HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Agreed, but the exception once again is goaltenders, mostly due to there only being 6 starting spots, but also due to the "flash in the pan" nature of the position. My favorite example is that Patrick Roy was 2nd in cumulative save % to Hasek, during Roy's Colorado years. But there were a couple of years there when he was 7th, 8th, 10th in save percentage during those individual seasons. Guess what? Not all those guys who finished ahead of him those seasons would even be in the league during those years.

It's why you can't do a season by season comparison of modern goaltenders and old timers.

In other words, Eddie Belfour should be thought of in the same breath as Johnny Bower, minus the dynasty, plus a lot more durability.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Agreed, but the exception once again is goaltenders, mostly due to there only being 6 starting spots, but also due to the "flash in the pan" nature of the position. My favorite example is that Patrick Roy was 2nd in cumulative save % to Hasek, during Roy's Colorado years. But there were a couple of years there when he was 7th, 8th, 10th in save percentage during those individual seasons. Guess what? Not all those guys who finished ahead of him those seasons would even be in the league during those years.

It's why you can't do a season by season comparison of modern goaltenders and old timers.

In other words, Eddie Belfour should be thought of in the same breath as Johnny Bower, minus the dynasty, plus a lot more durability.

You're right, goalies are different.

Just look at the guys you mentioned: Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Bower.

Indeed, they were different.

That's why each team has 18 hockey players and 2 goalies.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

So if these guys were playing today, which "lesser/2nd-tier stars" do you see beating them out for AST and Hart's? Do you honestly think guys like Dany Heatley and Vincent Lecavalier might be edging out players like Gretzky and Howe for AST selections or Hart votes?

The AST is voted it seems based purely on best player. There is more latitude in Hart criteria, but for at least the last 30 years, it's basically been a vote simply for best player. There are times throughout history where "value to team" held a lot more weight, like in the Original Six era, but this is rarely the case anymore.

It's entirely possible for a very good player on a terrible team to be more "valuable to his team" than the best player in the league on an already stacked team. Under that assumption, you could see guys like Crosby and Ovechkin losing Hart votes to a lesser player who carried an otherwise crappy team into 8th place or something along those lines, but that isn't the current trend in Hart voting, and hasn't been for some time.

If anything, it may have been tougher to win the award in the Original six era since there are examples of the voters giving it to a guy who was the lone bright spot on a last-place team, or a guy who sparked a turnaround and took a perrenial doormat to fourth place, even though the players in these examples still weren't as good as a Howe, Hull, Beliveau, etc. This situation almost never arises in the modern era. Jose Theodore in 2002 is probably the closest to it in quite a number of years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Erroneous Assumptions

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.

There are a number of erroneous assumptions, by both sides, in this discussion. I'll list and explain or clarify.

The O6 era is viewed as being the most competitive era in the history of hockey. Competitive at various levels - winning team and individual awards/honours and for playing jobs in the league.Competition for the bottom 10-20% of playing jobs during the O6 era was extremely fierce. Today this is not so. Even if the USA and Europe is factored in, replacing the bottom 70 - 140 players in today's NHL with quality is next to impossible.That is why so many 18-19 year old players will make the NHL next season.Do not equate competitive with best.

This brings us to the talent pool issue. The USA and Europe is a factor but Canada is still the major producer. Poor record keeping, lack of a fixed starting date, mergers, etc make it difficult to track the growth of Canadian minor hockey associations but many of the suburban ones that started in the post WWII era from scratch, maybe 40 - 50 teams(app 12 kids) have grown 7 - 15 fold(upwards of 500 teams,15 kids). Even balanced against inner city associations that have disappeared due to changing demographics there is a net gain in Canada that far surpasses the population increase.

Top players from 30 teams competing for awards or honours. Really? List the players from the non-playoff teams who were realistic competition for the AS teams or major awards that were not rookie based.Break it down even further amongst the playoff teams and you will be left with a serious pool of maybe 6 players per position.

The biggest issue is the bottom 10-20% lag. The bottom 2-5 players per team drag down performance. Prime example would be the Derek Boogaard type player - at least 30 of them in the league.Throw in the 1-4 cycle thru minor leaguers where the team hopes to get lucky and stumble across some production and you see the major weakness in today's NHL.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There are a number of erroneous assumptions, by both sides, in this discussion. I'll list and explain or clarify.

