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

[Stephen]

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?

A lot of guys from that era played too long. Messier, Coffey, Chelios, Yzerman, Hull, Roenick, Amonte, Gilmour, etc. Seems like a good number of them ended up in Phoenix around that post lockout era too...

 

[DieSendungmitderMaus]

I had no clue Roenick played until 08/09. Wow.

 

[Iapyi]

The basic reality that all of us need to appreciate, or at least not forget, is that these guys usually care less about their legacy than fans do.

Why would they stop playing the greatest sport in the world if they can still get a job doing it.

That is why the "compiler" label is so offensive to many.

How in the world can we blame these dudes for continuing to play.

It's not like they think about stopping so some anonymous people can have fonder memories of them. This is inane.

Of course I understand we are all just talking about it because we love to do that too.

 

[Air Budd Dwyer]

Is this sort of a more a "thing" in hockey than in other pro-sports? It just strikes me that in hockey, more elite players play longer into their post-primes (and sometimes way past even that) than in basketball, soccer, baseball... (not sure about football as I loathe that sport).

Thus, we end up with so many Hall of Famers who extended their careers not just one or two, but in most cases, several seasons well past their primes.

It seems to happen in baseball quite a bit. Guys can still age in that sport gracefully but there seems to be a point where a lot of guys just slowly decline before falling off a cliff, power hitters especially. Not everyone gets to be Sandy Koufax and retire at 30; ending their career by winning their 3rd Cy Young in a 4 year span (when only 1 Cy Young was awarded for the whole league), winning 27 games (27 complete games), and striking out 317 batters in 323 innings. Of course, his arm was about to fall off, but still.

Are there any examples like that in hockey? Where a guy was still that dominant then had to retire before we saw the decline. I guess Orr kind of fits into that category, except he tried to keep playing rather than retire after he won a Norris.

 

[jcs0218]

It seems to happen in baseball quite a bit. Guys can still age in that sport gracefully but there seems to be a point where a lot of guys just slowly decline before falling off a cliff, power hitters especially. Not everyone gets to be Sandy Koufax and retire at 30; ending their career by winning their 3rd Cy Young in a 4 year span (when only 1 Cy Young was awarded for the whole league), winning 27 games (27 complete games), and striking out 317 batters in 323 innings. Of course, his arm was about to fall off, but still.

Are there any examples like that in hockey? Where a guy was still that dominant then had to retire before we saw the decline. I guess Orr kind of fits into that category, except he tried to keep playing rather than retire after he won a Norris.

Albert Pujols and Willie Mays hung on too long, at least from a performance standpoint.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

I think this is the best answer. Nobody should be penalized for contributing to a team, even in a reduced capacity, in the twilight of their career.

I won't hold it against the player even if they're probably no longer NHL calibre (Patrick Marleau this season might be a good example). Blame the GM or coach for playing them.

Intangibles are a different story as those traits shouldn't diminish with age the way that physical characteristics like speed would.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

I don't really understand why it would hurt you unless you were a goalie that really fell off.

 

[seventieslord]

Bourque didnt hurt his legacy. He vastly improved it by winning a Cup finally.

He actually retired at the very best moment. Still a great D, arguably top 10D and retires as a champion instead of holding on a just a veteran precense.

I actually cant think of a worse example honestly

Funny how Bourque was so good that if he had hung around two more seasons and taken the all-time GP lead, he'd have hurt his legacy, but Marleau is so mediocre that sticking around to take that same record helps his.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hull, Roenick, Amonte, etc. Seems like a good number of them ended up in Phoenix around that post lockout era too...

ah phoenix, where you can make $2 million a year to golf and sometimes pretend to play hockey.

That is why the "compiler" label is so offensive to many.

tbf i think a lot of ppl use the word compiler not to blame or criticize a guy for playing forever, but as a shorthand to say that a guy with 1,000 points in 1,400 games wasn’t as good as a guy with a handful of really top end seasons.

like, good on mike gartner for scoring 30 goals so many times but he wasn’t cam neely.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

actually the best example of a guy whose historical reputation might be better if you cut off his last two years is patrick roy.

even though he loses a legitimately elite season in 2002, he gets to retire on a cup and smythe #3, doesn’t statue of liberty, doesn’t fall apart in game seven, doesn’t lose to hasek. that’s one less volley for the hasek side in the roy vs hasek debate.

and brodeur was going to break his records anyway so losing the wins is no biggie.

