Top 4 players All Time

[PenguinSpeed]

-Figured Ill create my own thread and anyone who would like to participate may.



1a) Gretzky
1b) Lemieux
3) Orr
4) Crosby

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

 

[bobholly39]

Just fyi - all time ranking is never about in an "absolute" sense.

Modern day players are better and faster than stars from older eras to a certain extent (probably nowhere near as much as you think though). Nonetheless - there is some merit in suggesting that in an absolute sense a player like crosby or McDavid could be better at ice hockey than Beliveau or even Howe were. Same dynamic as saying sprinters of today are "faster" than they were 50 years ago.

But all time rankings are always about how you did in your era. Ie Howe dominated his era a lot more than Crosby did his and so hes ranked above - regardless of if u think that in an absolute sense crosby might be better

 

[Midnight Judges]

That is the dumbest ranking I’ve ever seen.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Lemieux

Can flop Orr and Howe I guess.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Just fyi - all time ranking is never about in an "absolute" sense.

Modern day players are better and faster than stars from older eras to a certain extent (probably nowhere near as much as you think though). Nonetheless - there is some merit in suggesting that in an absolute sense a player like crosby or McDavid could be better at ice hockey than Beliveau or even Howe were. Same dynamic as saying sprinters of today are "faster" than they were 50 years ago.

But all time rankings are always about how you did in your era. Ie Howe dominated his era a lot more than Crosby did his and so hes ranked above - regardless of if u think that in an absolute sense crosby might be better

-To be fair, Crosby was ranked #1 in 2 different decades in points per game and playoff points per game. The 2000s and the 2010s. There is no cherry picking or sugar coating that. Its a fact.

-Howe entered the league in the 1940s. He didnt rank in the Top 50 in points or points per game. In the 50's, Howe took over #1. In the 60's, Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull both passed Howe.


-Would you agree it is way easier to dominate an era with only 6 teams and all the players come from the same country as opposed to a worldwide NHL today with 5 times as many teams and players than in the Howe era.

-I really want to know. Because I read around the internet and Howe's fame and stock are dropping all over the place except on this board.

 

[Daximus]

-To be fair, Crosby was ranked #1 in 2 different decades in points per game and playoff points per game. The 2000s and the 2010s. There is no cherry picking or sugar coating that. Its a fact.

-Howe entered the league in the 1940s. He didnt rank in the Top 50 in points or points per game. In the 50's, Howe took over #1. In the 60's, Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull both passed Howe.


-Would you agree it is way easier to dominate an era with only 6 teams and all the players come from the same country as opposed to a worldwide NHL today with 5 times as many teams and players than in the Howe era.

-I really want to know. Because I read around the internet and Howe's fame and stock are dropping all over the place except on this board.

Points per game is a hard metric to use as the amount of goals scored changes and rule changes have altered the way statistics are collected. Domination over peers is a really solid way to gauge how good a player was in a particular era as things are more equal overall in terms of players in the same era having access to similar equipment, training routines, league rules and development paths. Secondary to that is finishes in the top.

Bobby Hull managed to lead the league 7 times in goals and 3 times in points. Then you have to factor in the teammate discussion that him and Mikita basically ran the table in their era during their primes winning the scoring race 7 out of 10 times through the 60's. But then you have to factor in playoffs where they pretty much got decimated by the Leafs and Habs during that time frame. So while they were two very good players the Habs and Leafs had far greater depth but perhaps more importantly maybe better playoff goaltending.

PPG is probably one of the least effective measures at determining the best players in the game especially when it comes to current players as their PPG totals will undoubtedly drop as they age.

 

[steve141]

I read around the internet and Howe's fame and stock are dropping all over the place except on this board.

I haven't really looked around much for new discussion forums the last ten years. Have you found any place on the Internet with more knowledge and serious research on the history of hockey than this board?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Points per game is a hard metric to use as the amount of goals scored changes and rule changes have altered the way statistics are collected. Domination over peers is a really solid way to gauge how good a player was in a particular era as things are more equal overall in terms of players in the same era having access to similar equipment, training routines, league rules and development paths. Secondary to that is finishes in the top.