The O6 era is viewed as being the most competitive era in the history of hockey. Competitive at various levels - winning team and individual awards/honours and for playing jobs in the league.Competition for the bottom 10-20% of playing jobs during the O6 era was extremely fierce. Today this is not so. Even if the USA and Europe is factored in, replacing the bottom 70 - 140 players in today's NHL with quality is next to impossible.That is why so many 18-19 year old players will make the NHL next season.Do not equate competitive with best.

This brings us to the talent pool issue. The USA and Europe is a factor but Canada is still the major producer. Poor record keeping, lack of a fixed starting date, mergers, etc make it difficult to track the growth of Canadian minor hockey associations but many of the suburban ones that started in the post WWII era from scratch, maybe 40 - 50 teams(app 12 kids) have grown 7 - 15 fold(upwards of 500 teams,15 kids). Even balanced against inner city associations that have disappeared due to changing demographics there is a net gain in Canada that far surpasses the population increase.

Top players from 30 teams competing for awards or honours. Really? List the players from the non-playoff teams who were realistic competition for the AS teams or major awards that were not rookie based.Break it down even further amongst the playoff teams and you will be left with a serious pool of maybe 6 players per position.

The biggest issue is the bottom 10-20% lag. The bottom 2-5 players per team drag down performance. Prime example would be the Derek Boogaard type player - at least 30 of them in the league.Throw in the 1-4 cycle thru minor leaguers where the team hopes to get lucky and stumble across some production and you see the major weakness in today's NHL.

The main reason 18 and 19 yr old players are playing are due to the Cap not to lack of talent. Also there are plenty of "talented guys", usually guys who are either a little smaller or not the best skates in the world, who are a bit out of reach for top 6 postions which are today given to energy and role guys and tough guys.

The bottom lag doesnt really come minto play either look at the icetime for the bottom 2-5 players per team, maybe 10 minutes a game tops and usually less and certainly not any PP time and maybe only PK time if they are defensive specialists.

Also look at bottom guys like Ben Eager who would have been in the top 20% of skating ability in the league in the late 70's never mind earlier times.

The level of training and preperation that all players are involved in today also makes the gap from the top guys to the bottom 10-20% is much less than it used to be as well.

Bottom line is that you could take players who would not fit in a present verison of a 6 team league, ie players beyond the top 120 or so and place them with large roles on orignal 6 teams from the 60's.

I think alot of people get caught up in the memory and stories of the original 6 greatness and use terms like watered down 80's when Gretzky played (you can make a very strong arguement that with the inclusion of the 4 WHA teams in 1979 that it actually brought up the talent pool as the WHA no longer shared in trying to get players with the NHL. Players like Gretzky, Messier,Mark Howe,Cloutier,Kent and Ulf Nilsson, Mike Liut are a few on this list).

Expansion in 1967, 70, 72 and 74 might have had short term watering down affects but with the influx of players from overseas in the mid 70's and largley due to the influence of the WHA, any loss in the overall talent pool was quickly regained and indeed passed.

Just musing, but I wonder how we would have viewed Gretzky and other WHA stars if the WHA had survived and the NHL had remained a 17 team league, it sure would ahve been interesting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Data

The main reason 18 and 19 yr old players are playing are due to the Cap not to lack of talent. Also there are plenty of "talented guys", usually guys who are either a little smaller or not the best skates in the world, who are a bit out of reach for top 6 postions which are today given to energy and role guys and tough guys.

The bottom lag doesnt really come minto play either look at the icetime for the bottom 2-5 players per team, maybe 10 minutes a game tops and usually less and certainly not any PP time and maybe only PK time if they are defensive specialists.

Also look at bottom guys like Ben Eager who would have been in the top 20% of skating ability in the league in the late 70's never mind earlier times.

The level of training and preperation that all players are involved in today also makes the gap from the top guys to the bottom 10-20% is much less than it used to be as well.

Bottom line is that you could take players who would not fit in a present verison of a 6 team league, ie players beyond the top 120 or so and place them with large roles on orignal 6 teams from the 60's.

