HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Hardyvan123]

Here's a simple, logical way to put it.

Your short cursory argument is based on goal scoring. And it should be. Gartner was a good goal scorer and that was about all he did.

Gartner's 15 consecutive 30-goal seasons and 700+ goals look great, but they were a result of being born in just the right year and being able to play in the exact highest-scoring 15-year period hockey has ever seen. During that time there were better goal scorers, but some were older than him, some were younger, and others got injured a few times, causing them to miss out on interesting anomalies like his streak. He scored a lot of goals, but he wasn't the best goal scorer of his generation. He was once top-5 in goals (5th), something a couple hundred players have done. He was top-10 in goals 5 times (most often 9th or 10th), something 75 players have done. Even with all those 17 30-goal seasons, he was actually just top-20 in goal scoring 9 times, something 47 players have done. Sometimes he was as low as 45th in goals, but we look back at that "30" and see it as something special, but it wasn't. So he was a good goal scorer, but probably about the 8th-best regular season goalscorer of his generation, with peak and longevity both considered, behind Lemieux, Gretzky, Bossy, Robitaille, Yzerman, Goulet & Kurri.

But Gartner's generation (as I've defined it) is one of a dozen or so to have come and gone throughout the history of hockey. Don't dismiss earlier times just because scoring was lower or schedules were shorter. Many players with more impressive/dominant goal scoring records have played since Gartner, and many did before him. recognizing that more of the best players in history can be found in modern generations, I'm not going to just take the 8 from above and multiply it by 12. Let's go with 6 and say he's approximately the 48th-best regular season goalscorer of all-time.

But then, of course goals are not everything. you can say goals are more important than assists, but:

1) for the elite players of history, who tend to have a lot to do with every point they earn, an assist is arguably worth as much as a goal, and
2) points are indisputably worth more than goals.

Because he was never a player to get a lot of assists, Mike Gartner was top-20 in points just twice in his long career: 11th and 17th. I don't have to tell you that many, many players have a record of elite point production stronger than that. If looking at point production, Gartner probably drops to approximately the 150th-best regular season point producing forward of all-time.

Although offense in the regular season is nice, players with a playoff record of solid production are rightfully revered in hockey history. This doesn't mean Claude Lemieux is better than Gartner, but it does mean that a handful of players in history with regular season resumes close to Gartner's are "greater" players of all-time once their playoff records are considered. Let's say there are 10 of those. Making Gartner the 160th-best point producing forward of all-time.

Although offense is the most important thing for a forward, defense is important too. that doesn't mean Mike Grier is better than Gartner, but there are probably a good 10 more players in history whose offensive resumes closer to his, whose defensive skills make them better overall players than Gartner, making him the 170th-best forward of all-time.

Finally, the reality of hockey is that positions other than forward have as much of an impact on the game. Any serious all-time list should include a reasonable proportion of forwards, defensemen and goalies. If 60% of the players on an all-time list are forwards, then you're at approximately 280 before you get to the 170th forward. So you could say Mike Gartner is approximately the 280th-best player of all-time.

These are not meant to be exact figures, but just an illustration of how easy it is to run out of room for a player on a short and exclusive list like this. Though I do believe Mike Gartner should fall into the 280 range. [/B]

If you take a look at the all-time draft, a fantasy league where the best players of today and tomorrow come together to be drafted by 32 of the brightest hockey history minds on this board, Gartner was passed over 293 times before being selected. This is a competitive group of GMs, determined to outdo their colleagues in drafting and research and earn the title belt for the year. So if any of these 32 GMs thought he was much better than that, they'd have put their money where their mouth was, so to speak.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1114841

No offense but this seems like a low rating even for Gartner, I mean scoring at his rate for the length he did is still very amazing, and you forgot modest for the 32 GM's.

 

[seventieslord]

No offense but this seems like a low rating even for Gartner, I mean scoring at his rate for the length he did is still very amazing, and you forgot modest for the 32 GM's.

explain "the rate he did"... 30 goals was not something special.

you are free to explain why he deserves to rank higher. Heck, pick some similar offensive forwards taken before him in the ATD and make a case. We're all ears.

