Who Hurt Their All-Time Rank by Playing Too Long?

[GMR]

Are there any players you'd rank higher all-time if they only retired sooner?

Messier for sure for me. If he retires before the Vancouver and New York 2.0 fiasco, I can see myself ranking him higher.

Roenick is another. After the lockout, he scored 96 points in 239 games. I think that hurts him. Would make his PPG look much better. Granted, he was only 35 after the lockout, but clearly not the same player as in 2004.

Yzerman maybe? Many people rank Sakic over him because Sakic looked better in his later years. What if Yzerman retires after 2002? We don't see his waning production, in injury-riddled seasons (albeit in the DPE.)

Is Paul Coffey ranked higher if he retires after 1997 and skips out on his forgettable Chicago/Carolina/Boston stints?

Would Terry Sawchuk be a more unanimous choice over Hall and Plante if he retired several years sooner?

Click to read more...

 

[blogofmike]

Sawchuk didn't hurt himself by staying, some saw him as the best goalie ever until his all-time records fell.

 

[frisco]

Joe Thornton could be falling into that category. He's had an Andreychuk-like last five seasons and Andreychuk just gets constantly raked over the coals as a hanger-on/compiler.

Guys that could've played their whole careers for one team but jump ship right at the end: Modano, Alfredsson, Brodeur, Federko, Marleau. Maybe Ray Bourque.

Guys that really, really bounced around from team to team at the end: Gilmour, Barrasso, Recchi, Iginla, Coffey (as mentioned). Jagr seems kind of immune from this effect.

That all being said, it is their life/career to do what they wish.

My Best-Carey

 

[scott clam]

Are there any players you'd rank higher all-time if they only retired sooner?

Messier for sure for me. If he retires before the Vancouver and New York 2.0 fiasco, I can see myself ranking him higher.

Roenick is another. After the lockout, he scored 96 points in 239 games. I think that hurts him. Would make his PPG look much better. Granted, he was only 35 after the lockout, but clearly not the same player as in 2004.

Yzerman maybe? Many people rank Sakic over him because Sakic looked better in his later years. What if Yzerman retires after 2002? We don't see his waning production, in injury-riddled seasons (albeit in the DPE.)

Is Paul Coffey ranked higher if he retires after 1997 and skips out on his forgettable Chicago/Carolina/Boston stints?

Would Terry Sawchuk be a more unanimous choice over Hall and Plante if he retired several years sooner?

With Messier it kind of goes both ways and evens out. On the one hand his last 7 years are kind of bleh, and on the other hand there are the people who look at him finsihing 2nd all time in points to Gretzky(3rd now) and take it out of context.

 

[tarheelhockey]

First name that comes to mind is Mark Messier. Nobody thinks twice if he rides off into the sunset at 36, and the assumption would have been that he could have continued for years as a 30-50-80 scorer with grit and leadership.

Instead we got the Vancouver years and nearly a decade of him slinking around the league causing drama while not producing much. That left a whole generation of fans with a different impression of who he was as a player and person.

 

[MadLuke]

Instead we got the Vancouver years and nearly a decade of him slinking around the league causing drama while not producing much. That left a whole generation of fans with a different impression of who he was as a player and person.

0 playoff games, 0 international tournament game past that point

assumption would have been that he could have continued for years as a 30-50-80 scorer with grit and leadership.

And people assume he would have made team Canada 1998.

I think the compensation of is name at the top of many all time ranking is true and maybe in full effect for the older fans at least, Paul Coffey seem a clearer case, a bit like Sakic vs Yzerman, it is not just that Coffey final year's where lackluster but in an era where some of is pears like MacInnis looked like they got better with age or aged really well like Bourque, Chelios and co. I am not sure that the same for Messier that the early 80s stars forward aged after 36 better than him in comparison in direct parallel, no one I think is getting above Messier because he aged better than him at the same time, Kurri, Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Anderson, Trottier, Savard, Nicholls, Goulet, Stastny, Hawerchuk and others of that generation do not have better after 37 than him.

