Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time

[ResilientBeast]

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.

Sure it's easier but all it is recycling some of the same arguments we've had just through a somewhat different lense.

There is little opportunity for new and interesting research and conclusions, something I think these projects can be good for. A prime example being the non-NHL Euros which gave me a venue to learn so much more about those players than I would've otherwise.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Heck, I'll even pay for a newspapers.com subscription for a month or two if we do the pre-consolidation project (not that I expect everyone to)

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Top 50 women hockey players all-time?

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Top 50 women hockey players all-time?

When we’re on the subject of knowledge gaps amongst the HoH… Considering that the lid flew off a few good folks over the fact one voter had thrown Hailey Wickenheiser an admittedly token 120th place vote in the top 100 project, perhaps this would be quite worthwhile.

 

[seventieslord]

Top 50 women hockey players all-time?

I would put my whole heart into this.

 

[bobholly39]

Sure it's easier but all it is recycling some of the same arguments we've had just through a somewhat different lense.

There is little opportunity for new and interesting research and conclusions, something I think these projects can be good for. A prime example being the non-NHL Euros which gave me a venue to learn so much more about those players than I would've otherwise.

I dunno. I know some of the regulars here seem to have very high interest for pre-consolidation and that's cool - but how many people would actually participate actively? 5? 10? Is that enough? You guys figure it out. If you decide to go for it - cool, I'll certainly follow very actively.

If that doesn't happen - I still think best peaks/single seasons is the way to go. Broader participation - and we've never ranked by peak before so it would be very interesting to do.

You say it's "the recycling of the same arguments" - sure, but that's true of any comparison we ever do. Difference here is that it would be a lot more specific and precise what we're ranking.

My biggest issue with all of our projects is that people value different things differently. So it's cool to list the top 100 players and have 20 people voting - but if 5 of them value peak more, 5 value prime more, 5 value playoffs more, 5 value longevity move - and all 20 do so to varying degrees - no one is really comparing/ranking the same thing. If we rank single peak season, or peak - I think it's a lot more specific, and we're all ranking the same thing more closely. Would give for interesting results.

Also - this board has never done a peak ranking, and personally I'm most fascinated by peak level of play. I'd love to have a list to show who are the best of the best players ever - looking at their absolute peak.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I would put my whole heart into this.

While I can't exactly say the same thing (because I know what it looks like when you put your whole heart into a HOH ranking project and that's a high bar to clear), but this is perhaps the single most worthwhile thing we could be doing, and it's nearly entirely untrodded ground around here. I would participate for sure.
The only drawback is the lack of expertise we have on the subject in this forum (as far as I know), and while I would personally find a best-we-can-do attempt a valuable thing, I know that the Non-NHL Europeans project left a lot of people who were closer to the subject bitter about how it turned out. I don't know who around here is closest to the subject and how they feel about it, one way or another.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think a top women's hockey project would be fun.

A big issue we will run into is comparing leagues. Even in the Euro project, it was primarily Czechoslovakian and Soviet domestic leagues with emphasis on international play.

How do you compare Swedish div 3 to NCAA? Women's hockey is just consolidating now.

Wickenheiser is going to be the favourite top answer (maybe further research will dispute that). How do we weigh her play against men vs other women playing against women?

Very interesting project, but definitely a challenge bigger than pre consolidation or pre NHL Euros.

There's no "easy debates" left to have. Gretzky vs Lemieux. Bourque vs Lidstrom. Hasek vs Roy. Those are fun, but I am eager to sink my teeth into something different, whether that's who is the second best defenseman of 1910s hockey or who is the 13th best female hockey player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top women's hockey would be great... assuming we could actually get people who know anything about women's hockey. But could we?

For the HOH Top non-NHL Euros project, we tried to bring in posters from the international and European leagues forums. Didn't get as many as we wanted, but I believe we got a few. Is there even a woman's hockey forum on hfboards? How active is it?

Also for HOH Top non-NHL Euros, some of us HOH regulars did start with SOME knowledge, something that I at least don't have for the woman's project.

Basically, I would love for something like this to happen, but I don't know if we have the user base.

 

[The Macho King]

Top women's hockey would be great... assuming we could actually get people who know anything about women's hockey. But could we?

For the HOH Top non-NHL Euros project, we tried to bring in posters from the international and European leagues forums. Didn't get as many as we wanted, but I believe we got a few. Is there even a woman's hockey forum on hfboards? How active is it?

Also for HOH Top non-NHL Euros, some of us HOH regulars did start with SOME knowledge, something that I at least don't have for the woman's project.

Basically, I would love for something like this to happen, but I don't know if we have the user base.