 

[Hardyvan123]

explain "the rate he did"... 30 goals was not something special.

you are free to explain why he deserves to rank higher. Heck, pick some similar offensive forwards taken before him in the ATD and make a case. We're all ears.

I'm not familiar with the forwards taken in the ATD.

Sure scoring 30 goals is nothing special even if a guy does it say 7 or 8 times he might only be a pretty decent player but he did do it 17 times.

Even adjusted he still has a decent 609 (for an adjusted average of 32 goals for every year he played)goals good for 16th all time.

He sure doesn't belong anywhere near the top 100 list but I'd say there are probably a couple of more "questionable" guys in the top 200 than Gartner.

There are a couple of things about him even though i agree he didn't look like a 700 goal scorer which was stated.

He did actually manage to score all of those goals and consistency and doing so must count for something, sure there are lots of players who looked more like a 700 goal scorer than he did but actually doing it and looking like it are 2 different things.

If you could direct me to a list of the top guys in the ATD (do they redo it each time of that I have no idea) but I'm willing to bet money that there are some "weaker" guys ranked ahead of him.

My bet is that some of those guys are going to have the benefit of playing on some winning teams in a 6 team league or other better scorers that no one has seen play but has tons of quotes backing up how great they are.

 

[unknown33]

If you could direct me to a list of the top guys in the ATD (do they redo it each time of that I have no idea) but I'm willing to bet money that there are some "weaker" guys ranked ahead of him.

There you go:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1114841

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not familiar with the forwards taken in the ATD.

Sure scoring 30 goals is nothing special even if a guy does it say 7 or 8 times he might only be a pretty decent player but he did do it 17 times.

Even adjusted he still has a decent 609 (for an adjusted average of 32 goals for every year he played)goals good for 16th all time.

That’s still getting caught up in a career total though. Adjusting helps but the list of all-time adjusted scorers is still as littered with modern players as an unadjusted list.

He sure doesn't belong anywhere near the top 100 list but I'd say there are probably a couple of more "questionable" guys in the top 200 than Gartner.

There are a couple of things about him even though i agree he didn't look like a 700 goal scorer which was stated.

He did actually manage to score all of those goals and consistency and doing so must count for something, sure there are lots of players who looked more like a 700 goal scorer than he did but actually doing it and looking like it are 2 different things.

Consistency and longevity mean a lot to me – maybe more than any other ATD GM. And I still agree with his placement. I was willing to call Gartner the 8th-best goal scorer of his generation but other peak-oriented people could place at least a few more players on that list. I had him 8th thanks to that longevity and consistency.

If you could direct me to a list of the top guys in the ATD (do they redo it each time of that I have no idea) but I'm willing to bet money that there are some "weaker" guys ranked ahead of him.

My bet is that some of those guys are going to have the benefit of playing on some winning teams in a 6 team league or other better scorers that no one has seen play but has tons of quotes backing up how great they are.

Let’s assume that there are no wacky picks (I don’t think there are) and start at 150 since you agree he doesn’t belong near the top-100. Then let’s remove everyone except wingers, and then compare Gartner to the wingers taken between 150 and 294:

Bert Olmstead
Tommy Phillips
Bob Gainey
Clark Gillies
Lanny McDonald
Rick Middleton
Vaclav Nedomansky
Woody Dumart
Luc Robitaille
Didier Pitre
Sweeney Schriner
Glenn Anderson
Martin St. Louis
Paul Kariya
Babe Dye
John Leclair
Vladimir Martinec
Rod Gilbert
Ace Bailey
Henrik Zetterberg
Claude Provost
Brian Propp
Bun Cook
Tim Kerr
Vladimir Krutov
Gord Drillon
Markus Naslund
Bernie Morris
Alexander Yakushev
Rick Martin
Daniel Alfredsson
Marian Hossa
Esa Tikkanen
Paul Thompson
Patrik Elias
Wayne Cashman
Kevin Stevens
John Tonelli
Baldy Northcott
Gary Roberts
Craig Ramsay
Cecil Dillon
Theoren Fleury
Steve Larmer
George Armstrong
Alf Smith
Dean Prentice
Sid Smith
Ilya Kovalchuk
Jack Walker
Dick Duff
Bill Mosienko
Jere Lehtinen
Daniel Sedin
Ken Hodge