 

[Mickey Marner]

For this to be considered a negative there would have to be a player that played their way out of the hall of fame. I can't think of a single player who did that, but I can think of a few who played their way in by accumulating numbers and hitting some aesthetically pleasing milestone(s). So, I don't think it hurts anybody's rank, but maybe it dulls their shine a bit, like Messier.

 

[Soundgarden]

i think a lot of us would have preferred guys' careers to end perfectly. trottier after his sixth cup, andreychuk after his only cup, brodeur on the devils, modano on the stars, alfredsson on the sens, and so on.

but i don't think any of their all-time rankings were affected in the slightest by playing that last season, or those last few games.

Yeah. I don't think there's many, if any, people that wouldn't think of Trottier as the top center of the Islanders dynasty and as a contributing leader to Pittsburgh's first 2 cups because he attempted a comeback after retiring for a year. It's a tough question, because I feel like it doesn't apply to many players.

 

[c9777666]

Conversely, any players help their rank by playing longer?

maybe Jagr or Selanne?

 

[c9777666]

Ed Belfour is a double edged sword

What if he retired after 04 off the heels of a 34 win 10 shutout sub 2 GAA that deserved Vezina consideration without that bad 06 season or the odd Panthers season in 07

OTOH, that meant our last image of him like Roy would have been getting eliminated on an overtime series clincher.

 

[Iapyi]

tbf i think a lot of ppl use the word compiler not to blame or criticize a guy for playing forever, but as a shorthand to say that a guy with 1,000 points in 1,400 games wasn’t as good as a guy with a handful of really top end seasons.

like, good on mike gartner for scoring 30 goals so many times but he wasn’t cam neely.

I guess that could be though I must say that it seems to me whenever I read the term it's in the context of minimizing players.

It's also very hard for me to not acknowledge the full body of a players contribution to the point where points is the last thing I look at as opposed to the starting point. Of course we all have our own perceptions and ways of looking at things.

 

[Iapyi]

Yeah. I don't think there's many, if any, people that wouldn't think of Trottier as the top center of the Islanders dynasty and as a contributing leader to Pittsburgh's first 2 cups because he attempted a comeback after retiring for a year. It's a tough question, because I feel like it doesn't apply to many players.

I think a guy like Kurri is another example of a high-scoring player whose point totals essentially were less than half of what he was getting earlier in his career.

I remember him being a solid complete player in his last 4 seasons and it seems that no one cares his points totals were about 1/3 of what he did earlier in his career. Not as much in the limelight for headlines but still a strong contributor in other ways to the teams he was on.

 

[wetcoast]

Funny how Bourque was so good that if he had hung around two more seasons and taken the all-time GP lead, he'd have hurt his legacy, but Marleau is so mediocre that sticking around to take that same record helps his.

The SC is the key thing for Bourque though.

We can all see the last few seasons of Doughty (Still a very good Dman) being lost on a team going nowhere.

To be sure Bourque had already placed extremely high among all time Dmen but would he have had the Potvin or Leetch treatment riding out on a lesser Bruins team?

I would hope not but often SC winners are the difference between player rankings.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I guess that could be though I must say that it seems to me whenever I read the term it's in the context of minimizing players.

i guess the distinction i’m making here is i think a lot of ppl when they say compiler aren’t necessarily telling andreychuk or verbeek or recchi or whomever that they shouldn’t have played so long. that would be silly. most of the time, it just means there are a lot of minor seasons in there that pad career totals but don’t mean much in a hall of fame case or in a comparison with, say, guy lafleur.

of course, that’s not to say there aren’t also many times when someone loses sight of the forest for the trees and does say exactly that.

 

[The Panther]

What do people think of retired players' comebacks hurting their legacies?