Conversely - the way to get the knowledge base may be to just start doing it. Our first project may be shit but the 2029 project will have a much better foundation.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's an interesting idea...but, I'll be the first to confess...if we all took little slips of paper and wrote down a number on it - that number is how many women's hockey games you have watched. Fold the piece of paper and hand it to, say, seventieslord...what's the average number? I'll tell ya, there's no shot I'm even close to triple digits. For that reason alone, I'm not qualified to participate.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's an interesting idea...but, I'll be the first to confess...if we all took little slips of paper and wrote down a number on it - that number is how many women's hockey games you have watched. Fold the piece of paper and hand it to, say, seventieslord...what's the average number? I'll tell ya, there's no shot I'm even close to triple digits. For that reason alone, I'm not qualified to participate.

I'll confess, outside of international hockey, I've watched a grand total of zero women's games. I've watched more women vs boys games than I have watched women vs women club games.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The Inaugural HOH Intangibles Project.
Are you in?

No.

This is a project that is not well served by the structure of HOH projects

 

[ImporterExporter]

Coaches. It's the one major piece of the hockey equation we've not yet delved into.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Coaches. It's the one major piece of the hockey equation we've not yet delved into.

Don't disagree, personally not really interested

 

[Michael Farkas]

Team results depend on team composition too. If you're not a part of the practices, understanding the tactics that were attempted, understanding and considering the skill development, etc. you (royal you) won't have any idea of how it went down. Results are the tip of the iceberg. You can win in spite of a coach, you can win because of a coach...the best coaching job this year might not end up in the playoffs, for instance...or it could win the Cup...either way, it's immeasurable to us in my opinion...

It would require a ton of video work to find innovation (Soviet weave, left wing lock, 1-3-1 power play, etc.) and who did it first...and frankly, we don't do enough video work for the player things (which are infinitely easier to spot), so I can't imagine us pursuing it for a coaching thing...it's too abstract for those that didn't do it or at least played at a high level, in my opinion...

 

[seventieslord]

I'm sure the number of women's games I've watched is in the very low double digits. Pretty much every big Canada-usa game of the last 24 years, and that's about it.

Am I a women's hockey expert? Nope. Is anyone else on the HOH board? Don't think so. That all being said, however, we've all done some pretty good ranking and sorting of dozens of pre-merger players, none of whom a second of footage existed for.

How were we able to do that? For starters, our aptitude isn't just for hockey, but for historical ranking itself. For example, I only have a passing interest in baseball, but give me a day and a history of league leaders, award voting records, etc, and I could use methods and principles that I've developed over the last 15 years and come up with a top 100 for baseball that would be pretty damn good. As good as someone who has my skillset, plus knows baseball intimately? Surely not, but reasonable nonetheless. And I can do a better job on women's hockey than I could on baseball.

How do we rank those older players from the formative years of hockey whom we can never see play? Well, to start with, we get a good sense for who the greatest were based on who made it into the HHOF. We can look at their stats. We can use reference points to infer the strength of competition that existed in their various leagues. We can look at who won awards and made all-star teams. We can read about who observers thought was the best.

All of these things, we can also do for women's hockey, except we can see them play, too.

I do agree that it would be a good idea to have multiple people involved who know more about women's hockey than anyone here currently does. I believe I know who I can ask about that.

We are all here to learn, and I can't speak for everyone of course, but I think that this would bring out the best in me as a researcher and as a student of the game. It's a very worthwhile topic.

As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)

But of course, just like men's hockey didn't start in 1967 and it didn't start in 1926 and it didn't start in 1918 and it didn't even really start in 1893, I'm definitely open to being taught about some Elite women's players that came before 1998. I would need to be more convinced of their greatness and how much they stood above other women's players of their day, but I'm not opposed to ranking them in earnest with the modern greats, just like we should be open to ranking players like Russell Bowie and Mike Grant.

 

[Batis]

As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)

Riikka Sallinen is one that comes to mind as a strong candidate. She was one of the best players in the world during the 90s as she made the All-Star team at three World Championships (92, 94 and 97) and led the 1998 Olympics in scoring when Finland finished in third place. Sallinen decided to retire after the 02/03 season at age 29/30 but then ten years later at the age of 40 she made a comeback during the 13/14 season and played in two more Olympics. When Finland finished in third place at the 2018 Olympics she managed to finish in the top 10 in scoring an incredible twenty years after she had been the leading scorer at the 1998 Olympics.

 

[Professor What]

I'm sure the number of women's games I've watched is in the very low double digits. Pretty much every big Canada-usa game of the last 24 years, and that's about it.

Am I a women's hockey expert? Nope. Is anyone else on the HOH board? Don't think so. That all being said, however, we've all done some pretty good ranking and sorting of dozens of pre-merger players, none of whom a second of footage existed for.