I’ll start by taking out the guys who were better point producers with no questions asked:

Rick Middleton, Luc Robitaille, Sweeney Schriner, Glenn Anderson, Martin St. Louis, Paul Kariya, Babe Dye, John LeClair, Rod Gilbert, Markus Naslund, Gord Drillon, Bernie Morris, Didier Pitre, Daniel Alfredsson, Marian Hossa, Paul Thompson, Cecil Dillon, Theoren Fleury, Steve Larmer, Ilya Kovalchuk, Bill Mosienko, Daniel Sedin

Here are the guys whose offensive resumes are not quite there but easily overtake him with their overall games (puckwinning, toughness, defense):

Bert Olmstead, Clark Gillies, Lanny McDonald, Woody Dumart, Ace Bailey, henrik Zetterberg, Claude Provost, Brian Propp, Bun Cook, Patrik Elias, John Tonelli, Baldy Northcott, Gary Roberts, Dean Prentice, Ken Hodge, Wayne Cashman

George Armstrong and Dick Duff are behind all of the above in offense, yet, their intangible qualities and clutch play through big contributions to championships, something Gartner never came close to, make them more significant players.

This leaves a collection of more “pure defense†forwards, short peak players, early players and international guys.

I realize that international guys like Vaclav Nedomansky, Vladimir Krutov, Alexander Yakushev and Vladimir Martinec aren’t going to convince you.

I also realize that, despite being perhaps the 2nd-best and 5th-best players of their era, Tommy Phillips and Alf Smith aren’t going to impress you as much as Gartner, who was perhaps the 30th-best player of the 1980s.

Then we have the very best defensive wingers of all-time. Though they don’t come close in offense, just about anyone would agree that they helped a hockey team win a game more than Mike Gartner did. They are Bob Gainey, Esa Tikkanen, Craig Ramsay, Jack Walker and Jere Lehtinen.

That leaves us with Tim Kerr, Kevin Stevens, Rick martin and Sid Smith. All of whom I would agree are debatable. Kerr was no doubt the better peak goal scorer, but his career was destroyed by injuries and was even more one-dimensional than Gartner. Stevens also had the better peak but he played with Lemieux, and Gartner never had a center close to that. Rick Martin also had undoubtedly the better peak but it was so short. Sid Smith is a guy who always goes a bit early for a player whose best seasons were not impressive and in the early 50s, he’s also a small, non-physical offense-only type.

So there are four truly debatable picks. You will try to say that a lot of the guys past the first bunch are debatable too, but the majority of your arguments will come down to “he played so long ago†or “he never played in the NHLâ€, and I’ve been there, done that, don’t want to hear it again. As for the intangibles guys, just remember that the ATD is a team-building exercise and these guys are looking to create an actual team to beat their opponents with. If they all take these guys over Gartner, that says something. The typical 2nd line would include more of a scoring winger, and a guy to do more of the dirty work, and it took a while to get to the point where Gartner looked like the best scorer. Five GMs even went ahead and took a 3rd line winger over a 2nd liner (I think we all agree that an excellent 3rd liner is more of an impact player than an average 2nd liner in most cases).

In exchange for those four debatable picks who went above Gartner, here are some debatable picks who went after him, to offset those:

Rick Tocchet: could slot in with that “close offense, makes up for it in other areas†crowd.