I think alot of people get caught up in the memory and stories of the original 6 greatness and use terms like watered down 80's when Gretzky played (you can make a very strong arguement that with the inclusion of the 4 WHA teams in 1979 that it actually brought up the talent pool as the WHA no longer shared in trying to get players with the NHL. Players like Gretzky, Messier,Mark Howe,Cloutier,Kent and Ulf Nilsson, Mike Liut are a few on this list).

Expansion in 1967, 70, 72 and 74 might have had short term watering down affects but with the influx of players from overseas in the mid 70's and largley due to the influence of the WHA, any loss in the overall talent pool was quickly regained and indeed passed.

Just musing, but I wonder how we would have viewed Gretzky and other WHA stars if the WHA had survived and the NHL had remained a 17 team league, it sure would ahve been interesting.

Sadly your musings lack support. 19 year olds(as of Feb1) in the NHL 1979-80(17), 1997-98(14), 2003-04(11), 2009-10(15). So the relationship that you are trying to link to the Cap does not hold combined with the fact that the typical ELC for a junior aged player is higher than the league minimum for a minor leaguer so again the Cap issues becomes a non-starter.

In a game, the bottom 10-20% on each team either gets matched against each other so the talent gap is not noticed or they get overwhelmed by the other teams top players.

The gap between the top players and the bottom 10-20%. You used Ben Eager as an example. Can skate in a straight line and little else, needs half the rink to turn.hardly any lateral movement.

Today the bottom 10-20% may be in better shape, better prepared but their ability to execute is not there.One of the basics of coaching in the NHL today is avoid getting caught with your 3 - 4 th line players on the ice in the last 90 seconds of a period of a close game since they cannot execute.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Canadiens1958

I'm curious what you really think of the bottom players today in terms of skating lets say to the mid 70's where guys where literally skating in sand.

I reember watchignt he Red Army Habs game in 75 new year eve I believe and thinkign for the longest time that it was the greatest game ever played.

watching the speed (or lack of it compared to today's game) on TV a while back reminded me that the mind can get nostaglic at times.

Eager wasn't the best example but straight line skating suits his game point A to point B energy, hitter guy with no hands. His speed sure helps compared to past 3rh or 4th line guys from the past.

As for the 18 and 19 yr olds, largely a draft issue but some if not most of the younger guys playing today the Cap is an issue as there are skilled guys out there, esecially in Russia who are better than quite a few bottom 6 guys on most teams and their are probably 10-15, I'm being conservative here, guys on pure talent who could play top 6 roles in the NHL and are not there.

Some of this comes down to chemistry and getting the right situation for the right player, Lenio from Philly comes to mind.

Others like Jagr just chose to play elsewhere.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shift Length & Versatility

Canadiens1958

I'm curious what you really think of the bottom players today in terms of skating lets say to the mid 70's where guys where literally skating in sand.

I reember watchignt he Red Army Habs game in 75 new year eve I believe and thinkign for the longest time that it was the greatest game ever played.

watching the speed (or lack of it compared to today's game) on TV a while back reminded me that the mind can get nostaglic at times.

Eager wasn't the best example but straight line skating suits his game point A to point B energy, hitter guy with no hands. His speed sure helps compared to past 3rh or 4th line guys from the past.

As for the 18 and 19 yr olds, largely a draft issue but some if not most of the younger guys playing today the Cap is an issue as there are skilled guys out there, esecially in Russia who are better than quite a few bottom 6 guys on most teams and their are probably 10-15, I'm being conservative here, guys on pure talent who could play top 6 roles in the NHL and are not there.

Some of this comes down to chemistry and getting the right situation for the right player, Lenio from Philly comes to mind.

Others like Jagr just chose to play elsewhere.

You are confusing skating with shift length. Running a sprint as opposed to running a marathon.Ask today's players to take 2-3 minute shifts like some of the 1970's players used to and they will be dragging something fierce after 45 seconds.

The bottom 10-20 % today are serviceable in short bursts, 30 seconds beyond their skating is not good or varied enough to compensate for the way a game changes. Watch the so-called energy forwards who will run someone. They are so out of position and their skating is insufficient to get back that they have to be replaced on the fly by another player who makes up the lost ice by entering the play higher while the other one is within eight feet of the bench.

