Who's the 5th best ever?

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Not to mention he won all that hardware at the height of Wayne/Mario ****ery.

It was never harder to win trophies.

Exactly.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

If we're including goalies it's Hasek, greatest goaltender of all time.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

So at 32 years old people already have Crosby as the 5th best player of all time? This board is insane.

I don't yet, but he's certainly top 10 as is Ovechkin.

 

[EichHart]

Hasek

 

[ijuka]

TBH, Gordie Howe is quite overrated. I don't think he's top 4.

 

[Elvis P]

TBH, Gordie Howe is quite overrated. I don't think he's top 4.

He won the Art Ross Trophy for leading the league in scoring each year from 1950–51 to 1953–54, then again in 1956-57 and 1962–63, for a total of six times, which is the second most in NHL history. He led the NHL in goal scoring four times. He ranked among the top ten in NHL scoring for 21 consecutive years and set an NHL record for points in a season (95) in 1953, a record which was broken six years later. He won the Stanley Cup with the Red Wings four times and won six Hart Trophies as the NHL's most valuable player. He also led the NHL in playoff points six times.

Howe retired for the first time in 1971 and was immediately inducted into the Saskatchewan Sports Hall of Fame that same year. He was then inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame the next year, but came back two years later to join his sons Mark and Marty on the Houston Aeros of the WHA. Although in his mid-40s, he scored over 100 points twice in six years, won two straight Avco World Trophies (1974 and 1975) and was named most valuable player in 1974.

Gordie Howe - Wikipedia

 

[ijuka]

"He won the Art Ross Trophy for leading the league in scoring each year from 1950–51 to 1953–54, then again in 1956-57 and 1962–63, for a total of six times, which is the second most in NHL history. He led the NHL in goal scoring four times. He ranked among the top ten in NHL scoring for 21 consecutive years and set an NHL record for points in a season (95) in 1953, a record which was broken six years later. He won the Stanley Cup with the Red Wings four times and won six Hart Trophies as the NHL's most valuable player. He also led the NHL in playoff points six times.

Howe retired for the first time in 1971 and was immediately inducted into the Saskatchewan Sports Hall of Fame that same year. He was then inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame the next year, but came back two years later to join his sons Mark and Marty on the Houston Aeros of the WHA. Although in his mid-40s, he scored over 100 points twice in six years, won two straight Avco World Trophies (1974 and 1975) and was named most valuable player in 1974." Gordie Howe - Wikipedia

Sure, but it was a dumpster tier era. Might as well name some dude from the 20s the greatest ever.

 

[vancityluongo]

I don't **** with this argument because there's no way to control for the distribution of talent. How many people play hockey now compared to 1930; how talented is the average peer? What does that do to the usefulness of your sample? As you approach the limit of how talented a group of 700 individuals can be, the percent better the best player can be above the worst player shrinks.

Then the discussion of "greatness" can't really happen, because no one is great if everyone is. Greatness isn't an absolute measurement.

Your argument might hold for comparing between Crosby vs whoever the best player is in 20 years if we're talking about a 30 team league vs a 32 team league then, but there definitely weren't 700 professional hockey players in the 1930's. And even then, the comparison is not between the best player and the worst player in the league; it is between the best and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best at the time. To win 7 Hart Trophies or Norris Trophies should essentially be as difficult now as it was back then.

Again, just because the average person is smarter now than the average person 500 years ago when most of the planet was literally illiterate, doesn't mean that those who achieved incredible academic breakthroughs back then should have their accomplishments diminished.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Jagr. Head and shoulders above the rest of the league for a while there after Lemieux retired. Also if you're gonna have Crosby up there you need to have Ovechkin.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Sure, but it was a dumpster tier era. Might as well name some dude from the 20s the greatest ever.