Marty Pavelich: excellent defensive forward

Herbie Lewis: excellent peak offense, great offensive longevity for the 1930s, all-around player

Peter Bondra: undoubtedly a superior goal scorer to Gartner, just as one-dimensional

Dino Ciccarelli: equal to gartner in point production, tougher and with a much better playoff scoring record

Keith Tkachuk: undoubtedly a superior goal scorer to Gartner, just as poor a playmaker, weak defensively, not great playoffs, but a power forward

Joe Mullen: almost equal to gartner in point production, much better in the playoffs and had a bit of a two-way game and grit

 

[Hardyvan123]

That’s still getting caught up in a career total though. Adjusting helps but the list of all-time adjusted scorers is still as littered with modern players as an unadjusted list.

While it is true that adjusted career stats are littered with more modern players, it's mainly due to longer careers, he is still 16th all time.

Consistency and longevity mean a lot to me – maybe more than any other ATD GM. And I still agree with his placement. I was willing to call Gartner the 8th-best goal scorer of his generation but other peak-oriented people could place at least a few more players on that list. I had him 8th thanks to that longevity and consistency.

8th?

He was 2nd in total goals over the length of his career and and had 106 more goals than Kurri who had identical career overlaps.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

I’ll start by taking out the guys who were better point producers with no questions asked:

Rick Middleton, Luc Robitaille, Sweeney Schriner, Glenn Anderson, Martin St. Louis, Paul Kariya, Babe Dye, John LeClair, Rod Gilbert, Markus Naslund, Gord Drillon, Bernie Morris, Didier Pitre, Daniel Alfredsson, Marian Hossa, Paul Thompson, Cecil Dillon, Theoren Fleury, Steve Larmer, Ilya Kovalchuk, Bill Mosienko, Daniel Sedin

Depends on what metric you are using? Peak sure for most of them, career gets iffy for some.

I'd agree with most of these here especially for peak but Glenn Anderson wasn't the most prolific scorer in the regular season outside of his cushy Edmonton years and some time with Gilmour later on. He has big holes in his resume and while his totals in the playoffs are very high how much weight can we give to them as alot of that is tied to teams and not ones where he was a catalyst either.

Other guys do bring up questions though.

Here are the guys whose offensive resumes are not quite there but easily overtake him with their overall games (puckwinning, toughness, defense):

Bert Olmstead, Clark Gillies, Lanny McDonald, Woody Dumart, Ace Bailey, henrik Zetterberg, Claude Provost, Brian Propp, Bun Cook, Patrik Elias, John Tonelli, Baldy Northcott, Gary Roberts, Dean Prentice, Ken Hodge, Wayne Cashman

George Armstrong and Dick Duff are behind all of the above in offense, yet, their intangible qualities and clutch play through big contributions to championships, something Gartner never came close to, make them more significant players.

I'll take the last 2 guys 1st, Gartner never played on such stacked teams like Goerge and Dick did either and their total career value is inflated by the teams and era (only 6 teams in the league therefore much easier to win the SC than a 21-30 team league). In the regular season everyone has a more even playing field and it's much easier to account for value that way and should be given more weight IMO. How much is hard to say but upwards of 60% and perhaps even higher than that.

The same goes for intangibles, as it's very tough to say how much these things go towards actually winning of games. We know the team that scores the most goals win games and Mike scored more than anyone not named Wayne in his 18 seasons in the NHL. Then there was Mario and a gap of over 100 goals to the 4th guy.

This leaves a collection of more “pure defense†forwards, short peak players, early players and international guys.

I realize that international guys like Vaclav Nedomansky, Vladimir Krutov, Alexander Yakushev and Vladimir Martinec aren’t going to convince you.

I also realize that, despite being perhaps the 2nd-best and 5th-best players of their era, Tommy Phillips and Alf Smith aren’t going to impress you as much as Gartner, who was perhaps the 30th-best player of the 1980s.

Thanks for answering for me but a couple of these guy are probably better and have more career value than Gartner. I'm not sure what the aim or goal of the ATD is but when I talk about all time best, their entire career and context comes into play, it's not only about peak value.

