HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Hardyvan123]

It may be easier to be a top-15 scorer in a smaller league but it wasn't any easier to be the MVP. There were just a few seriously dominant players.

Interesting comment, i wonder if the stat bear this out, not that stats are everything but they make a good starting point.

The dominant guys in any era stay the same more or less but with more teams it makes it more likely that a guy like Federov can have a super season and become MVP just based on mathematical probability.

Maybe not so much in MVP voting but as far as all star selections and Norris voting in a 6 team league trying to compare those guys to current day players one must take a lot more into consideration IMO.

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting comment, i wonder if the stat bear this out, not that stats are everything but they make a good starting point.

The dominant guys in any era stay the same more or less but with more teams it makes it more likely that a guy like Federov can have a super season and become MVP just based on mathematical probability.

Maybe not so much in MVP voting but as far as all star selections and Norris voting in a 6 team league trying to compare those guys to current day players one must take a lot more into consideration IMO.

As far as fedorov goes, it was more a case of there being lemieux and gretzky, and then everyone else. Gretz was a high scorer but not mvp material. Mario was injured. Fedorov had the best season. Keep in mind that if it was a six team league the same thing would have happened.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Sure in a 6 team league it would have happened as well but the Lemieux and Gretzky era is an extreme example, they are 2 of the top 5 guys hands down of all time and overlapped.

In todays 30 team league a great player like Sid is going to miss out on MVP's to guys like Henrik more often, it's not only math but a cap issue as well with the lugs Sid was playing with all year long.

 

[seventieslord]

Sure in a 6 team league it would have happened as well but the Lemieux and Gretzky era is an extreme example, they are 2 of the top 5 guys hands down of all time and overlapped.

In todays 30 team league a great player like Sid is going to miss out on MVP's to guys like Henrik more often, it's not only math but a cap issue as well with the lugs Sid was playing with all year long.

And if there were only enough players in the league to stock six. Teams, henrik would STILL be there! This is not a valid point at all, sorry.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Okay i put it another way in another thread, choose which lottery you would want to be in one where you are one of 6 guys to win or one of 30 guys?

All the players are playing to win and be the best they are in both cases either in a 6 or 30 team league.

The odds of being better in a 6 team league is much better than in a 30 team league.

As to the Henrik comment it's not just Henrik but 29 other teams that can have a dominant guy take away an MVP from Crosby.

A more clear point is goal scoring champ Bobby Hull did it I think 6 or 7 times off the top off my head ( and might have won a couple of more had he not gone to the WHA), the chances that Ovechkin does it is pretty slim with every team in a 30 team league having a guy who can compete withe AO as well.

I'm not say that it is 5 times harder from a 6 to 30 team league to come out on top in any category stat wise or trophy wise but it is harder just for the fact that there is more competition numerically.

 

[seventieslord]

Okay i put it another way in another thread, choose which lottery you would want to be in one where you are one of 6 guys to win or one of 30 guys?

All the players are playing to win and be the best they are in both cases either in a 6 or 30 team league.

The odds of being better in a 6 team league is much better than in a 30 team league.

As to the Henrik comment it's not just Henrik but 29 other teams that can have a dominant guy take away an MVP from Crosby.

A more clear point is goal scoring champ Bobby Hull did it I think 6 or 7 times off the top off my head ( and might have won a couple of more had he not gone to the WHA), the chances that Ovechkin does it is pretty slim with every team in a 30 team league having a guy who can compete withe AO as well.

I'm not say that it is 5 times harder from a 6 to 30 team league to come out on top in any category stat wise or trophy wise but it is harder just for the fact that there is more competition numerically.

Well, that is wrong.

 

[Chased By Trolls]

And if there were only enough players in the league to stock six. Teams, henrik would STILL be there! This is not a valid point at all, sorry.