He still has one of the best post 37 career on that generation after all

 

[GMR]

Joe Thornton could be falling into that category. He's had an Andreychuk-like last five seasons and Andreychuk just gets constantly raked over the coals as a hanger-on/compiler.

Guys that could've played their whole careers for one team but jump ship right at the end: Modano, Alfredsson, Brodeur, Federko, Marleau. Maybe Ray Bourque.

Guys that really, really bounced around from team to team at the end: Gilmour, Barrasso, Recchi, Iginla, Coffey (as mentioned). Jagr seems kind of immune from this effect.

That all being said, it is their life/career to do what they wish.

My Best-Carey

That's more in the category of possibly hurting one's outlook. Not the overall ranking. Yeah, I wish Brodeur didn't play for the Blues one weekend, but I don't rank him any lower by doing so. Bourque should be the other way around. He improved his all-time rank by playing in Colorado. He was All-NHL first team his final year. Also, winning a Cup doesn't hurt one's rank among peers. Some of the others you mentioned in that sentence I'll have to think about more.

 

[MadLuke]

I also think that has time past, the little jump get forgotten and a trivia for the future for a thread for player in the wrong uniform.

Brodeur is an extreme example, people do not even remember is time with the Blues mostly, it was so short, does Serge Savard has a Jet hurt is all time ranking now, Harvey return with Detroit, St-Louis....

How and why you did quit the team is probably a variable here, if the situation was dire and you had no shot anymore giving it all there is probably different than if you quit younger with other option to win one day (or for Brodeur case just be able to play at all)

 

[GMR]

First name that comes to mind is Mark Messier. Nobody thinks twice if he rides off into the sunset at 36, and the assumption would have been that he could have continued for years as a 30-50-80 scorer with grit and leadership.

Instead we got the Vancouver years and nearly a decade of him slinking around the league causing drama while not producing much. That left a whole generation of fans with a different impression of who he was as a player and person.

If he retires in 1997, would you still roll your eyes at the Mark Messier Leadership Award?

 

[tarheelhockey]

If he retires in 1997, would you still roll your eyes at the Mark Messier Leadership Award?

Personally, I'd still think of him as a Super Toews who could just flex his giant nuts at an opponent until they surrendered.

It's hard to overstate how hard his reputation nosedived after that year.

 

[Sadekuuro]

If he retires in 1997, would you still roll your eyes at the Mark Messier Leadership Award?

I would

 

[Professor What]

Based strictly on on-ice performance, no one. I don't think that declining play, even if it gets comically bad should hurt a player's all-time ranking. To me, I don't care that Patrick Marleau has apparently hung on well past his sell by date just to break a record. That does absolutely nothing to change anything about what he'd already done, and if I'm honest, I have to respect that a guy could hang around that long, even if he's a shell of himself. Now, let someone have a Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore incident late in their career, and on ice antics could create a problem, as it reveals potential issues of other sorts and would leave a bad taste in people's mouths as the player went out.

Damage to "intangibles" is the thing that really has damaging potential, however. That's why I agree with those who name Messier here. As Toews has been metioned in reference to Messier, it would be like Jonathan Toews going somewhere other than Chicago and becoming a locker room cancer and undermining the "Captain Serious" persona. I don't see Toews doing that, but to me, that's how I see Messier in Vancouver. Granted, it's his on ice performance that I care about the most by far, and his career speaks for itself there. (I don't care about the fact that his Vancouver years were subpar on the ice. That's baked into the on ice career.) But since he's so hyped up as such an amazing leader, I don't know how that doesn't take a bigger hit from his time with the Canucks than he typically seems to.

 

[JackSlater]

No, I don't see why a player would be regarded as worse just for hanging on. It's possible that a player can hang around for years adding nothing in my eyes though.