Then we have the very best defensive wingers of all-time. Though they don’t come close in offense, just about anyone would agree that they helped a hockey team win a game more than Mike Gartner did. They are Bob Gainey, Esa Tikkanen, Craig Ramsay, Jack Walker and Jere Lehtinen.

I know that's the prevailing thought but is it really true?

Gartner was pretty one dimensional but he performed at an above average to excellent rate ion goal scoring for 17 of his 18 seasons.

I honestly don't see any of those 6 listed as having more career value and the argument for Bob Gainey wouldn't be nearly as strong if he had not played on that stacked Habs teams. Stan Smyl had as many intangibles as Gainey did but played for a lousy Canucks team. Heck there are dozens of guys like this other time.

That leaves us with Tim Kerr, Kevin Stevens, Rick martin and Sid Smith. All of whom I would agree are debatable. Kerr was no doubt the better peak goal scorer, but his career was destroyed by injuries and was even more one-dimensional than Gartner. Stevens also had the better peak but he played with Lemieux, and Gartner never had a center close to that. Rick Martin also had undoubtedly the better peak but it was so short. Sid Smith is a guy who always goes a bit early for a player whose best seasons were not impressive and in the early 50s, he’s also a small, non-physical offense-only type.

So there are four truly debatable picks. You will try to say that a lot of the guys past the first bunch are debatable too, but the majority of your arguments will come down to “he played so long ago†or “he never played in the NHLâ€, and I’ve been there, done that, don’t want to hear it again. As for the intangibles guys, just remember that the ATD is a team-building exercise and these guys are looking to create an actual team to beat their opponents with. If they all take these guys over Gartner, that says something. The typical 2nd line would include more of a scoring winger, and a guy to do more of the dirty work, and it took a while to get to the point where Gartner looked like the best scorer. Five GMs even went ahead and took a 3rd line winger over a 2nd liner (I think we all agree that an excellent 3rd liner is more of an impact player than an average 2nd liner in most cases).

In exchange for those four debatable picks who went above Gartner, here are some debatable picks who went after him, to offset those:

Rick Tocchet: could slot in with that “close offense, makes up for it in other areas†crowd.

Marty Pavelich: excellent defensive forward

Herbie Lewis: excellent peak offense, great offensive longevity for the 1930s, all-around player

Peter Bondra: undoubtedly a superior goal scorer to Gartner, just as one-dimensional

Dino Ciccarelli: equal to gartner in point production, tougher and with a much better playoff scoring record

Keith Tkachuk: undoubtedly a superior goal scorer to Gartner, just as poor a playmaker, weak defensively, not great playoffs, but a power forward

Joe Mullen: almost equal to gartner in point production, much better in the playoffs and had a bit of a two-way game and grit

Some of the last guys picked behind Gartner probably are underrated as well.

Look I'm not a huge Gartner fan but it's simply too easy to overlook what a consistently good scorer he was and over rate other guys that also have holes in their career value being more than Mike's.

It's subjective but he belongs more in the middle of the pack than at the end of all the guys listed in this post IMO, if we are talking career value of everything each player did and the context they did it in.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

While it is true that adjusted career stats are littered with more modern players, it's mainly due to longer careers, he is still 16th all time.

Should adjusted stats not also adjust career length then?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Should adjusted stats not also adjust career length then?

Sure everything should be put in context, especially number of top finishes depending on size of the league and the composition of the league as well in terms of nationality ect..

I don't pretend to know what the purpose of the ATD is but if we are talking about the best players of all time goal scoring is a huge, perhaps the most important, aspect of a forwards game in helping his team win.

I'm not a huge fan of Gartner like I said but it's to easy to say compiler and not evaluate him closely compared to others on the list in the previous posts.

It's not like Gartner was riding the coattails of his teammates for his entire career either.

If this was a thread about two other guys man would team strength come up in a hurry.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'd agree with most of these here especially for peak but Glenn Anderson wasn't the most prolific scorer in the regular season outside of his cushy Edmonton years and some time with Gilmour later on. He has big holes in his resume and while his totals in the playoffs are very high how much weight can we give to them as alot of that is tied to teams and not ones where he was a catalyst either.