That's certainly true in Henrik's case but not necessarily in all cases. Think for example of Jose Theodore and his Hart in 2002. In a six team league he most probably wouldn't have had the chance to have the season he had. There were so many more accomplished goalies like Hašek, Roy, Belfour, Brodeur, CuJo, Kölzig, Khabibulin, Burke, Salo, Osgood, Barrasso, Irbe, etc etc that he may not have even been in the league at all. This is of course sort of an extreme example but I think it shows it can happen.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's certainly true in Henrik's case but not necessarily in all cases. Think for example of Jose Theodore and his Hart in 2002. In a six team league he most probably wouldn't have had the chance to have the season he had. There were so many more accomplished goalies like Hašek, Roy, Belfour, Brodeur, CuJo, Kölzig, Khabibulin, Burke, Salo, Osgood, Barrasso, Irbe, etc etc that he may not have even been in the league at all. This is of course sort of an extreme example but I think it shows it can happen.

I agree, but the answer is simply that goalies are different. Assuming 2 scoring lines, there were 36 spots for scoring line forwards in the league, and 24 spots for top 4 defenseman. And I assume if a guy really impressed on a lower line, he'd be moved up.

On the other hand, with only 6 starting goaltenders, you didn't have the case where a flash in the pan could get into the league to have a great season. Also, the nature of goaltending itself makes it easier to have flashes in the pan, while with forwards and defensemen, there is a lot of consistency as to who is near the top of the league year after year. Even Chara during the worst season of his career after he established himself was Top 20 in the league.

 

[Habs Nation*]

Good list for the most part.

Rating guys like Kharlamov is a hard task since he's played in Europe most of his career. It's just like rating Negro Players in your top 100 baseball players of all time. We all know players like Josh Gibson, Pop Llyod, Cool Papa Bell ect were tremendous baseball players, but they played in the Negro Leagues for the most part. They didn't get to face the likes of Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander ect.

Sorry, if I turned this into a baseball analogy, but I think it's the best example.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Okay i put it another way in another thread, choose which lottery you would want to be in one where you are one of 6 guys to win or one of 30 guys?

All the players are playing to win and be the best they are in both cases either in a 6 or 30 team league.

The odds of being better in a 6 team league is much better than in a 30 team league.

As to the Henrik comment it's not just Henrik but 29 other teams that can have a dominant guy take away an MVP from Crosby.

Winning MVP isn't a lottery. The only way this point holds true is if MVP voting was based entirely on value to team. Voting trends have changed over time, but as it stands now, it's basically a vote for best player, with value to team only being used as a means of separating the top few players. There are not 30 guys in the league with a chance at winning the Hart Trophy, there are probably only a few, just like in the six team league (when voting WAS based more on value to team as opposed to overall best player).

A more clear point is goal scoring champ Bobby Hull did it I think 6 or 7 times off the top off my head ( and might have won a couple of more had he not gone to the WHA), the chances that Ovechkin does it is pretty slim with every team in a 30 team league having a guy who can compete withe AO as well.

I'm not say that it is 5 times harder from a 6 to 30 team league to come out on top in any category stat wise or trophy wise but it is harder just for the fact that there is more competition numerically.

Ovechkin has just as good a chance as Hull of winning goal titles. It's not like he's going to get beat out by some second line player today that wouldn't have been in the league during Hull's era. There's only a few players in the league capable of winning the goal-scoring crown in today's game, just like in the past, it's not some sort of lottery.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Okay i put it another way in another thread, choose which lottery you would want to be in one where you are one of 6 guys to win or one of 30 guys?

All the players are playing to win and be the best they are in both cases either in a 6 or 30 team league.

The odds of being better in a 6 team league is much better than in a 30 team league.

As to the Henrik comment it's not just Henrik but 29 other teams that can have a dominant guy take away an MVP from Crosby.

A more clear point is goal scoring champ Bobby Hull did it I think 6 or 7 times off the top off my head ( and might have won a couple of more had he not gone to the WHA), the chances that Ovechkin does it is pretty slim with every team in a 30 team league having a guy who can compete withe AO as well.

I'm not say that it is 5 times harder from a 6 to 30 team league to come out on top in any category stat wise or trophy wise but it is harder just for the fact that there is more competition numerically.

So by this logic if there were 100 teams in the league it would be really really hard to be an MVP or all-star?

And that's because of the influx of minor league (and lesser) talent into the league? There will be 100 guys who can now compete with Ovechkin & Crosby?

I think this argument may be completely wrong. The original 6 was the best competition, therefore it was the hardest time to win awards.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So by this logic if there were 100 teams in the league it would be really really hard to be an MVP or all-star?