 

[McGarnagle]

What if Chelios retired at age 40 after the 2002 cup and a Norris runner-up finish instead of playing 7 more years

 

[GlitchMarner]

No, I don't see why a player would be regarded as worse just for hanging on. It's possible that a player can hang around for years adding nothing in my eyes though.

I agree. I don't penalize players for lackluster/poor seasons that they have after their primes. If such seasons aren't very productive, then they don't add to players' careers in my opinion, but I don't see a reason they should detract from what players did when they were at their best.

That said, in some cases I do think lackluster seasons players have late in their careers can color certain fans' perceptions of those players. Take Lindros for example. How many fans who grew up during the Crosby era take the notion that he was once a beast who dominated physically while also having immense skill seriously?

 

[MadLuke]

No, I don't see why a player would be regarded as worse just for hanging on. It's possible that a player can hang around for years adding nothing in my eyes though.

Just hanging on it should not (and tend not to), if it discredit previous very subjective and hard to know notion about leadership and other intangible it could make sense or if it prove inability to adapt and have the game pass by when you compare them to players that did go through era and renewed themselve, the what if is better than a certain no.

 

[VanIslander]

Luc Robitaille was a 1st or 2nd team all star EVERY one of his first 7 years. He followed that up immediately with a team-easily-leading 44-goal season.

If his career had ended after 8 seasons, he'd be a revered legend. Instead, he went to Pittsburgh, New York, Detroit and back to L.A. in a thereafter less remarkable, more remembered thirtysomething who never hit 40 goals again in the next 11 years despite doing so each of his first 8 seasons.

He even absurdly was called slow (uh, many players lose speed in their second decade of play), but he in his heyday was considered to be as fast as they come exiting corners with the puck, accelerating for a shot on net (yes, there are quotes).

Lucky Luc is considered a MARGINAL HHOFer, but really he has a great combination of skilled peak and durable career.

The second half of his long career is what unfortunately he is remembered for mostly.

 

[GMR]

Luc Robitaille was a 1st or 2nd team all star EVERY one of his first 7 years. He followed that up immediately with a team-easily-leading 44-goal season.

If his career had ended after 8 seasons, he'd be a revered legend. Instead, he went to Pittsburgh, New York, Detroit and back to L.A. in a thereafter less remarkable, more remembered thirtysomething who never hit 40 goals again in the next 11 years despite doing so each of his first 8 seasons.

He even absurdly was called slow (uh, many players lose speed in their second decade of play), but he in his heyday was considered to be as fast as they come exiting corners with the puck, accelerating for a shot on net (yes, there are quotes).

Lucky Luc is considered a MARGINAL HHOFer, but really he has a great combination of skilled peak and durable career.

The second half of his long career is what unfortunately he is remembered for mostly.

I don't think he'd be a revered legend. Unless you're a Gretzky or Lemieux type, you're not getting in the HOF after 8 seasons.

 

[The Panther]

Luc Robitaille was a 1st or 2nd team all star EVERY one of his first 7 years. He followed that up immediately with a team-easily-leading 44-goal season.

If his career had ended after 8 seasons, he'd be a revered legend. Instead, he went to Pittsburgh, New York, Detroit and back to L.A. in a thereafter less remarkable, more remembered thirtysomething who never hit 40 goals again in the next 11 years despite doing so each of his first 8 seasons.

He even absurdly was called slow (uh, many players lose speed in their second decade of play), but he in his heyday was considered to be as fast as they come exiting corners with the puck, accelerating for a shot on net (yes, there are quotes).

Lucky Luc is considered a MARGINAL HHOFer, but really he has a great combination of skilled peak and durable career.

The second half of his long career is what unfortunately he is remembered for mostly.

I pretty much disagree with this entire post.

First, while Robitaille's first 8 seasons in L.A. were certainly memorable and with a bunch of 1st-team All Star choices, I don't think he would have been considered a "revered legend" if he'd retired in 1994. Mainly respected as a goal scorer, his League finishes those years were 4, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10, 13. It's great, of course, but not legendary.