Bobby Hull managed to lead the league 7 times in goals and 3 times in points. Then you have to factor in the teammate discussion that him and Mikita basically ran the table in their era during their primes winning the scoring race 7 out of 10 times through the 60's. But then you have to factor in playoffs where they pretty much got decimated by the Leafs and Habs during that time frame. So while they were two very good players the Habs and Leafs had far greater depth but perhaps more importantly maybe better playoff goaltending.

PPG is probably one of the least effective measures at determining the best players in the game especially when it comes to current players as their PPG totals will undoubtedly drop as they age.

-So what exactly do you use then?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

I haven't really looked around much for new discussion forums the last ten years. Have you found any place on the Internet with more knowledge and serious research on the history of hockey than this board?

-Thats up for debate. I welcome all links in my thread unlike the other thread where only opinions on HF boards are allowed. The link below is one of them. Whether people agree or disagree with this mans opinion, I would be willing to bet this guy watches more hockey then anyone on this board.


The Hockey Guy

 

[Daximus]

-So what exactly do you use then?

I think looking at how well they played against their peers is a good start. Top finishes in goals, assists and points. Then factoring in teammates and overall team depth. Looking at voting for Hart, Norris and Vezina consideration and how important they may be to their team. If they missed a significant chunk of time did their team struggle or still own the league?

Playoff records are so hard for me to judge because the playoffs have been far from static since the leagues inception. Original six teams had a much easier pathway and a far greater chance at appearing in a final if they were a good team. Nowadays we can see 8th place teams make good runs at the Cup so calling them weaker by the numbers doesn't add up. The talent is spread out a lot more but also far deeper then it ever has been.

A lot of these factors is why, to me dominance over peers in the regular season is the easiest way to track from era to era. Obviously inside some era's we can now use things like PPG, playoffs and team effects easier.

 

[Daximus]

-Thats up for debate. I welcome all links in my thread unlike the other thread where only opinions on HF boards are allowed. The link below is one of them. Whether people agree or disagree with this mans opinion, I would be willing to bet this guy watches more hockey then anyone on this board.


The Hockey Guy

He's pretty well informed most of the time but I think there are more knowledgeable posters here they just don't have youtube channels to broadcast their thoughts to everyone on a daily basis.

 

[Asheville]

-Figured Ill create my own thread and anyone who would like to participate may.



1a) Gretzky
1b) Lemieux
3) Orr
4) Crosby

Howe:

(6) Art Ross
(6) Hates
(20) Post-Season All-Star Team selections

But Crosby is ahead of that?

Get out of here with that shit.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I welcome all links in my thread unlike the other thread where only opinions on HF boards are allowed.

Be exceptionally careful where you head with these sorts of comments. If it leads to flaming or attacks, that will not be considered appropriate.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Howe:

(6) Art Ross
(6) Hates
(20) Post-Season All-Star Team selections

But Crosby is ahead of that?

Get out of here with that ****.

-Again, why not acknowledge there were only 6 teams when Howe played? Why does this board not acknowledge that fact?

-For example, in 1955 there were 6 teams with each having approximately 20 players that scored or participated. You need to beat 120 players all from Canada to win the Art Ross. Now with 31 teams times 20 players per team, the league has 610 players from all over the world competing for the same trophy.

-The degree of difficulty from 1955 to today went up 5 fold, and probably more because not all players are from 1 country any more.

 

[Daximus]

-Again, why not acknowledge there were only 6 teams when Howe played? Why does this board not acknowledge that fact?

-For example, in 1955 there were 6 teams with each having approximately 20 players that scored or participated. You need to beat 120 players all from Canada to win the Art Ross. Now with 31 teams times 20 players per team, the league has 610 players from all over the world competing for the same trophy.

-The degree of difficulty from 1955 to today went up 5 fold, and probably more because not all players are from 1 country any more.