Basic issue with the bottom 10-20% in today's NHL is that they are all either / or players - do not expect them to multi task.

Believe you used Tiger Williams as an example previously. Well during the 1980-81 season Tiger Williams out produced Ben Eager's career to date. In 77 games Williams outscored Eager over career 250 games to date while being a more prolific fighter, 343 PIM and a plus defensive player.Fighting is the most physically tiring activity for a hockey player. Yet Williams managed to do it while scoring 35 goals and playing reasonable defense.Why? Williams even though he was an awkward skater had stamina and could play a bit of hockey.

Skilled guys elsewhere. Russia, Europe, etc. Problem is that all these skill guys who have been around for ages, have major problems playing an 82 game schedule with multiple sequences of three games in four nights or two games in three nights.Jagr played 55 regular season games this past year, scoring 53 points.

For the most part the GMs in the NHL have decided that they prefer players who will play every night, if not there are equally cheap replacements in the AHL.

 

[KaraLupin]

Where are players 70-100...

 

[seventieslord]

Where are players 70-100...

Yeah, about that....

 

[Michael Farkas]

What is the status of the 2010 version of the list?

 

[seventieslord]

The status is that FF has obviously gotten too busy despite his best intentions, and that this needs to be taken over. We keep talking about it but not doing it.

I'll get on it within 7 days.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The status is that FF has obviously gotten too busy despite his best intentions, and that this needs to be taken over. We keep talking about it but not doing it.

I'll get on it within 7 days.

At this point, i wouldn't mind waiting until 2011 and then starting over with a 2011 update.

It's been over a year since we worked on this. Not only have opinions changed (notably with the new info discovered about Nighbor in ATDs, but also also others), but the panel will likely be quite different at this point.

If we're going to finish this one though, I'm obviously a part of it. I guess we can do a quick finish of this one even if we are planning on doing a full update in 2011 or 2012.

I don't mind you collecting the votes as long as you make all of it public and have at least 1 or 2 other panel members with access to the totals as this is going along.

 

[seventieslord]

At this point, i wouldn't mind waiting until 2011 and then starting over with a 2011 update.

It's been over a year since we worked on this. Not only have opinions changed (notably with the new info discovered about Nighbor in ATDs, but also also others), but the panel will likely be quite different at this point.

If we're going to finish this one though, I'm obviously a part of it. I guess we can do a quick finish of this one even if we are planning on doing a full update in 2011 or 2012.

I don't mind you collecting the votes as long as you make all of it public and have at least 1 or 2 other panel members with access to the totals as this is going along.

I think we should put in an honest effort so that it gets to 100 and the top-70 doesn't get wasted, but do it quick.

Then in a year or two, do the new one... with Crosby and Ovechkin..

In the meantime, I'd like to see us branch out and do positions. Imagine a "top-100 goalies"!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Master List

I think we should put in an honest effort so that it gets to 100 and the top-70 doesn't get wasted, but do it quick.

Then in a year or two, do the new one... with Crosby and Ovechkin..

In the meantime, I'd like to see us branch out and do positions. Imagine a "top-100 goalies"!

Top 100 Referees.

By positions combined with eras leading to a master All-Time list has potential. Otherwise you are doing things backwards. Why do a HOH 100 regardless of position then follow-up with goalies when it is obvious that the top x goalies from the 100 should map 1:1 with the top x of the 100 goalies.

 

[seventieslord]

Top 100 Referees.

By positions combined with eras leading to a master All-Time list has potential. Otherwise you are doing things backwards. Why do a HOH 100 regardless of position then follow-up with goalies when it is obvious that the top x goalies from the 100 should map 1:1 with the top x of the 100 goalies.

I would not see a problem with just using the 16-17 goalies on the top-100, as the first 16-17 goalies on a top-100 list.

Separating by era makes it much less interesting. Most of the fun is from judging each player's relative dominance and competition they had to face.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Top 100 Referees.
By positions combined with eras leading to a master All-Time list has potential. Otherwise you are doing things backwards. Why do a HOH 100 regardless of position then follow-up with goalies when it is obvious that the top x goalies from the 100 should map 1:1 with the top x of the 100 goalies.

Is there such a thing?

Bill Friday for most entertaining.

