TSN ranks the top 25 NHL players of all time

Status
Not open for further replies.

Laineux

Registered User
Aug 1, 2011
5,267
2,826
-Let's not bring goaltending and size of the goalies and pads from 1946 when Howe played, to the early 80's of Wayne, to today's goliath goaltenders and their padding.
You're misunderstanding these comparisons... anyone should realize that Crosby is "better" than any player that played in the 50s or 60s or whatever. These lists aren't measuring absolute abilities.

In a list of best inventors of all time, you wouldn't start arguing that Edison's light bulb is ridiculously primitive compared to modern stuff.
 

Cubs2024WSChamps

Tate MacRae follows me on Tiktok
Apr 29, 2015
7,885
2,459
I would flip Orr and Gretzky and Hull and Sidney.

Other then that, pretty much spot on.

Toews I'm sure is 26th. And if this was the intangibles list he's number one, two, and three. (Three Cups)
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,488
10,040
Top 4 should be
Gretzky
Lemieux
Should be top 2

It's based on career that's why

Top 5 Hart finishes
Crosby 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,
Malkin 1, 2 , 2

Top 10 Point finishes
Crosby 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Malkin 1, 1, 2

So Lemieux should be top two because of Hart and finishes. Malkin should be outside the top 25 based on Hart and point finishes.

But somehow Hart and point finishes don't benefit Gordie Howe because...
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
-They both had clear advantages. You had stacked lines pre-1967. You had a diluted product in the 80's.

But the “stacked lines” approach didn’t produce more scoring.

Your thesis here is that concentrating the talent pool into a smaller number of teams will favor offense and allow stars to run up stats beyond all comparison. Objective evidence shows that this does not actually happen — look at the scoring rate during the 1950s and 1960s, which was basically the same as today (and we complain about low scoring).

To put it in perspective, during the entire O6 era after WWII, players scored PPG in a 50+ game season 96 times. In a seven-year span after the league went to 12 teams, it happened 101 times. That’s an indicator of how scoring not only went up overall, but how star players in particular were able to thrive and hit statistical marks that would have been unreachable before expansion.

For example, in the years leading up to expansion, the highest scoring season was Bobby Hull’s 97 points in 70 games. Two years after expansion, we had Esposito scoring 126 in 74... then 152 in 78. In the same timeframe, the single season goals record jumped from 54 to 76. Clearly running up numbers that would have been unthinkable pre-expansion.

So I would say the thesis needs to be adjusted — stacked lines DO run up scoring, in an environment where lower end teams are poorly constructed with little talent. See the 1970s Bruins, 1980s Oilers, 1990s Penguins crushing statistical marks because they managed to get several top players on a single team while expansion clubs were running around with recently promoted AHL talent.

-In the 60's the Canadians were winning the Stanley Cup AND getting the #1 draft pick every year. That is comical. Thats like the Penguins winning the Stanleu Cup, then adding McDavid and Matthews to the Pens roster. This is exactly how hockey was back then.

Not really. At that time the top talent, players comparable to McDavid and Matthews, were signed LONG before they ever reached draft age. For example, during that time period the Bruins signed Bobby Orr as a 14 year old. He was never drafted.

What you got in the early drafts were the best players who were NOT already scouted and signed. So 3 of the first 5 drafts didn’t even produce an NHL player from the #1 pick. The other 2 were journeymen with irrelevant NHL careers.

What you’re probably thinking of was the 1971 draft, when Montreal managed to trade up to the #1 pick and draft Guy Lafleur. The story of how it happened is amazing, but at heart the system was the same as today — the worst teams had the best draft picks, and Montreal had to trade players to move up.


1.5x or 2x? Compared to the 06? A league that was, for all intents and purposes, a 100% Canadian?

Talking about the Boomer-era O6, when the Canadian cohort was double today’s size AND middle/lower class kids could still rise to the top without the economic barriers that exist today.

I admit the math is imprecise, but in today’s NHL a little less than half the players are Canadian. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Canada accounts for half the talent pool, because many European would-be NHL’ers opt to stay at home rather than grind it out in the minor leagues. But let’s say Canada accounts for, say, 1/3rd of the actual NHL talent pool?

Well, today’s Canadian talent pool is half the size of the Boomer era talent pool. I’m not going to even get into economic barriers and alternative sports and the like, but I think we’d both agree that the NHL draws from a smaller proportion of the Canadian population than it used to. So it’s a (somewhat overly) simple mathematical leap to say that if Canadians account for 1/3rd of today’s pipeline, then the 1965 pipeline would account for 2/3rds of today’s NHL. Then adjust upward as you desire in order to account for other social factors. That, by itself, wipes out about half of the “growth” that the league has experienced in other countries. And, by itself, the NHL pipeline in other countries has arguably flatlined and in some cases is shrinking. Partially due to the rise of the KHL, partially due to countries like CR and Slovakia declining.