Its more about Howe's pure dominance on top of playing until he was 52 years old. Crosby has a long way to go to match that legacy. If he stayed healthy he had a chance but in the end legacy matters otherwise it's just what could have been's. Howe in today's league would be just as dominant a force as he was back then. Hockey sense will always transcend eras. It's what separates the Crosby's from the Sean Avery's. Some guys just understand the game at a high level and with similar equipment and training they can be put into any era and be amongst the best in the league.

 

[Canadiens1958]

-Again, why not acknowledge there were only 6 teams when Howe played? Why does this board not acknowledge that fact?

-For example, in 1955 there were 6 teams with each having approximately 20 players that scored or participated. You need to beat 120 players all from Canada to win the Art Ross. Now with 31 teams times 20 players per team, the league has 610 players from all over the world competing for the same trophy.

-The degree of difficulty from 1955 to today went up 5 fold, and probably more because not all players are from 1 country any more.

No one is denying that there were six NHL teams for the great majority of Howe's NHL career.

Fact remains that you never had 120 or 620 skaters heading into the last week of the NHL schedule with a chance to win the Art Ross. At best a small handful.

 

[Daximus]

McDavid is really the only player I see having a shot at challenging the top 4 right now. What he has done in his first 2 and half seasons in the NHL is remarkable especially when you consider he has done it on perhaps one of the least talented overall rosters of some of the top players. But even he has a long way to go. If he can manage to snag another 4 Ross, for a total of 6 and hopefully gains a couple of Rockets along the way. The conversation will really start to heat up around him. Hopefully the Oilers pull their heads out of their buts and can surround him with enough talent that they can be a playoff threat as well. In this era depth and goaltending matters so much in playoff success just like it really always has but to such a higher degree when you have even more teams vying for those players in a time when drafting is such a key factor to team success. You almost have to be bad for awhile to truly be good.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Its more about Howe's pure dominance on top of playing until he was 52 years old. Crosby has a long way to go to match that legacy. If he stayed healthy he had a chance but in the end legacy matters otherwise it's just what could have been's. Howe in today's league would be just as dominant a force as he was back then. Hockey sense will always transcend eras. It's what separates the Crosby's from the Sean Avery's. Some guys just understand the game at a high level and with similar equipment and training they can be put into any era and be amongst the best in the league.

-Perhaps. But the days of domination of 1 team over others is literally over. The powerhouse Canadians or Islanders or Oilers that went on their cup run dominance year after year would not be able to do it in todays league. Piling up the accolades today is far harder, especially with a salary cap. Piling up the Cups is far harder. Winning 16 games to win a Stanley Cup is far harder then any other time period. It will be interesting what people will say in another 20-30 years. The older folks on this board remember the greats from the 50, 60s, 70s, etc... The younger generations will remember Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, etc..

-But I think that narrative has already changed. Again, I look at all the different sources, people, networks, etc.., already putting Crosby in the Top 4-5 range all time as a 30 year old right now. In time I fully expect players from 1800 to 1980 to continuously drop in the all time rankings because of lack of players worldwide, lack of teams, lack of salary cap, and an easier playoff bracket.

-People always will have their favorites but everything is relative. Would Howe win 1 Art ross competing with Gretzky and Lemieux? Would Crosby? Would anyone? I always view competition and who you are facing to be just as valuable as a metric as something like points per game. Am I cheating Howe in that regard? Perhaps. I just have a hard time using Art Ross wins and such in a 6 team league

 

[Daximus]

-Perhaps. But the days of domination of 1 team over others is literally over. The powerhouse Canadians or Islanders or Oilers that went on their cup run dominance year after year would not be able to do it in todays league. Piling up the accolades today is far harder, especially with a salary cap. Piling up the Cups is far harder. Winning 16 games to win a Stanley Cup is far harder then any other time period. It will be interesting what people will say in another 20-30 years. The older folks on this board remember the greats from the 50, 60s, 70s, etc... The younger generations will remember Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, etc..