Put some respeck on Joe Malone's name

 

[Golden_Jet]

Bobby Hull

 

[amnesiac]

Hull

wouldve had 850+ goals if he didnt go to the WHA

 

[Captain Bowie]

3rd all time in scoring
2 Harts
2 Pearsons
1 Conn Smythe
Only player to captain two different teams to the Stanley Cup

That doesn't warrant being included?

His place on the all-time scoring list doesn't impress me. For one, it is heavily era-influenced. And look at some of the other names in the top 10; Francis, Dionne, Sakic, Yzerman. All-time greats each of them, but not worthy of their place on the all-time points list if it were to directly translate to their place on the greatest of all-time list. Messier far more belongs in this group than the assumed top 4 in this discussion.

18 players have won the Hart at least twice, that is not a high enough bar when discussing the #5 player of all-time.

Same as above, 11 players have won 2+ Pearson/Lindsay awards in their careers. Bar needs to be higher for such an exclusive group as the top 5.

See above, again. I really don't want to count how many players have won the Conn Smyth at least once in their career.

That's a nice footnote, but hardly reason enough to say he's #5 all-time.

What you have listed is the reasons why he is unquestionably a Hall of Famer. However there are a few dozen guys with a similar distinction. We are discussing #5 of all-time, in over 100 years of hockey history. The bar is simply higher than what you've listed.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Jagr. Head and shoulders above the rest of the league for a while there after Lemieux retired. Also if you're gonna have Crosby up there you need to have Ovechkin.

Not really, him and Hasek were 1A & 1B in the dead puck era.

 

[izzy]

if im starting a team from scratch and have them through their careers at the time they played id take hasek above anyone else in the poll

 

[JackSlater]

Sure, but it was a dumpster tier era. Might as well name some dude from the 20s the greatest ever.

Which era? Howe was an all star level player in four different decades.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I think it's Hasek, and I think there's something to be said for him over Lemieux.

-In terms of longevity, it's Hasek quite easily. They both played 17 years in the NHL but Hasek tacks on another decade of professional play in Europe (because of that whole Iron Curtain thing) in which he was clearly the best goalie in the league for at least half that time, winning Czech best goalie 5x and MVP 3x.
-In terms of peak play, it's a toss-up. Lemieux' 199 point season speaks for itself but so does Hasek's .937 save percentage.
-In terms of prime, Lemieux comes out ahead; he was elite basically every game he stepped on the ice and Hasek was elite "only" about 10 years of his career.
-In terms of playoffs, they were both great, and both had to spend time on teams where playoffs weren't in the cards. You could argue Hasek had one or two bad series, but the bulk of it was superb.
-In terms of international play, they're both legends. Lemieux had the '87 Canada Cup, Hasek had the '98 Olympics.
-In terms of hardware, Lemieux has a narrow advantage: 3 Harts to 2, 2 Smythes to 0 (although Hasek absolutely deserved in it 99), tied 6 Rosses to 6 Vezinas.
-In terms of the eye test, they were both players you bought a ticket to watch.

I find Hasek's career longevity more impressive than Lemieux's slightly longer NHL prime. I also think Hasek was the best NHL player at keeping pucks out of the net, while I don't think Lemieux was the NHL's best player at putting pucks in the net (although he's certainly not far off).

 

[JackFr]

I think it's Hasek, and I think there's something to be said for him over Lemieux.

-In terms of longevity, it's Hasek quite easily. They both played 17 years in the NHL but Hasek tacks on another decade of professional play in Europe (because of that whole Iron Curtain thing) in which he was clearly the best goalie in the league for at least half that time, winning Czech best goalie 5x and MVP 3x.
-In terms of peak play, it's a toss-up. Lemieux' 199 point season speaks for itself but so does Hasek's .937 save percentage.
-In terms of prime, Lemieux comes out ahead; he was elite basically every game he stepped on the ice and Hasek was elite "only" about 10 years of his career.
-In terms of playoffs, they were both great, and both had to spend time on teams where playoffs weren't in the cards. You could argue Hasek had one or two bad series, but the bulk of it was superb.
-In terms of international play, they're both legends. Lemieux had the '87 Canada Cup, Hasek had the '98 Olympics.
-In terms of hardware, Lemieux has a narrow advantage: 3 Harts to 2, 2 Smythes to 0 (although Hasek absolutely deserved in it 99), tied 6 Rosses to 6 Vezinas.
-In terms of the eye test, they were both players you bought a ticket to watch.