And that's because of the influx of minor league (and lesser) talent into the league? There will be 100 guys who can now compete with Ovechkin & Crosby?

I think this argument may be completely wrong. The original 6 was the best competition, therefore it was the hardest time to win awards.

Guys are getting caught up on the word lottery here, its statisical odds I'm talking about here and not just the MVP award but making all star teams, how guys finish in top 5 voting ect where the number of teams really come into play.

How is the orginal 6 the best competition, just becasue someone says so?

All sports progress, the players get bigger, faster and stronger, coaching and training methods improve, scouting is better.

The gap from the best players in the league, let's say top 5%, compared to the bottom 20% is much less today skillwise than it was in the past just look at today's skating, the worst skaters are still pretty good.

Guys like Tiger Williams, who I loved as a player and scored 35 goals one year, just couldn't exist today in the NHL.

He had a pretty productive career with lesser teams in the league.

I guess my main point is that guys need to back up their arguements not just say stuff like "the original 6 was the best hockey ever and had the best players ever."

Seems kinda odd with the influx of the whole world ie. american and European players, that somehow todays game isn't as good as the original 6.

 

[seventieslord]

I guess my main point is that guys need to back up their arguements not just say stuff like "the original 6 was the best hockey ever and had the best players ever."

No one said that. But it was the best hockey being played at the time... and by far.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Guys are getting caught up on the word lottery here, its statisical odds I'm talking about here and not just the MVP award but making all star teams, how guys finish in top 5 voting ect where the number of teams really come into play.

How is the orginal 6 the best competition, just becasue someone says so?

All sports progress, the players get bigger, faster and stronger, coaching and training methods improve, scouting is better.

The gap from the best players in the league, let's say top 5%, compared to the bottom 20% is much less today skillwise than it was in the past just look at today's skating, the worst skaters are still pretty good.

Guys like Tiger Williams, who I loved as a player and scored 35 goals one year, just couldn't exist today in the NHL.

He had a pretty productive career with lesser teams in the league.

I guess my main point is that guys need to back up their arguements not just say stuff like "the original 6 was the best hockey ever and had the best players ever."

Seems kinda odd with the influx of the whole world ie. american and European players, that somehow todays game isn't as good as the original 6.

OK, look at it this way.

Today there are only six teams. Easier to be an all-star? Easier to be in the top 5 in scoring? Or easier with 30 teams, a league with the best 600 players instead of the best 100? The best 60 goalies instead of the best 12? Play every other team the same amount of times or have some teams play the best team 6 times while others play them once, or play the worst team 6 times while others only play them once? Everyone that votes sees everyone play plenty of times.

To me it seems you would have to be a better player if there were only 6 teams. Thus all-star level would be harder to attain.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

OK, look at it this way.

Today there are only six teams. Easier to be an all-star? Easier to be in the top 5 in scoring? Or easier with 30 teams, a league with the best 600 players instead of the best 100? The best 60 goalies instead of the best 12? Play every other team the same amount of times or have some teams play the best team 6 times while others play them once, or play the worst team 6 times while others only play them once? Everyone that votes sees everyone play plenty of times.

To me it seems you would have to be a better player if there were only 6 teams. Thus all-star level would be harder to attain.

I don't get this either. Sure, you are facing tougher competition on a nightly basis when there are only 6 teams. But that doesn't mean you would be a better player yourself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Top 100

I don't get this either. Sure, you are facing tougher competition on a nightly basis when there are only 6 teams. But that doesn't mean you would be a better player yourself.

In a six team league the player is driven to maintain a place in the top 100 players and stay in the league. In a twelve team league the bar is lowered to the top 200 and proportionately as the league grows.

So those motivated by just staying in the league would have to be better to just making the top 100 as opposed to just making the top 200 and proportionately.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't get this either. Sure, you are facing tougher competition on a nightly basis when there are only 6 teams. But that doesn't mean you would be a better player yourself.

I think it does.

Playing against better competition defenitely makes one a better player. Especially in the situation we are speaking of. Players that are good enough to play at that top 100 level would become better players than if they played in the 30 team league where it would be easier to dominate. I don't think any players that went to the WHA became better players because of it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In a six team league the player is driven to maintain a place in the top 100 players and stay in the league. In a twelve team league the bar is lowered to the top 200 and proportionately as the league grows.

