Which Active Players Are Top 100 Players of All-Time?

[T REX]

The Kucherov hate on here is pretty bad.

Yeah, he was an ass at the all-star game.

Give it a rest. SMDH

 

[hamzarocks]

5th - Mcdavid
6th/7th/8th-Crosby
9th/10th/11th - OV
Malkin-40th to 50th
Kucherov - 50th-60th (if he closes out the year with all 3 awards)
Mackinnon 70th - 80th
Drai -70th -80th
Kane 70-80th
Matthews 75th-85th
Makar -80th-90th

 

[WingsFan95]

Ended up including Matthews along with Other.

I think it's hard to ignore his goal scoring even if he retired tomorrow. I mean....

Very few players have lead the league in goal scoring more than the 3 times Matthews will have (not to mention his 2nd place finish).

Ovechkin, Bobby Hull, Esposito, Gretzky, Howe, Richard. Not looking at older gen guys like Conacher.

Really can't ignore that. Lemieux, Bossy, Brett Hull, Selanne, Bure didn't lead the league more than 3 times. It's hard to get 3+

 

[Midnight Judges]

I did say ballpark. But the main reason is that there's a distinct difference between legendary players and most skilled, talented, etc.

The legacy players shaped the league and therefore cannot be easily (if ever) usurped by "better athletes" who frankly play in a diluted sports landscape despite the insane salaries.

Easiest reference for other sports:

Any boxer being as legendary as Marciano, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Tyson, Jack Freaking Johnson, Dempsey, etc.
Any NFL player being as legendary as Rice, Sanders, Payton, Butkus, Lott, Green, Montana, etc.

Yeah SOME guys like McDavid right now can absolute lay claim, but when you go down the list it becomes asinine to just move too many legacy players based on essentially stats.

I am not understanding your logic.

Maybe fill in the blank:

Canada alone, with a population of 11 million people, produced 15 top 100 players out of the 1950s whereas the international Ovechkin/Crosby generation produced only 6 despite the talent pool being at least 3-4 times larger.

It should be exponentially easier for the players from the 1900s through the 1990s to be considered a top 100 player of all time. But players from these most recent two generations should not have that same opportunity, because ______________.

 

[The Macho King]

5th - Mcdavid
6th/7th/8th-Crosby
9th/10th/11th - OV
Malkin-40th to 50th
Kucherov - 50th-60th (if he closes out the year with all 3 awards)
Mackinnon 70th - 80th
Drai -70th -80th
Kane 70-80th
Matthews 75th-85th
Makar -80th-90th

I'll never understand this. Why would where Kucherov get voted determine his placement? Does what Steve Simmons think somehow impact Kucherov's season? Is his performance changed based on what a bunch of beat reporters think?

Especially in this diffuse media environment where many writers/voters will see a guy play twice out of 82 total games of "their" guys, relying on voted on awards to determine placement on an all-time list seems like a bad metric to use.

 

[hamzarocks]

I'll never understand this. Why would where Kucherov get voted determine his placement? Does what Steve Simmons think somehow impact Kucherov's season? Is his performance changed based on what a bunch of beat reporters think?

Especially in this diffuse media environment where many writers/voters will see a guy play twice out of 82 total games of "their" guys, relying on voted on awards to determine placement on an all-time list seems like a bad metric to use.

Its the ross + hart + lindsay

Its his own production level vs his peers
Its how he is viewed by the media and sports writers
And its how he is viewed by his felliw NHL players

If he takes only the Ross I would have him around 57-60, if he takes 2 of 3 52-55 and if he taked all three hes pushing into the 40s or right at top 50 all time

 

[Buck Naked]

I am not understanding your logic.

There's no logic whatsoever to be honest. People just like to be edgy and consider Bill Gadsby better than Karlsson, Hedman, Keith because it's cooler to think a player you've never seen played, who never won a single award, is better because of old.

 

[Ben White]

If I had to predict based on career trajectory for some of these guys, I'd say everyone has a good chance minus Stamkos, Josi and Kopitar. Doughty's on the fringe.

Pretty much this

 

[pcruz]

Everyone on the list has a strong case for being included in the top 100 list, except:

Matthews
Mackinnon
Draisaitl
Makar

 

[sr edler]

No way Stamkos is a top 100 player of all-time while being outplayed in the playoffs by teammates Tyler Johnson and Ondrej Palat.

 

[GlitchMarner]

No way Stamkos is a top 100 player of all-time while being outplayed in the playoffs by teammates Tyler Johnson and Ondrej Palat.

He's like Thornton. Great regular season resume but playoffs hold him back.

Thornton is still top 100, though. Stamkos is more like ~150 off the top of my head.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No way Stamkos is a top 100 player of all-time while being outplayed in the playoffs by teammates Tyler Johnson and Ondrej Palat.

Do you think it would be impossible to find similar examples within the history forum's top 100 list?

This standard you are asserting - is it going to survive contact with reality?

I'm still curious about this concept of rating players by their lowest lows, as opposed to their highest highs. It seems people use one standard for the players they dislike and the other standard for the players they prefer.

 

[Kingfan1967]

Kopitar is currently #50 on the all time NHL scoring list , some of that can be credited to his longevity (also #50 in games played), but he's been so consistent thru out his career.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Kopitar is currently #50 on the all time NHL scoring list , some of that can be credited to his longevity (also #50 in games played), but he's been so consistent thru out his career.

He's also played much of his career in a low scoring era.

Underrated and underappreciated player IMO.