Then, his Pittsburgh season (only one!) was highly successful. It was a low-scoring season, and he put up 23 goals in 46 games (i.e., 41-goal pace), was second to Jagr on the Pens in goals, and had the club's best shooting-percentage.

The two years in New York weren't great, but weren't bad. 69 points in 77 games, and 24 goals in 69 games... it was all right, but a bit 'meh'. Likewise, the first season of his return to L.A. was injury-reduced and not overly memorable.

But his 1998-99, 1990-00, and 2000-01 seasons were outstanding. This is peak dead-puck era. In 1998-99, the Kings were offensively challenged in extreme (which they never were in Luc's first 8 seasons), but Robitaille had 39 goals and more than doubled the second-Kings' leader in scoring. Then, 36 goals in just 71 games (pace for 42; led the team in scoring again), and the finally a 37-goal, 88-point season. (This last year, he was a 2nd-team All Star, aged 34.)

Then, in Detroit, he banged in another 30 goals, despite getting only 14-15 minutes per game, ice-time.

Luc's second year in Detroit was forgettable (but with even less ice-time).

His third stint in L.A. started quite well, even if he was past his prime now for sure. He still scored 22 goals and 51 points, leading the club in scoring.

(He tried one more season after the Lock-out, and then retired.)

So, as I see it, the second half of Luc's career was great, if a small notch below the first half (which generally happens when you get traded a handful of times).

If you go by the 'adjusted stats' method (admittedly a flawed metric, but useful for rough comparison), the second best goals season of Luc's entire career was 1998-99. Then, his 1999-00 and 2000-01 both rank higher than his 1991-92 or 1986-87. The Pittsburgh season also ranks higher than those seasons.

Next, I'd disagree that Luc is considered a "marginal" Hall of Famer. Who said this? His peak levels (except maybe 1992-93) were not exceptionally high, but nor were they as low as some other players inducted in recent years (Shanahan and Andreychuk come to mind, but there are others). Nine seasons in NHL top-10 goal scoring (between 1987 and 2000) is no small total. Eight 1st/2nd All Star selections in itself pretty much guarantees he's an automatic Hall of Famer. And I haven't even mentioned his 668 career goals.

Finally, I disagree that Luc is mainly remembered for the second half of his long career. I think he is mainly remembered for the first half. But even if you are right, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the second half of his career. He had exceptional consistency and longevity.

 

[VanIslander]

You underestimate the amount of Robitaille negativity out there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, I don't see why a player would be regarded as worse just for hanging on. It's possible that a player can hang around for years adding nothing in my eyes though.

This is how I look at it.

But I know Messier's all-time ranking is hurt if any of the voters are from Vancouver...

 

[GMR]

I pretty much disagree with this entire post.

First, while Robitaille's first 8 seasons in L.A. were certainly memorable and with a bunch of 1st-team All Star choices, I don't think he would have been considered a "revered legend" if he'd retired in 1994. Mainly respected as a goal scorer, his League finishes those years were 4, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10, 13. It's great, of course, but not legendary.

Then, his Pittsburgh season (only one!) was highly successful. It was a low-scoring season, and he put up 23 goals in 46 games (i.e., 41-goal pace), was second to Jagr on the Pens in goals, and had the club's best shooting-percentage.

The two years in New York weren't great, but weren't bad. 69 points in 77 games, and 24 goals in 69 games... it was all right, but a bit 'meh'. Likewise, the first season of his return to L.A. was injury-reduced and not overly memorable.

But his 1998-99, 1990-00, and 2000-01 seasons were outstanding. This is peak dead-puck era. In 1998-99, the Kings were offensively challenged in extreme (which they never were in Luc's first 8 seasons), but Robitaille had 39 goals and more than doubled the second-Kings' leader in scoring. Then, 36 goals in just 71 games (pace for 42; led the team in scoring again), and the finally a 37-goal, 88-point season. (This last year, he was a 2nd-team All Star, aged 34.)