-But I think that narrative has already changed. Again, I look at all the different sources, people, networks, etc.., already putting Crosby in the Top 4-5 range all time as a 30 year old right now. In time I fully expect players from 1800 to 1980 to continuously drop in the all time rankings because of lack of players worldwide, lack of teams, lack of salary cap, and an easier playoff bracket.

-People always will have their favorites but everything is relative. Would Howe win 1 Art ross competing with Gretzky and Lemieux? Would Crosby? Would anyone? I always view competition and who you are facing to be just as valuable as a metric as something like points per game. Am I cheating Howe in that regard? Perhaps. I just have a hard time using Art Ross wins and such in a 6 team league

Well in that regard the best players will always be from the most recent era. Which does a discredit to what players from previous eras were able to do. And I mean yeah the current era of players are incredible but that's why we have to use dominance over peers as a weight. It's not like every other team in the 6 team league was terrible. Howe was heads and shoulders above anyone on his own team let alone the league.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The guy is continuing to cite a rather average (at best) YouTuber who offers almost no insight at all...if only we were on the trade board, we could lock this "rumor"...

With all due respect, I like that guy's hustle (the YTer, not the OP), but it's an absolute nothingburger in terms of content...intended for casual fans, 30,000-foot view...depth of a shoebox lid...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

-Perhaps. But the days of domination of 1 team over others is literally over. The powerhouse Canadians or Islanders or Oilers that went on their cup run dominance year after year would not be able to do it in todays league. Piling up the accolades today is far harder, especially with a salary cap. Piling up the Cups is far harder. Winning 16 games to win a Stanley Cup is far harder then any other time period. It will be interesting what people will say in another 20-30 years. The older folks on this board remember the greats from the 50, 60s, 70s, etc... The younger generations will remember Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, etc..

-But I think that narrative has already changed. Again, I look at all the different sources, people, networks, etc.., already putting Crosby in the Top 4-5 range all time as a 30 year old right now. In time I fully expect players from 1800 to 1980 to continuously drop in the all time rankings because of lack of players worldwide, lack of teams, lack of salary cap, and an easier playoff bracket.

-People always will have their favorites but everything is relative. Would Howe win 1 Art ross competing with Gretzky and Lemieux? Would Crosby? Would anyone? I always view competition and who you are facing to be just as valuable as a metric as something like points per game. Am I cheating Howe in that regard? Perhaps. I just have a hard time using Art Ross wins and such in a 6 team league

So guys like Howe , Orr, Harvey, etc. become lesser players because of these changes is the game?

Who would have to make bigger adjustments, prime Howe playing now or prime Crosby playing in the 50's and 60's?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

The guy is continuing to cite a rather average (at best) YouTuber who offers almost no insight at all...if only we were on the trade board, we could lock this "rumor"...

With all due respect, I like that guy's hustle (the YTer, not the OP), but it's an absolute nothingburger in terms of content...intended for casual fans, 30,000-foot view...depth of a shoebox lid...

-Instead of putting down others opinions, which is a common theme for certain posters on this forum if other people disagree, why not simply cite your top 4 and put your own personal reasons why.

-As far the youtuber being "average" at best, he has a huge following for just putting out "average" information. Apparently other people like him.

-For the record, I quoted ESPN, NBC, a youtuber with a huge following, etc.. and the "click" of friends on this board through salt at all of them and put them all down but didnt offer anything of substance and zero sources.

-Saying Howe > Crosby End of discussion. is zero substance

-At least the Jets fan talking here talks in a civil manner.

 

[Daximus]

So guys like Howe , Orr, Harvey, etc. become lesser players because of these changes is the game?

Who would have to make bigger adjustments, prime Howe playing now or prime Crosby playing in the 50's and 60's?

I think neither. If both were raised playing hockey in each others eras they would be dominant no matter what. Hockey sense is something that, like I said, transcends eras.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think neither. If both were raised playing hockey in each others eras they would be dominant no matter what. Hockey sense is something that, like I said, transcends eras.

Agreed.