Cushy Edmonton years? He played the first 70% of his career in Edmonton, where exactly was he supposed to score all of his goals?

I think it's worth pointing out that the Rangers were willing to sacrifice Gartner, who was 2nd on the team in goals, at the 1994 trade deadline to bring in Anderson, who was pretty much finished by that point.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Cushy Edmonton years? He played the first 70% of his career in Edmonton, where exactly was he supposed to score all of his goals?

I think it's worth pointing out that the Rangers were willing to sacrifice Gartner, who was 2nd on the team in goals, at the 1994 trade deadline to bring in Anderson, who was pretty much finished by that point.

Surely you are not arguing that Anderson was better than Gartner at that point are you?

The rangers also got Scott Malone (yes a "who in the hell is that" type of guy) and a 4th rounder in the trade and ironically Gartner had a better playoff than Anderson did.

In the regular season Anderson was quite underwhelming for his career, considering his speed and skillset. Seeing what he did outside of playing with top talent, heck even with it, Gartner was the better regular season guy by quite a bit IMO.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Surely you are not arguing that Anderson was better than Gartner at that point are you?

The rangers also got Scott Malone (yes a "who in the hell is that" type of guy) and a 4th rounder in the trade and ironically Gartner had a better playoff than Anderson did.

In the regular season Anderson was quite underwhelming for his career, considering his speed and skillset. Seeing what he did outside of playing with top talent, heck even with it, Gartner was the better regular season guy by quite a bit IMO.

Surely you are not arguing that the Rangers traded Gartner in order to get Scott Malone?

Either Rangers management thought Anderson was better (suited to their needs) or they felt trading Gartner was addition by subtraction.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Surely you are not arguing that Anderson was better than Gartner at that point are you?

No, and that is sort of the point. The Rangers felt that an Anderson who was pretty much on his last legs was going to be a more valuable asset in making a Cup run than a Gartner who was still scoring at 35-goal clip.

The rangers also got Scott Malone (yes a "who in the hell is that" type of guy) and a 4th rounder in the trade and ironically Gartner had a better playoff than Anderson did.

At the end of the day, the move paid off for the Rangers as demonstrated by them winning the Cup. Their offense was apparently no worse for wear.

In the regular season Anderson was quite underwhelming for his career, considering his speed and skillset. Seeing what he did outside of playing with top talent, heck even with it, Gartner was the better regular season guy by quite a bit IMO.

Anderson was monumentally more accomplished in the playoffs, and while he wasn't a great defensive forward, he did bring more than scoring to the table. Anderson was physical, drove to the net like no other, and in general was a total ***** to play against.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not going to focus on a trade that Mike Keenan made in evaluating their respective career values.

At the end of the day Anderson had very little impact on the NYR's winning the Cup

 

[ginopuck]

Norm Ullman should be on this list too. 490 career regular season goals, 739 assists, 1229 points, 16 seasons of 20 or more goals, 83 points in 106 playoff games.

 

[seventieslord]

Norm Ullman should be on this list too. 490 career regular season goals, 739 assists, 1229 points, 16 seasons of 20 or more goals, 83 points in 106 playoff games.

Norm Ullman is a great player and I am perhaps his biggest fan. Top-70 is a stretch, would likely run out of room before getting to Ullman. But he's a shoo-in for the top-100; we just didn't get that far.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Norm Ullman is a great player and I am perhaps his biggest fan. Top-70 is a stretch, would likely run out of room before getting to Ullman. But he's a shoo-in for the top-100; we just didn't get that far.

I'm a huge career guy but not so sure that he is a shoo-in as he is quiet possibly Mike Gartner before Mike was. Sure they played different positions but Ullman was hardly elite.

Actually many of the arguments made against Gartner could be made against Ullman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm a huge career guy but not so sure that he is a shoo-in as he is quiet possibly Mike Gartner before Mike was. Sure they played different positions but Ullman was hardly elite.

