Who is the 5th greatest player of all-time?
[table=width=160]
2|Bobby Orr
3|Gordie Howe
4|Mario Lemieux
[/table]
[table=width=160]
No.
|Player
1|Wayne Gretzky2|Bobby Orr
3|Gordie Howe
4|Mario Lemieux
[/table]
Greatest Players of All-Time #5
- Thread starter GFS
- Start date
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 53
Again I ask, why is it that Hasek is always being an option but not Jagr?
Are we ever going to include Jagr?
In my opinion he is a better player than Mikita, Roy, Hasek, Plante and Shore.
I mean for God's sake, why is Hasek getting votes ahead of Beliveau, Hull or Richard?
He has a very good peak (lasted 6 years) but was rather average outside of his peak. All of the choices are better players than Jagr?
For what it's worth, Roy is a better goalie overall than Hasek is.
Are we ever going to include Jagr?
In my opinion he is a better player than Mikita, Roy, Hasek, Plante and Shore.
I mean for God's sake, why is Hasek getting votes ahead of Beliveau, Hull or Richard?
He has a very good peak (lasted 6 years) but was rather average outside of his peak. All of the choices are better players than Jagr?
For what it's worth, Roy is a better goalie overall than Hasek is.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think that Jagr and Lidstrom should both be options, even if I wouldn't vote for them.
For me personally, I could vote for any of Roy, Harvey, or Beliveau for #5 and can see reasonable cases for a few other players
Those six years were six of the greatest years of goaltending possible. Could you imagine a goalie leading the NHL in save percentage - ever again? - for six straight years? No starting goalie since Hasek has even done this in consecutive seasons.
Take Rask's 13-14 season, Bobrovsky's 12-13 season, or Lundqvist's 11-12 season (past three Vezina winning campaigns) and imagine it being replicated by the respective goalie for five more years. That was Hasek's prime.
Last edited:
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
To me, it comes down to a dilemma from already having Gretzky/Lemieux and either not wanting to over-represent the Center position (Beliveau/Morenz) or not wanting to over-represent the 1980/90s (Roy). It's hard to pick a defenseman, because I'm not taking Shore before Morenz, Harvey before Beliveau/Richard, or Bourque before Roy.
If I could be convinced that Morenz was better than Beliveau, I'd probably say him, because his generation is pretty lonely in my top-20. But I'm pretty sold on Roy's regular season career value and his being the #1A to Gretzky's #1 playoff performer.
Those three and Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard are my top-9. I, too, would like to have a Jagr option, even if he's probably just my #13.
If I could be convinced that Morenz was better than Beliveau, I'd probably say him, because his generation is pretty lonely in my top-20. But I'm pretty sold on Roy's regular season career value and his being the #1A to Gretzky's #1 playoff performer.
Those three and Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard are my top-9. I, too, would like to have a Jagr option, even if he's probably just my #13.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Oh, and if you're taking requests, I could probably use Mark Messier, because I don't think there's much separating him and Bourque, other than one played a position competing against Gretzky/Lemieux for two All-Star spots while the other played a position that awarded four All-Star selections each year.
I mean, history kinda favors Messier even if History of Hockey doesn't.
I mean, history kinda favors Messier even if History of Hockey doesn't.
I originally voted Richard because for some reason my mind was thinking "Who's the 2nd GOAT winger". I'd change my vote to Harvey or Beliveau.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
I don't think you're in left field at all here. There's probably an argument that he's among the top 10 players of all-time (what do you want to value, points? championships? playoffs? longevity? leadership? etc.), which puts him in conversation with 5 guys currently up for voting. Don't necessarily see 5 guys that I'd definitely take off the ballot to make room for him, but I see enough guys (maybe starting with Shore and/or Mikita) who suggest that Messier should probably already be up for voting, too. But where do you stop, right? 11? 12? 13? ...
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
- Sep 20, 2011
- 3,174
- 31
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Oh, definitely. Hell, I'd say 5th-17th is all closer than 4th to 5th (and possibly 1st to 2nd)!
Me said:
That's how I basically see it. I can take the top player at their position, put them on their top tier, and spread out down the pyramid, but I could shuffle the order of basically everyone within their little unit.
Id argue that Roy had the perfect career. That would.be.my.case
For a goalie - what more could he have accomplished? Here are a few things that jump out at me looking at his record:
- winning record in every season but one - 94-95 lockout year where habs had a BAD team and he also was 17-20. If you play 82 games very possible he turns it up and ends with a winning record.
- made the playoffs every season of his career (except 94-95)
- has won at LEAST 3 games every playoff season. Thats right - if he ever lost in round 1 it took 7 games to do so
- #1 goalie his whole career - one of the best in the league every season. He won the cup his first year and never let up.
His level of compete may be the highest of any athlete I've ever seen. This is a.bold statement and such an intangible to actually compare yet I dont feel like im exaggerating when saying so.
He may not have maintained himself as a hart winner or even top contender like hasek for 5-6 years straight but he also did enough to ensure is teams won every year. And in the playoffs he is just crazy- refuses to lose.
Haseks "peak" might be better - but it took him a while to reach it and he wasnt nearly as dominating in his later career. Patrick Roy never let up - and he won way more too
One of the weakest things here when judging players, is that accomplishments outside of NHL (or Canada Cup) often is more or less disregarded.
Hasek's first World Championship was at age 18, and by the age of 20 he was the number one goaiie on the Czech national team. For those of us who in the late 1980s regularly saw him when playing for Czech Republic, he was elite long before reaching the NHL.
Once in the NHL, he got to play on the same team as Vezina winner Ed Belfour, so it's not strange if Hasek - the "unproven European" - didn't immediately star in the NHL.