I'm thinking of, say, Guy Lafleur. Even though he was declining in 1983 to 1984, he still led the Habs in goals his final full season (1983-84), and they had that nice little playoff run.

But to people my age, we can only (barely) remember him in his comeback years with NYR and Quebec, in which he was akin to Gordie Howe in 1979-80 -- a universally loved icon, but one from a bygone era.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

actually the best example of a guy whose historical reputation might be better if you cut off his last two years is patrick roy.

even though he loses a legitimately elite season in 2002, he gets to retire on a cup and smythe #3, doesn’t statue of liberty, doesn’t fall apart in game seven, doesn’t lose to hasek. that’s one less volley for the hasek side in the roy vs hasek debate.

and brodeur was going to break his records anyway so losing the wins is no biggie.

so i’m thinking about this again... how staggeringly great was patrick roy’s career that in his last two years he was a hart finalist, first team all-star, 2nd and 4th in vezina voting, 1st and 6th in GAA, 2nd and 6th in SV%, 67 wins, 14 shutouts, came within a game of his second finals in two years, and it might have hurt his historical standing?

 

[Iapyi]

i guess the distinction i’m making here is i think a lot of ppl when they say compiler aren’t necessarily telling andreychuk or verbeek or recchi or whomever that they shouldn’t have played so long. that would be silly. most of the time, it just means there are a lot of minor seasons in there that pad career totals but don’t mean much in a hall of fame case or in a comparison with, say, guy lafleur.

of course, that’s not to say there aren’t also many times when someone loses sight of the forest for the trees and does say exactly that.

I guess we're reading things different because that is exactly how I read it. I concur it is silly but I honestly see it that way. I often shake my head at the gross disrespect that is so often exhibited.

 

[kaiser matias]

A lot of guys from that era played too long. Messier, Coffey, Chelios, Yzerman, Hull, Roenick, Amonte, Gilmour, etc. Seems like a good number of them ended up in Phoenix around that post lockout era too...

I don't think it's a coincidence that these guys largely crossed the era from salaries being high (hundreds of thousands) to very high (millions). I also think it's partly why players from the 1970s and 1980s retired earlier, on average, than those from the late 1990s and beyond: why put yourself through the grind of NHL play for that salary (which wasn't bad by any means for star players in the 80s, but not what it became). Combined with the advances in medicine and health, plus the style of play changing to favour older players, and why wouldn't you stick around for a couple years more if it mean millions of dollars more?

 

[Eisen]

The basic reality that all of us need to appreciate, or at least not forget, is that these guys usually care less about their legacy than fans do.

Why would they stop playing the greatest sport in the world if they can still get a job doing it.

That is why the "compiler" label is so offensive to many.

How in the world can we blame these dudes for continuing to play.

It's not like they think about stopping so some anonymous people can have fonder memories of them. This is inane.

Of course I understand we are all just talking about it because we love to do that too.

Is that what people mean with "compiler", though? At least to me, a compiler is not someone who had a great peak and tagged along for a couple of seasons at the tailend of his career. A compiler to me is someone whose totals make him seem better than he was, so someone that doesn't really have a fantastic peak (by alltime standards) but his totals make him look like he's an alltimer.

 

[mrhockey193195]

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 feel as well, but I don't think it's the reality for most NHL fans. I usually bring this up in the context of Neely vs. Lindros debates, for example. If Lindros retired after 99 and Neely did his best to keep playing into his 30s as a 10-goal a season 4th liner, what meaningfully would be different about their abilities and accomplishments as a player? And yet, in that scenario I imagine their reputations would be completely flip-flopped in the eyes of many (although thankfully Lindros's place in history has been somewhat restored now that we're many years removed from his retirement, so maybe it's no longer the best example).

 

[mrhockey193195]

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

Another example where, in my eyes, I gained nothing but respect for Chelios continuing to play at an NHL caliber level for many more years even though he was no where close to his prime level. Playing the AHL at 48 took him to even another level. Many fans will remember Chelios from those seasons in his 40s and will view him as lesser than he actually was, but to me he added to reputation by putting ego aside and keeping at it.