How were we able to do that? For starters, our aptitude isn't just for hockey, but for historical ranking itself. For example, I only have a passing interest in baseball, but give me a day and a history of league leaders, award voting records, etc, and I could use methods and principles that I've developed over the last 15 years and come up with a top 100 for baseball that would be pretty damn good. As good as someone who has my skillset, plus knows baseball intimately? Surely not, but reasonable nonetheless. And I can do a better job on women's hockey than I could on baseball.

How do we rank those older players from the formative years of hockey whom we can never see play? Well, to start with, we get a good sense for who the greatest were based on who made it into the HHOF. We can look at their stats. We can use reference points to infer the strength of competition that existed in their various leagues. We can look at who won awards and made all-star teams. We can read about who observers thought was the best.

All of these things, we can also do for women's hockey, except we can see them play, too.

I do agree that it would be a good idea to have multiple people involved who know more about women's hockey than anyone here currently does. I believe I know who I can ask about that.

We are all here to learn, and I can't speak for everyone of course, but I think that this would bring out the best in me as a researcher and as a student of the game. It's a very worthwhile topic.

As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)

But of course, just like men's hockey didn't start in 1967 and it didn't start in 1926 and it didn't start in 1918 and it didn't even really start in 1893, I'm definitely open to being taught about some Elite women's players that came before 1998. I would need to be more convinced of their greatness and how much they stood above other women's players of their day, but I'm not opposed to ranking them in earnest with the modern greats, just like we should be open to ranking players like Russell Bowie and Mike Grant.

I feel like I would be totally unqualified to participate in a project to rank the top women's players right now. As such, if that were to be launched, I'd have to sit out for the time being. However, there's no reason that can't change. Even where conversation is concerned, I feel I'd have little to offer right now, but if the group here decided to have that conversation, I'd at the very least follow it. I've learned a lot here in the last year+ that I've been here, and that could no doubt be extended to women's hockey. If we were to put it down as a future project, I'd be interested. I'd like to see where we can get in our collective knowledge and try to make it feasible.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I’ve probably seen something like 20 games of women’s hockey, and mostly my hometown team Luleå/MSSK in the SDHL. I can tell you a few names of top SDHL players of the last half decade, a few of whom I think perhaps could be considered for the final list (Jenni Hiirikoski for example have had the “best defenseman in the world” epithet applied to her from time to time, and she’s a huge favorite of mine). I think comparing achievements between women’s leagues will provide a considerable challenge though, I think there’s a lot making this project a much more difficult challenge than the top men.

It would of course be awesome if we could get ahold of someone with more knowledge and experience of the women’s game, but I think that just trying to do this would be a great learning experience for everyone, even without much expertise. We might render a pretty bad list in the end, but we’ll have learned things and might become more appreciative of the women in the game.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I really think a top 20-25 coaches of all time would be a neat undertaking.

One, it's an area of hockey that flat out hasn't been discussed in this arena. Coaches are such a vital aspect to a hockey team winning a Stanley Cup and there are numerous all time greats who could honestly use use some discussion and debate on. This is as good a place as you'll find to have that dialogue.

Two, instead of trying to rank 100 players, which always loses steam the further you go along, keeping the number of entries lower here would likely buoy participation through the end and lessen the fatigue on participants and also shorten the entire length of the project itself, which in turn, could then be used as a springboard to another project, more quickly.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I really think a top 20-25 coaches of all time would be a neat undertaking.

One, it's an area of hockey that flat out hasn't been discussed in this arena. Coaches are such a vital aspect to a hockey team winning a Stanley Cup and there are numerous all time greats who could honestly use use some discussion and debate on. This is as good a place as you'll find to have that dialogue.

Two, instead of trying to rank 100 players, which always loses steam the further you go along, keeping the number of entries lower here would likely buoy participation through the end and lessen the fatigue on participants and also shorten the entire length of the project itself, which in turn, could then be used as a springboard to another project, more quickly.

I think @Mike Farkas reply to you kinda explains why we aren't well equipped to do this.

 

[wetcoast]

I think @Mike Farkas reply to you kinda explains why we aren't well equipped to do this.

Ranking coaches is really difficult as it will become a team list more than anything else really.

I mean Roger Nielson was a great coach but didn't have much to work with, we might as well call it the most successful coaches ever project with small caveats.

Although it would be better than any intangibles or best captain list type of project to be sure.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Haha, I’d love the intangibles project. Imagine the debates…

• NO! Ryan Smyth did NOT have that certain je ne sais quoi, however Toews had in spades.
• I’m not questioning the notion that Armstrong was a red blooded, lionhearted, natural winner with moxy and as many stomachs as a cow: I’m just not convinced he’s top 10 all time in that department.
• Gretzky needs to be #1. I checked the tape: I don’t know what he did, but it worked.
• He guaranteed it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's such an unbelievably bad idea haha