Eventually Hasek did excel in the NHL too, in a way no other goalie had or have, while continuing to put up great games internationally.
Roy, on the other hand, has a rather useless record internationally, seemingly lacking the skill and/or personality to be of great usage to his national team.
If taking on a "Roy friendly" look, one could that Roy was about equally good as Hasek when playing in the NHL (regular season and playoffs). But Hasek was much greater internationally.
Hasek's first World Championship was at age 18, and by the age of 20 he was the number one goaiie on the Czech national team. For those of us who in the late 1980s regularly saw him when playing for Czech Republic, he was elite long before reaching the NHL.
Once in the NHL, he got to play on the same team as Vezina winner Ed Belfour, so it's not strange if Hasek - the "unproven European" - didn't immediately star in the NHL.
Eventually Hasek did excel in the NHL too, in a way no other goalie had or have, while continuing to put up great games internationally.
Roy, on the other hand, has a rather useless record internationally, seemingly lacking the skill and/or personality to be of great usage to his national team.
If taking on a "Roy friendly" look, one could that Roy was about equally good as Hasek when playing in the NHL (regular season and playoffs). But Hasek was much greater internationally.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,565
- 5,173
Seriously? He only played one tournament and was arguably as great as Hašek there.
OK, I exaggerated, he was good during that particular tournament he did play. But wasn't that a tournament where Canada failed to even get a medal?
Considering Roy's long career, one could suppose he at least once could have lead Canada to a gold medal (or at least medal) during an international tournament.
Yeah was just about to post that
If you wanna give Hasek credit for his international record - absolutely. He played a lot and has a great record
But you cant claim Roy had a bad record - he simply didnt play. When he did play his numbers were tjroigh the roof good (small sample size - yet head to head with Hasek where he easily matched him)
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,565
- 5,173
No-one has ever blamed that on Roy. He was as stellar as Hašek in that tournament.
He never played in any other tournament, so I don't understand the point.
Horvath Broncos
Registered User
- Aug 21, 2013
- 2,093
- 14
but why didn't Roy play more internationally? Roy gets a lot of "points" for the years he played in the NHL and Hasek didn't and Hasek gets a lot of "points" for international play where Roy didn't play. I for one give a lot of credit to Hasek for his international play even the years before he came to NHL and that combined with his peak that hasn't been matched IMO ever in the history of hockey by a goalie is what puts Hasek above Roy slightly.
and I somewhat hate to say it cause Roy is probably my second favorite goalie of all time after Hextall.
Thats fine
If you want to give Hasek brownie points for representing his country often - absolutely.
Not only he that - he actually did very well too.
It just sounded like it was being said that Roy played bad intrrnationall whihc is ludicrous because he didnt play.
I still think that for goalies - winning is a huge part. And I find that Roys career is unmatched in that regard.
Seriously - won a minimum of 3 games *every* playoffs. Neither Brodeur or Hasek did that - Hasek even in his very very best of seasons.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,565
- 5,173
The only big opportunity he turned down were the 2002 Olympics. Other than that, there is not too much:
Olympics: No NHL participation prior to 1998.
World Championships: Stanley Cup playoffs. Roy could have played one or twice in his career, but you know how the World Championship is viewed in North America.
1987 Canada Cup: Not invited.
1991 Canada Cup: Not healthy.
1996 World Cup: Not invited (still puzzling).
Why did he only play one tournament? Injuries? Considered not good enough? Attitude problems?
I'm partly being a bit intentionally silly, sort of attempting to immitate the way I think some/many here look at non-NHL play. It is often used as an argument against European players that they "didn't prove themselves enough against the best players". For example, some used that argument against Makarov (who did excel on three Canada Cups and also "proved himself" during other similar games, while also winning 9(!) soviet scoring titles and some during World Championships, where he also was a regular All Star, etc...). Using the same logik, Roy is rather "unproven" internationally. For example, he never excelled on European sized rinks. In my opinion, Europeans often have "proved themselves" more than North Americans, but it is often used against them that they don't have as good NHL longevity or NHL prime/peak as the players they're being compared to.
(The above is a general reply, not directed to you.)
Partly off-topic:
Imagine the NHL of the 1980s also having the 7 best Soviet teams, totalling 28 teams. The Soviet teams will play half their games on home ice, with large rink size. Imagine how a team like CSKA would dominate, and how their star players would end up high in basically all statistical categories. We also know that there were teams of non-CSKA players, who used to defeat NHL team when playing against them (usually away), and who had first line players that likely would have ended up high in the NHL scoring.
That would have been fair.
But most people here basically just look at the NHL as it was and seems to automatically assume that basically all the best players played there. They didn't. The guys finishing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in the NHL scoring, might have ended up 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, if the best Soviets had played there on the same terms.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Soviet was probably more competitive vs Canada than they are now. Today we see guys like Malkin, Datsyuk, and peaking Ovechkin "proving" they are as good as the best Canadians. Why wouldn't the 1970s and 1980s Soviets have done it, if putting the best Soviet teams in the NHL and let them play half their games at home?
The forum is quite unbalanced when comparing North Americans to Europeans, not realizing it was harder back in the 1990s for young Russians to "prove themselves" early on in the NHL than it is today. North American players get used at a young age to play in North America. European players oftens first stay a year or two longer in Europe (where good hockey is being played too!), and also might take another year or so to adapt to NHL play. As goes for the 1980s stars, most of the best Soviet players of the 1980s were also past their prime when entering the NHL, making it even harder to adapt. Despite that, the North American players often are looked upon as "excelling earlier", while Europeans needing more time, without giving enough respect to the context.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
As great as they were in the playoffs (especially Roy), to me The Rocket is still the very best playoff performer.