 

[Despote]

Do you think it would be impossible to find similar examples within the history forum's top 100 list?

This standard you are asserting - is it going to survive contact with reality?

I'm still curious about this concept of rating players by their lowest lows, as opposed to their highest highs. It seems people use one standard for the players they dislike and the other standard for the players they prefer.

Stamkos is a really underwhelming playoff player, and ultimately if you can't bring your game in the playoffs your game isn't valuable because the goal of the game is to win a Cup.

I don't think there's a double standard with that. There are so many contemporary players that I'd rather add to my team than Stamkos when the games matter that I'm sure Stamkos should be nowhere near a top 100 list of any kind that considers all eras.

 

[wetcoast]

If Kucherov wins an Art Ross and/or Hart this season, should he really rank behind guys like Lindros and Thornton?

If picking one to build a team around, I'm sure almost everyone would take Lindros. But I think Kuch will clearly be more accomplished after this season if he isn't already.

And he is a much better playoff player than Thornton.

Dickie Moore is higher than 80 right now.

Hasn't Kuch done more than Moore?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Stamkos is a really underwhelming playoff player, and ultimately if you can't bring your game in the playoffs your game isn't valuable because the goal of the game is to win a Cup.

I don't think there's a double standard with that. There are so many contemporary players that I'd rather add to my team than Stamkos when the games matter that I'm sure Stamkos should be nowhere near a top 100 list of any kind that considers all eras.

If you are judging him because his highest playoff highs were not high enough - that's one thing.

But if you are judging him by his lowest playoff lows - while not doing that same examination to players you prefer - that's a double standard.

Being outscored by X not-great player in 1 playoff run - used as a basis for removal from the top 100 players - isn't going to survive scrutiny. I can show many examples of all-time great players being outscored by not-amazing players if we're limiting it to 1 playoff run. Conversely, I can show all sorts of examples of not-great players have great playoff runs.

 

[um]

5th - Mcdavid
6th/7th/8th-Crosby
9th/10th/11th - OV
Malkin-40th to 50th
Kucherov - 50th-60th (if he closes out the year with all 3 awards)
Mackinnon 70th - 80th
Drai -70th -80th
Kane 70-80th
Matthews 75th-85th
Makar -80th-90th

I think you’re to high (low?) on Malkin. He was part of the big 3 with Sid and Ovie with a comparable peak.

 

[hamzarocks]

I think you’re to high (low?) on Malkin. He was part of the big 3 with Sid and Ovie with a comparable peak.

Yeah I felt that too tbh

I dont know tbh if hes in that Sakic, Yzerman, Trottier, Bossy, tier of guys who are borderline top 20 but for sure top 30ish

He is on talent, but a lot of injuries and lower scoring era cost him quote a bit

Maybe he is 30-40 and I underrated him here. Don't see him higher than top 30 though

OV dominated goal scoring more consistently

Crosby dominated point production more consistently

They are both sure fire top 12 players. I habe malkin a couple of tiers behind that for his career

 

[jigglysquishy]

Dickie Moore is higher than 80 right now.

Hasn't Kuch done more than Moore?

At the end of the 22 23 season, Moore over Kucherov is pretty easy.

At the end of 23 24, Kucherov over Moore is pretty easy.

 

[norrisnick]

Voted Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kane, Hedman, Kopitar, Kucherov and McDavid. Other under 30s could maybe get there. But these are the ones I'd put there now.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Do you think it would be impossible to find similar examples within the history forum's top 100 list?

This standard you are asserting - is it going to survive contact with reality?

I'm still curious about this concept of rating players by their lowest lows, as opposed to their highest highs. It seems people use one standard for the players they dislike and the other standard for the players they prefer.

This is why top 100 lists are extremely subjective.
It's just people picking their favorite players, ignoring players they don't like.

 

[authentic]

Of all those players I don’t think Stamkos makes the cut

There just can't be more than 10 current guys in that echelon as a ballpark.

Ovie, Malkin, Crosby, Karlsson, Doughty, McDavid, Stamkos, Kane seem like the easy picks.

Hedman and Kucherov next men up you'd think.

But why no goaltenders? MAF? Quick, Vasilevskiy, Bobrovsky? At least two of those.

Matthews over Stamkos easily. Not even sure Stamkos would make my top 125

 

[wetcoast]

If you are judging him because his highest playoff highs were not high enough - that's one thing.

But if you are judging him by his lowest playoff lows - while not doing that same examination to players you prefer - that's a double standard.

Being outscored by X not-great player in 1 playoff run - used as a basis for removal from the top 100 players - isn't going to survive scrutiny. I can show many examples of all-time great players being outscored by not-amazing players if we're limiting it to 1 playoff run. Conversely, I can show all sorts of examples of not-great players have great playoff runs.

Stamkos has an underwelming playoff resume but he is definitely a HHOFer but almost certainly not a top 100 guy of all time.

At the end of the 22 23 season, Moore over Kucherov is pretty easy.

Not so sure about that really as Moore only really has 5 relevant seasons but I guess the point is moot as we agree on your next statement.

At the end of 23 24, Kucherov over Moore is pretty easy.

 

[Regal]

This is why top 100 lists are extremely subjective.
It's just people picking their favorite players, ignoring players they don't like.

To some degree is that the point though? Obviously if you don’t like players for pointless reasons like rivalries or nationality it’s not a good look, but if you don’t trust Stamkos to be your best player in crunch time based on what you’ve seen from him as a player, ultimately it’d be weird to put him in regardless of his objective resume.