Actually many of the arguments made against Gartner could be made against Ullman.

No really, they couldn't.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I'm a huge career guy but not so sure that he is a shoo-in as he is quiet possibly Mike Gartner before Mike was. Sure they played different positions but Ullman was hardly elite.

Actually many of the arguments made against Gartner could be made against Ullman.

If you want to debate whether he's a Top 100 player that's fine, but I am not seeing this Gartner comparison. In fact, it seems like a lot of the main arguments that are made against Gartner (one dimensional, lack of Top 10 scoring finishes, no All-Star recognition) are not at all true for Ullman.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

No really, they couldn't.

Beat me again...I'm sure it's much less, but it feels like this happens a quarter of the time I make a post like the above

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Beat me again...I'm sure it's much less, but it feels like this happens a quarter of the time I make a post like the above

You actually made a real argument. Typing snippy one liners is faster.

 

[seventieslord]

If you want to debate whether he's a Top 100 player that's fine, but I am not seeing this Gartner comparison. In fact, it seems like a lot of the main arguments that are made against Gartner (one dimensional, lack of Top 10 scoring finishes, no All-Star recognition) are not at all true for Ullman.

yeah, I mean come on, the guy's a hart runner up and led the playoffs in scoring twice.

(cue the argument about how easy that was in the O6 era...)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not that it's of any great relevance considering the source (Stan Fischler), I came across a handful of hockey magazines from late in 1974 season...very interesting articles so far, almost tabloid-ish...especially re: Montreal

Anyhow, Fischler here (full bushy beard and all) gives his 12 best players of all time, I thought for kicks I'd post it and some select quotes...mind you again, this is 1974.

1. Gordie Howe - "...holds all important NHL scoring records but has been as durable as a heavy tank, as creative as Albert Einstein..." ... "Gordie's the best, hands-down"

2. Eddie Shore - "...literally saved and then made the Boston Bruins franchise..." - "He was the toughest player who ever lived and could play defense both offensively and defensively equally as well and considerably better than Bobby Orr does today."

3. Red Kelly - "...became a crackerjack center and the man who made a star out of moody Frank Mahovlich." - "Nobody in the game's history has displayed such total brilliance at both positions for so long"

4. Frank Boucher - "The most creative center who ever lived, Boucher won the Lady Byng Trophy so many times (seven) that the NHL finally upped and gave him the darn thing and struck a new trophy." ...responsible for all 3 Rangers Cups

5. Maurice Richard - "...ranks as the most galvanic goal-scorer and singularly exciting player ever to lace on a pair of big-league skates."

6. Bobby Hull - "...nobody glamorized the game and paved the way for today's grand and revolutionary expansion than [Hull]" - "The NHL owners should pay him $1,000,000 just for all the buillion he put into their pockets." - "Were he a playmaker and defensive ace, he'd have been atop this list."

7. Howie Morenz - basically just calls him the Richard/Hull of another era. The Babe Ruth of hockey.

8. Bobby Orr - "...[Boston fans feel] super-man boy is the greatest of all players but he misses the top on this list for several reasons." (The reasons are ennumerated) - "He still has not fully stood the test of time...blah blah blah...if his legs can carry him" - "His achievements have mostly been accomplished during a period of expansion and concomitant dilution of talent" - "As a defenseman, he is not all that good defensively." (!)

9. Doug Harvey - "As defensive defensemen go, he was the best after Eddie Shore and very likely the best modern blueliner of all time." - "Superb as a playmaker, Harvey made a policy of rarely getting caught in the enemy's end - a la Orr..."

10. Max Bentley - "Bentley more than anyone combined the gifts of stickhandling, shooting, skating and playmaking to equisite perfection." - "...despite a frail physique and chronic hypocondria."

11. Ted Lindsay - "Smallish like Bentley, Lindsay carried intimidation to its ultimate degree and, because of that, fighting frequently overshadowed his talents as a left wing..."