FWIW, I don’t view this as an academic argument. I think this is an actual, unspoken crisis in the game of hockey. The fact that the NHL is committed (for marketing purposes) to pushing a narrative of “the game is bigger than ever, talent is better than ever!” frustrates what should be a very serious conversation about the direction of hockey participation for the past 30 years and what it means going forward.
 

yababy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2015
3,441
828
And Crosby has back to back Conny Smythes and another two Conn Smythe worthy runs... His individual legacy already far exceeds Roy's. And beyond legacy, he's just a much better player.

agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.
 

Yackiberg8

Registered User
Mar 11, 2016
2,777
1,666
Halifax
agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.

Interesting logic...if the Penguins didn't have Crosby they wouldn't have won the cup, same could be said for Malkin. Maybe they should've awarded 3 or 4 Conn Smythes eh
 

jfhabs

Registered User
May 21, 2015
4,709
2,202
Really hard to do an all time list because of the change in the sports depending on the era... I would seperate it by eras. 1920-50, 1951-70, 1971-90, 1991-2004, 2005-present. Some player might be right in the middle of 2 different eras, but it's so hard to compare players who played in the 1920s, 1950s and even 1980s to actual players....
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,488
10,040
Not really. At that time the top talent, players comparable to McDavid and Matthews, were signed LONG before they ever reached draft age. For example, during that time period the Bruins signed Bobby Orr as a 14 year old. He was never drafted.

What you got in the early drafts were the best players who were NOT already scouted and signed. So 3 of the first 5 drafts didn’t even produce an NHL player from the #1 pick. The other 2 were journeymen with irrelevant NHL careers.

What you’re probably thinking of was the 1971 draft, when Montreal managed to trade up to the #1 pick and draft Guy Lafleur. The story of how it happened is amazing, but at heart the system was the same as todTalking about the Boomer-era O6, when the Canadian cohort was double today’s size AND middle/lower class kids could still rise to the top without the economic barriers that exist today.

That's really not all that different in practice from what the poster said. The stanley cup winning team could very well end up with the best prospect from a given rookie class.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,408
5,064
agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.

I can see the argument for that (but in the same token do they win if you remove Crosby or Malkin or good goaltending or Kessel, probably not so that does not determine who is the mvp using that logic)

But how Crosby first cup win was not Smythe worthy ? 31 pts in the playoff is one of the best total of all time, since the goal scoring went down post 95-96:

NHL.com - Stats

Only Malkin that year ever did more, how many players performance except Malkin that year would have won the Smythe over Crosby in the last 20 playoff, 20, 25, 30, 35 ?
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,408
5,064
As an extremely biased Red Wings fan I'm wondering how Ovechkin is above Lidström...

Must be the arguably the best goal scorer of all time conversation around Ovechkin mixed with a difficulty to compare player so different for voters.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Bourque and Lidstrom ridiculously underrated

Lidstrom was never a Hart finalist

How can he be a top 20 player of all-time when he was never considered one of the top 3 most valuable players during his era?

If anyone is underrated, it's Pronger
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,709
Visit site
Lidstrom was never a Hart finalist

How can he be a top 20 player of all-time when he was never considered one of the top 3 most valuable players during his era?

If anyone is underrated, it's Pronger

Doesn't Lidstrom have the far superior Norris resume vs. Pronger and they played at the exact same time?
 

nowhereman

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
9,230
7,564
Los Angeles
agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.
Explain yourself.

How did Crosby not deserve his last Conn Smythe? He had ONE LESS POINT than Malkin, all while playing a better all-around game and taking on the top match-ups. Not to mention, he had a better Finals.

2016 had several worthy candidates and the voters felt he was the best representative. He played tremendous defensive hockey that run, took all the key match-ups and led his team in GWGs. I'm sure that if you asked his coach and teammates, not a single one would disagree with the choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ageless

livewell68

Registered User
Jul 20, 2007
8,680
52
Jagr, Hasek and Listrom are really low. Ovechkin above them?

Crosby at 8? Seriously?

Seems 5 Art Ross trophies, 3 Pearsons or 6 Vezinas and 2 Harts or 7 Norris trophies don't get you much love.

Those of us who actually watched these guys play at least know who was better. We don"t need some biased TSN to tell us who's best.

If anything the DPE is being severely underrated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->