 

[Canadiens1958]

By Era

I would not see a problem with just using the 16-17 goalies on the top-100, as the first 16-17 goalies on a top-100 list.

Separating by era makes it much less interesting. Most of the fun is from judging each player's relative dominance and competition they had to face.

Separating by era allows everyone to form a clear picture of each player's relative dominance to the competition within an era. It also provides a focus on how certain positions may have dominated eras.

It also respects the evolution of the game. Working backwards from the present does not respect the evolution of the game.

 

[seventieslord]

Separating by era allows everyone to form a clear picture of each player's relative dominance to the competition within an era. It also provides a focus on how certain positions may have dominated eras.

Even if we did separate by era, the natural progression of that, would be to take the era-specific lists and integrate them together into a master list.

Seeing as we skipped the era step in the "all positions" list, I think we could do it in a goalies-only list without a hitch.

It also respects the evolution of the game. Working backwards from the present does not respect the evolution of the game.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Evolution of the Game

Even if we did separate by era, the natural progression of that, would be to take the era-specific lists and integrate them together into a master list.

Seeing as we skipped the era step in the "all positions" list, I think we could do it in a goalies-only list without a hitch.



I'm not sure what you mean.

Evolution of the game. Take length of schedule as an example. From 1893 onward the season evolved from roughly 10 games plus playoffs to where it is today 80 plus games and playoffs. Scoring of games evolved from just goals to assists to the micro statistical analysis. Roster sizes, TOI, rules,playing philosophies, styles etc. If you build towards a combined list in segments from eras you will see the progression, how perceptions evolved - why 200 goals was seen as an important career benchmark.

If you work from the present back the reverse happens. 200 career goals is seen as very ordinary. The bias against certain playing philosophies is not appreciated, etc.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think we should put in an honest effort so that it gets to 100 and the top-70 doesn't get wasted, but do it quick.

Then in a year or two, do the new one... with Crosby and Ovechkin..

In the meantime, I'd like to see us branch out and do positions. Imagine a "top-100 goalies"!

So finish this list then take a break before starting with something like "top 50 goalies," "top 100 defensemen, "top 100 forwards" or so. I think that works. If we're going to finish this list, I'd like to start relatively soon.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So finish this list then take a break before starting with something like "top 50 goalies," "top 100 defensemen, "top 100 forwards" or so. I think that works. If we're going to finish this list, I'd like to start relatively soon.

These kinds of list are very interesting and although I agree quite a bit with Canadiens1958 and his concerns about comparing guys from different eras it is still a worthwhile enterprise.

 

[seventieslord]

Evolution of the game. Take length of schedule as an example. From 1893 onward the season evolved from roughly 10 games plus playoffs to where it is today 80 plus games and playoffs. Scoring of games evolved from just goals to assists to the micro statistical analysis. Roster sizes, TOI, rules,playing philosophies, styles etc. If you build towards a combined list in segments from eras you will see the progression, how perceptions evolved - why 200 goals was seen as an important career benchmark.

If you work from the present back the reverse happens. 200 career goals is seen as very ordinary. The bias against certain playing philosophies is not appreciated, etc.

That has never been a problem with us.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It would be fun to see you guys do a Top 25-30 per decade or All-Decade Teams. I know there have been threads about this, but this would be more in depth. I also like the rank by position idea (I would like to see a Top 50 or 100 coaches).

Also, I don't have near enough knowledge to help put these lists together (yet), but if you would like an imparital party to help with vote counting I would be happy to help.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It would be fun to see you guys do a Top 25-30 per decade or All-Decade Teams. I know there have been threads about this, but this would be more in depth. I also like the rank by position idea (I would like to see a Top 50 or 100 coaches).

Top guys per decade is fun, but I'm not sure how much room their is for serious historical study on it, as IMO it badly shortchanges guys like Sakic whose peak spanned 2 decades.

I like the rank by position. Top 100 coaches might be pushing it, but Top 50 could be doable.

Also, I don't have near enough knowledge to help put these lists together (yet), but if you would like an imparital party to help with vote counting I would be happy to help.

I would be okay with this. Ideally more than one person would see the voting, but it would be nice to have one primary guy to be the main guy. Maybe you could collect the results add up the votes and then forward them on to someone like 70s to doublecheck and post?