Then, in Detroit, he banged in another 30 goals, despite getting only 14-15 minutes per game, ice-time.

Luc's second year in Detroit was forgettable (but with even less ice-time).

His third stint in L.A. started quite well, even if he was past his prime now for sure. He still scored 22 goals and 51 points, leading the club in scoring.

(He tried one more season after the Lock-out, and then retired.)

So, as I see it, the second half of Luc's career was great, if a small notch below the first half (which generally happens when you get traded a handful of times).

If you go by the 'adjusted stats' method (admittedly a flawed metric, but useful for rough comparison), the second best goals season of Luc's entire career was 1998-99. Then, his 1999-00 and 2000-01 both rank higher than his 1991-92 or 1986-87. The Pittsburgh season also ranks higher than those seasons.

Next, I'd disagree that Luc is considered a "marginal" Hall of Famer. Who said this? His peak levels (except maybe 1992-93) were not exceptionally high, but nor were they as low as some other players inducted in recent years (Shanahan and Andreychuk come to mind, but there are others). Nine seasons in NHL top-10 goal scoring (between 1987 and 2000) is no small total. Eight 1st/2nd All Star selections in itself pretty much guarantees he's an automatic Hall of Famer. And I haven't even mentioned his 668 career goals.

Finally, I disagree that Luc is mainly remembered for the second half of his long career. I think he is mainly remembered for the first half. But even if you are right, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the second half of his career. He had exceptional consistency and longevity.

Also, in the movie Sudden Death, he scored arguably the most important goal in hockey history as a member of the Penguins.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No, I don't see why a player would be regarded as worse just for hanging on. It's possible that a player can hang around for years adding nothing in my eyes though.

In general among fans, Roenick definitely gets downgraded from his "hanging on" seasons.

If he had retired at the lockout he'd be looked at very differently and possibly even be in the HOF by now.

His 4 post lockout seasons were 4 really bad seasons and were enough to color the views of many current fans. Dont forget many people 20-30 years old now only remember Roenick as the washed up hanger on.

2005-06: 9 goals, 22 pts
2006-07: 11 goals, 28 pts
2007-08: 14 goals, 33 pts
2008-09: 4 goals, 13 pts

If he retired at the lockout instead, his totals would've been

486-662-1,148 in 1,194 games (0.96 ppg)

51-65-116 in 136 playoff games as well

He would've instead been remembered more for his scoring in Chicago and being one of the 1st stars/foundational guy for a new franchise in Phoenix with Tkachuk. It also gives him a much more respectable 47 points in 62 games final season

 

[GMR]

In general among fans, Roenick definitely gets downgraded from his "hanging on" seasons.

If he had retired at the lockout he'd be looked at very differently and possibly even be in the HOF by now.

His 4 post lockout seasons were 4 really bad seasons and were enough to color the views of many current fans. Dont forget many people 20-30 years old now only remember Roenick as the washed up hanger on.

2005-06: 9 goals, 22 pts
2006-07: 11 goals, 28 pts
2007-08: 14 goals, 33 pts
2008-09: 4 goals, 13 pts

If he retired at the lockout instead, his totals would've been

486-662-1,148 in 1,194 games (0.96 ppg)

51-65-116 in 136 playoff games as well

He would've instead been remembered more for his scoring in Chicago and being one of the 1st stars/foundational guy for a new franchise in Phoenix with Tkachuk. It also gives him a much more respectable 47 points in 62 games final season

That's what I feel as well. Though to play devil's advocate, it would be unusual in hindsight if he retired at 35. Especially when much older players continued to play after the lockout.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

That's what I feel as well. Though to play devil's advocate, it would be unusual in hindsight if he retired at 35. Especially when much older players continued to play after the lockout.

True.

Even chopping off the last 2 seasons would help him. He'd had 500 goals then and less of a "stink"