Will the NHL redo the 100 greatest players?

[Varan]

In like ten years maybe?

There are very few players over the last decade who can be considered top 100. Crosby and Ovechkin, duh.

And no, McDavid and Matthews aren't on that list yet, everyone.

nice fix, feel like we have to put that in every post nowadays

 

[Ms Maggie]

That doesn’t matter

Oh honey, none of this matters. Just pointing out how jejune your point is.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

Not even close. McDavid will 99.9999% make the list 10 years from now. As of today he is not on that list... not yet.

The list was part of celebrating the leagues first 100 years so they picked 100 players.

Why would they make a list 10 years from now? For their 110th anniversary? Did they make one for their 90th?

 

[Tavares to Marner]

Matthews is #1, his p/60 is better than lemieux Gretzky Ovechkin and all those other bums

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

As far as the lists credibility. I just did a quick count and 46 of the 100 played at some point in the 80s.
The list epitomizes over reliance on inflated stats and player nostalgia.

 

[LamorielloAndSon]

Oh honey, none of this matters. Just pointing out how jejune your point is.

Are you really implying that longevity is more important than the players actual talent

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I'd still like to know how on earth Malkin didn't crack this list. He is closer to, if not in, the upper half, let alone top 100. Sheer idiocy.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Are you really implying that longevity is more important than the players actual talent

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that this kind of thing supposedly weighs performance, not talent/potential. Performance.

And in all sports, and hockey moreso than most, durability is a factor which by definition can't be evaluated in three years.

Sorry to pour cold water on yr boy. He'll get there.

 

[Bedards Dad]

The list was part of celebrating the leagues first 100 years so they picked 100 players.

Why would they make a list 10 years from now? For their 110th anniversary? Did they make one for their 90th?

Congrats on completely missing the point.

 

[sabremike]

I'm actually shocked at how many people take this list seriously.

This list is as credible, and should be taken as seriously, as any ranking list put out by TSN or THN.

*looks at list*
*Sees Ron Francis is on it*
This list is the most credible and wonderful list in the history of mankind! #LLTW

 

[Bedards Dad]

I'm actually shocked at how many people take this list seriously.

This list is as credible, and should be taken as seriously, as any ranking list put out by TSN or THN.

Not saying this is good or bad, but everyone loves to crap on any lost out out, and then not provide one of their own. And in the rare time someone puts out their own list it is also cramped on.

Moral of the story, people love to crap on stuff and you cant make everyone happy.

 

[jetsforever]

Maybe they'll re-do it in 99 years
Doesn't really matter though

 

[Cotton]

Not saying this is good or bad, but everyone loves to crap on any lost out out, and then not provide one of their own. And in the rare time someone puts out their own list it is also cramped on.

Moral of the story, people love to crap on stuff and you cant make everyone happy.

You are missing the point, all lists of this sort are stupid, none of them use any kind of system to rank or measure one player against another, it's all left to vote averages based on votes from people who like one player over another for their own reasons - many of which are likely biased. That top 100 list has as much credibility as a top 100 list created by HF poll, the difference is many of the media members who were asked to vote write about hockey for a paycheque while posters here do so for free.

If the HHOF, who have achieves of old film, transcripts of interviews and access to numerous hockey historians and alumni to a degree the NHL even doesnt, wants to compile a list such as this I'd take it seriously, less they didn't research and thouroughly discuss their list, which I'm sure they would. Until then, lists like the Top 100 will get the criticism is rightfully deserves.

And it's not even that it was a bad list with obvious omissions, and which heavily favoured players of more recent times (it did both). It's that all the voters where simply given a vote card and told to go nuts with no conversation, and no consideration on if some of these voters are even familiar with all the players they are voting for or against.

 

[sabremike]

You are missing the point, all lists of this sort are stupid, none of them use any kind of system to rank or measure one player against another, it's all left to vote averages based on votes from people who like one player over another for their own reasons - many of which are likely biased. That top 100 list has as much credibility as a top 100 list created by HF poll, the difference is many of the media members who were asked to vote write about hockey for a paycheque while posters here do so for free.

If the HHOF, who have achieves of old film, transcripts of interviews and access to numerous hockey historians and alumni to a degree the NHL even doesnt, wants to compile a list such as this I'd take it seriously, less they didn't research and thouroughly discuss their list, which I'm sure they would. Until then, lists like the Top 100 will get the criticism is rightfully deserves.

And it's not even that it was a bad list with obvious omissions, and which heavily favoured players of more recent times (it did both). It's that all the voters where simply given a vote card and told to go nuts with no conversation, and no consideration on if some of these voters are even familiar with all the players they are voting for or against.

Of course modern guys are going to get more support. I mean other than like Stan Fischler what hockey writer saw guys from the 50's extensively?

 

[PensandCaps]

Need to put Malkin on it. Like top20.

Take Toews off.

 

[PhilJets]

They should every 10 years

 

[Trilliann]

Need to put Malkin on it. Like top20.

Take Toews off.

I don't think they were ranked from best to "worst" at all, it just went from the oldest guys to the newest ones. But I agree, Malkin should've been on the list!

 

[412 Others]

I hope they wait a couple years and keep geno pissed.

 

[Voight]

My biggest shock was not including Belfour and Hawerchuk.