12. Syl Apps - "Described by some as 'Hockey's Greatest Star'..." - "A lyrical skater, Apps played center the way it was written in the book."

Notes that goaltenders are a separate breed...not included.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not that it's of any great relevance considering the source (Stan Fischler), I came across a handful of hockey magazines from late in 1974 season...very interesting articles so far, almost tabloid-ish...especially re: Montreal

Anyhow, Fischler here (full bushy beard and all) gives his 12 best players of all time, I thought for kicks I'd post it and some select quotes...mind you again, this is 1974.

1. Gordie Howe - "...holds all important NHL scoring records but has been as durable as a heavy tank, as creative as Albert Einstein..." ... "Gordie's the best, hands-down"

2. Eddie Shore - "...literally saved and then made the Boston Bruins franchise..." - "He was the toughest player who ever lived and could play defense both offensively and defensively equally as well and considerably better than Bobby Orr does today."

3. Red Kelly - "...became a crackerjack center and the man who made a star out of moody Frank Mahovlich." - "Nobody in the game's history has displayed such total brilliance at both positions for so long"

4. Frank Boucher - "The most creative center who ever lived, Boucher won the Lady Byng Trophy so many times (seven) that the NHL finally upped and gave him the darn thing and struck a new trophy." ...responsible for all 3 Rangers Cups

5. Maurice Richard - "...ranks as the most galvanic goal-scorer and singularly exciting player ever to lace on a pair of big-league skates."

6. Bobby Hull - "...nobody glamorized the game and paved the way for today's grand and revolutionary expansion than [Hull]" - "The NHL owners should pay him $1,000,000 just for all the buillion he put into their pockets." - "Were he a playmaker and defensive ace, he'd have been atop this list."

7. Howie Morenz - basically just calls him the Richard/Hull of another era. The Babe Ruth of hockey.

8. Bobby Orr - "...[Boston fans feel] super-man boy is the greatest of all players but he misses the top on this list for several reasons." (The reasons are ennumerated) - "He still has not fully stood the test of time...blah blah blah...if his legs can carry him" - "His achievements have mostly been accomplished during a period of expansion and concomitant dilution of talent" - "As a defenseman, he is not all that good defensively." (!)

9. Doug Harvey - "As defensive defensemen go, he was the best after Eddie Shore and very likely the best modern blueliner of all time." - "Superb as a playmaker, Harvey made a policy of rarely getting caught in the enemy's end - a la Orr..."

10. Max Bentley - "Bentley more than anyone combined the gifts of stickhandling, shooting, skating and playmaking to equisite perfection." - "...despite a frail physique and chronic hypocondria."

11. Ted Lindsay - "Smallish like Bentley, Lindsay carried intimidation to its ultimate degree and, because of that, fighting frequently overshadowed his talents as a left wing..."

12. Syl Apps - "Described by some as 'Hockey's Greatest Star'..." - "A lyrical skater, Apps played center the way it was written in the book."

Notes that goaltenders are a separate breed...not included.

Maybe he couldn't spell Beliveau.......

 

[FissionFire]

I'm planning on having the next installment of this happen in 2013, which will mark 5 years since the first 2008 list. Seems like twice per decade would be a good timeframe. All the original data and spreadsheets were lost on my old laptop (RIP) but I've been able to recreate most of it so far. With my graduation set for December my schedule should open up alot after that. I'll be posting more updates down the road but just wanted to give everyone a heads up this project is tentatively slated to start up again in 8-12 months with the next update.

 

[Plural]

I'm planning on having the next installment of this happen in 2013, which will mark 5 years since the first 2008 list. Seems like twice per decade would be a good timeframe. All the original data and spreadsheets were lost on my old laptop (RIP) but I've been able to recreate most of it so far. With my graduation set for December my schedule should open up alot after that. I'll be posting more updates down the road but just wanted to give everyone a heads up this project is tentatively slated to start up again in 8-12 months with the next update.

Great! Looking forward to it.