod Stuart is listed as a C but should be listed as D

Nikita Kucherov is listed as a LW but should be RW.

Thanks, I can't update this but @Theokritos can.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Got it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we're changing positional stuff

Doug Bentley should be LW/C
Vaclav Nedomansky probably should be C/RW
Patrik Elias probably should be LW/C

Bentley was an all star at both positions. Nedomansky/Elias's secondary position is definitely secondary, but when Sergei Fedorov is listed as C/D...

 

[bobholly39]

Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present

I know others already commented but...

Top 300 - absolutely not. Top 200 was a great endeavor and I'm glad we did it, but I feel as though beyond 150 it became really hard. So little to differentiate. Going 200 to 300 would be just about impossible.

We've had discussions of top 10 (or mount rushmore top 4-5) from different teams often...don't think a full and involved project is really necessary for that.

Top 50 players from 2000 season to present - In our current top 200 list we must have at least ~30+ players from years 2000+ already no? Maybe a little's changed in past 2 years, but for most part just take the top players listed, and come up with the final ~10-15 missing and you're done. Not much of a project. And as others said - polls and main board will probably bring a larger audience, and pretty qualified audience for that period.

I know a few here want to do a pre-consolidation ranking next. Personally - I'd love for us to try something different, such as:

- Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
- Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)

Every list we've ever done is about whose the "greatest". To me - 'greatest' implies in large part greater career. Doing top 50 peak/seasons would be all about who was "best". Big difference. Would be very interesting to do

 

[ResilientBeast]

- Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
- Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)

But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?

 

[The Macho King]

But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?

If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.

As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.

As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.

This is definitely a good point, and we'll have to figure out a good way to get as much information as possible available to all the participants because the further we go back the bigger mess it's going to be. If we dip our toes into the 19th century that will be a huge pain.

Haviland Routh anyone? lol

There are some good free newspaper archives I've mined before for western papers and local libraries at least up here in Alberta actually give some good resources so hopefully others have some level of access

 

[bobholly39]

But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?

Personal preference? Lots of people were excited at the prospect of ranking top peaks last time we brought it up. I don't really understand the question - seems pretty self explanatory.

Also - it's a lot easier to do.