I find Hasek's career longevity more impressive than Lemieux's slightly longer NHL prime. I also think Hasek was the best NHL player at keeping pucks out of the net, while I don't think Lemieux was the NHL's best player at putting pucks in the net (although he's certainly not far off).

Disagree on Hasek > Lemieux, but I think Hasek as #5 is fair.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Not to mention he won all that hardware at the height of Wayne/Mario ****ery.

It was never harder to win trophies.

He won two Hart trophies because the media loved him.

 

[Spektre]

All things considered a case could be argued for Yzerman

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I really don't like putting goalies alongside players.... so im going to ignore the goalies and ill go with Crosby


He wont get the respect he truly deserves until he retires.... But hes been an absolute treat to watch throughout his career.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

I think it's Hasek, and I think there's something to be said for him over Lemieux.

-In terms of longevity, it's Hasek quite easily. They both played 17 years in the NHL but Hasek tacks on another decade of professional play in Europe (because of that whole Iron Curtain thing) in which he was clearly the best goalie in the league for at least half that time, winning Czech best goalie 5x and MVP 3x.
-In terms of peak play, it's a toss-up. Lemieux' 199 point season speaks for itself but so does Hasek's .937 save percentage.
-In terms of prime, Lemieux comes out ahead; he was elite basically every game he stepped on the ice and Hasek was elite "only" about 10 years of his career.
-In terms of playoffs, they were both great, and both had to spend time on teams where playoffs weren't in the cards. You could argue Hasek had one or two bad series, but the bulk of it was superb.
-In terms of international play, they're both legends. Lemieux had the '87 Canada Cup, Hasek had the '98 Olympics.
-In terms of hardware, Lemieux has a narrow advantage: 3 Harts to 2, 2 Smythes to 0 (although Hasek absolutely deserved in it 99), tied 6 Rosses to 6 Vezinas.
-In terms of the eye test, they were both players you bought a ticket to watch.

I find Hasek's career longevity more impressive than Lemieux's slightly longer NHL prime. I also think Hasek was the best NHL player at keeping pucks out of the net, while I don't think Lemieux was the NHL's best player at putting pucks in the net (although he's certainly not far off).

Lemieux has Hasek beat quite easily in peak, prime, and career, and both individual and team accomplishments. Hasek is more on the same level as Jagr.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

Joe Malone

 

[Joey Moss]

How is Crosby nearly winning this?? For me, Crosby's career is somewhat overrated. He hasn't shown the same dominance since his first 6 season's in the league. Can you honestly say he's been the been the best player in the league in the last 5 years? I don't think you can. McDavid, Kucherov, Kane have had better seasons.

The achievements will always be there but looking at it individually, there are players on that last who were more dominant.

 

[Voight]

Lots of questionable opinions expressed with the utmost certainty in this thread lol.

Please go read the History of Hockey section.

The **** most of you are saying is akin to saying anyone posting here is "smarter" than Einstein because we'd be better at navigating an iPhone lol.

Crosby is not dominant enough compared to his peers to be the 5th best player ever in the way people generally talk about these rankings. That doesn't mean that Tyler Myers sent back in a time machine to the ****ing 1930's wouldn't be better than Eddie Shore; it just means that their accomplishments are not comparable in a relative sense.

I voted Harvey. 7 Norris' is incredible. Lidstrom would be a solid choice for that reason too. Could be swayed towards Beliveau too. Sid is approaching top-10 status and will be there by the time he retires IMO, but not just yet.

Bourque is/was better than both.