So those motivated by just staying in the league would have to be better to just making the top 100 as opposed to just making the top 200 and proportionately.

You really think the best of the best (Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Keith, etc) would have problems staying in the league if not motivated?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it does.

Playing against better competition defenitely makes one a better player. Especially in the situation we are speaking of. Players that are good enough to play at that top 100 level would become better players than if they played in the 30 team league where it would be easier to dominate. I don't think any players that went to the WHA became better players because of it.

So what does that make Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky who played against the most watered down competition in league history?

 

[unknown33]

In a six team league the player is driven to maintain a place in the top 100 players and stay in the league. In a twelve team league the bar is lowered to the top 200 and proportionately as the league grows.

More competition for the spot from Europe ...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bottom 10%

You really think the best of the best (Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Keith, etc) would have problems staying in the league if not motivated?

No one questioned the best of the best. Its the motivation of the bottom 10% that is the issue.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No one questioned the best of the best. Its the motivation of the bottom 10% that is the issue.

Ah, in that case I 100% agree with you. But I thought we were talking about the Top 100 players of all time still; in which case league size should make no difference. (Though overall talent pool and distribution might).

 

[Hardyvan123]

OK, look at it this way.

Today there are only six teams. Easier to be an all-star? Easier to be in the top 5 in scoring? Or easier with 30 teams, a league with the best 600 players instead of the best 100? The best 60 goalies instead of the best 12? Play every other team the same amount of times or have some teams play the best team 6 times while others play them once, or play the worst team 6 times while others only play them once? Everyone that votes sees everyone play plenty of times.

To me it seems you would have to be a better player if there were only 6 teams. Thus all-star level would be harder to attain.

One major problem with your 6 team theory though, it assumes that the players available for stocking either 6 or 30 teams or any number in between remains constant throughout history and this simply is not the case.

Your assumption works today since you can contract 30 teams into 6 to make up 6 super teams but that doesn't automatically transfer backwards in time.

the main point of the argument has been lost here the top superstars like Howe, Hull as in Bobby, Gretzky and Lemieux are not as affected by the number of teams as lesser stars or the 2nd tier of players at any given time.

With less teams they have a better statistical chance of earning a berth on an all star team or of placing 2,3,4 or 5th in voting for an award than a player who has top players from 30 other teams all competing against him.

The only way your argument would hold true is if the overall talent pool and players to choose from remained constant in terms of talent and that's simply not true with the influx of players from Europe and the United States.

Too many people assume that the original 6 is the best of all time because they translate of what would happen today if we contracted 30 teams to 6 and we simply can't translate current conditions to the past era.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So what does that make Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky who played against the most watered down competition in league history?

Two of the best 4 players ever.

If they played in an era with better competition their numbers would not have been as great but they would have been better players. That's my argument. Hell, Gretzky might have even initiated contact occasionally in a better era.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

One major problem with your 6 team theory though, it assumes that the players available for stocking either 6 or 30 teams or any number in between remains constant throughout history and this simply is not the case.

Your assumption works today since you can contract 30 teams into 6 to make up 6 super teams but that doesn't automatically transfer backwards in time.

the main point of the argument has been lost here the top superstars like Howe, Hull as in Bobby, Gretzky and Lemieux are not as affected by the number of teams as lesser stars or the 2nd tier of players at any given time.

With less teams they have a better statistical chance of earning a berth on an all star team or of placing 2,3,4 or 5th in voting for an award than a player who has top players from 30 other teams all competing against him.
The only way your argument would hold true is if the overall talent pool and players to choose from remained constant in terms of talent and that's simply not true with the influx of players from Europe and the United States.

Too many people assume that the original 6 is the best of all time because they translate of what would happen today if we contracted 30 teams to 6 and we simply can't translate current conditions to the past era.

Being an all-star or a top 5 player in scoring or voting for the Hart isn't a statistical chance. You can add 1,000 players to the league but that doesn't make it more difficult for anyone to gain an all-star berth. In any era its rare for players to garner an all-star selection out of the blue.