HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[billybudd]

Don't know what Howe's doing ahead of Lemieux. The only argument that could be used to put him there, longevity, would put him above Orr as well. He need to be ahead of both or below both, depending entirely on whether one values longevity or dominance more. 2 or 4. There's no argument for 3. At all.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't know what Howe's doing ahead of Lemieux. The only argument that could be used to put him there, longevity, would put him above Orr as well. He need to be ahead of both or below both, depending entirely on whether one values longevity or dominance more. 2 or 4. There's no argument for 3. At all.

It's easy to see what Howe is doing ahead of Lemieux when you see that he peaked almost as high ( and some would argue just as high).

I voted Howe over Orr when this list was done, but understand the argument for Orr - no other player in history transcended and changed the game like Gretzky and Orr.

Orr also has a stronger argument for # 1 than Lemieux, IMO

 

[BM67]

I just looked at the voting results thread, and I just noticed that there is a 2nd place vote missing, and Howe is also missing a vote, which would put Howe in 1st.

 

[seventieslord]

I just looked at the voting results thread, and I just noticed that there is a 2nd place vote missing, and Howe is also missing a vote, which would put Howe in 1st.

scandal!

 

[seventieslord]

I added up all the columns and rows, and they all add up to 29.... except for Howe and 2nd place votes. Seems Howe is indeed missing 14 points and should have finished 1st. Wow.

 

[JaymzB]

Actually, the 2nd place vote is in his total, but not indicated on the chart. If you include that 2nd place vote (to give him 12) you get:

1st: 15*5=75
2nd: 14*12=168
3rd: 13*11=143
4th: 12*1=12

Total Votes: 29
Total Points: 398

 

[BM67]

Yeah, the points all add up right, just an error in the 2nd place vote totals.

Crisis averted.

 

[seventieslord]

*phew*

although, TBH, I'd have loved to see Howe on top.

 

[billybudd]

It's easy to see what Howe is doing ahead of Lemieux when you see that he peaked almost as high ( and some would argue just as high).

So if one were to lie and say that Howe peaked higher than Lemieux, one would be able to throw out longevity and rate him higher than Lemieux and lower than Orr on that basis. Like I said, there's no argument that can put Howe below Orr and above Lemieux.

I voted Howe over Orr when this list was done, but understand the argument for Orr - no other player in history transcended and changed the game like Gretzky and Orr.

Orr also has a stronger argument for # 1 than Lemieux, IMO

Neither Orr nor Lemieux has a strong argument for #1, but yes, Orr's would be stronger than Lemieux's. A weak argument for having Orr above Gretzky is, however, more reasonable than a spurious, reality-warping one for sandwiching him between Orr and Lemieux.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So if one were to lie and say that Howe peaked higher than Lemieux, one would be able to throw out longevity and rate him higher than Lemieux and lower than Orr on that basis. Like I said, there's no argument that can put Howe below Orr and above Lemieux.




Neither Orr nor Lemieux has a strong argument for #1, but yes, Orr's would be stronger than Lemieux's. A weak argument for having Orr above Gretzky is, however, more reasonable than a spurious, reality-warping one for sandwiching him between Orr and Lemieux.

Have you read the round 2, vote 1 discussion linked in the first post of this thread?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Lemieux and Howe both won 6 Art Ross Trophies. Howe won 6 Hart and Lemieux won 3. So just on that basis they're close.

But if you want to look at percent domination over their competition you'll see that Howe lapped the field roughly the same as Lemieux lapped non-Gretzky competition.

Howe does have the advantage of playing almost twice as many games. That's huge in terms of longevity.

If you include WHA and playoffs it looks like this for games played

Howe - 2421
Lemieux - 1022

That's 2.4 times more games. That's huge for longevity sake.

 

[canucks4ever]

Is it just me or is the gap between brad park and al maccinnis a little too big? I know park tends to get alot of bonus points for being 'overshadowed' by Orr. However, I really dont think there is this big 'seperation' between them either offensively or defensively. A gap of 15-20 spots is reasonable, but ranking park basically 30-40 spots higher just shows which eras are given more favourtism.

 

[canucks4ever]

Lemieux and Howe both won 6 Art Ross Trophies. Howe won 6 Hart and Lemieux won 3. So just on that basis they're close.

But if you want to look at percent domination over their competition you'll see that Howe lapped the field roughly the same as Lemieux lapped non-Gretzky competition.

Howe does have the advantage of playing almost twice as many games. That's huge in terms of longevity.

If you include WHA and playoffs it looks like this for games played

Howe - 2421
Lemieux - 1022

That's 2.4 times more games. That's huge for longevity sake.

Howe was able to overlap his competition that way because his competition was always getting injured. In terms of ppg, maurice richard in 1951 and boomer in 1954 werent too far off Howe. Also the nhl's depth from 88-97 was just flat out better, 1951-1954 was a weak era outside of howe, lindsay and the rocket. Howe had the much better career, but mario was better offensively.

There is also the phantom points 'myth' that is always brought up, dont know if its true or false, but there is a myth that Howe was getting phantom points in 1951 and 1952.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is it just me or is the gap between brad park and al maccinnis a little too big? I know park tends to get alot of bonus points for being 'overshadowed' by Orr. However, I really dont think there is this big 'seperation' between them either offensively or defensively. A gap of 15-20 spots is reasonable, but ranking park basically 30-40 spots higher just shows which eras are given more favourtism.

Park was a much more prolific penalty killer over his career, if nothing else. Has a reputation as an "all rounder," while MacInnis didn't become excellent defensively until later in his career.

Howe was able to overlap his competition that way because his competition was always getting injured. In terms of ppg, maurice richard in 1951 and boomer in 1954 werent too far off Howe. Also the nhl's depth from 88-97 was just flat out better, 1951-1954 was a weak era outside of howe, lindsay and the rocket. Howe had the much better career, but mario was better offensively.

There is also the phantom points 'myth' that is always brought up, dont know if its true or false, but there is a myth that Howe was getting phantom points in 1951 and 1952.

I agree with you that Howe faced weaker competition than Mario and wasnt as good in terms of pure offense. But I haven't seen any evidence of "phantom points" - the accusation seems to come from Canadiens fans who somehow think their was a conspiracy to deny Rocket Rochard an Art Ross, but Richard never finished a close second to Howe. Seems like a nonsense homer accusation to me

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Is it just me or is the gap between brad park and al maccinnis a little too big? I know park tends to get alot of bonus points for being 'overshadowed' by Orr. However, I really dont think there is this big 'seperation' between them either offensively or defensively. A gap of 15-20 spots is reasonable, but ranking park basically 30-40 spots higher just shows which eras are given more favourtism.

When comparing players of the same position I think the individual position lists will be a much better source to use. On last year's Top 60 Defensemen list Park and MacInnis are only 7 spots apart.

 

[tommygunn]

Top 100 Hockey Players

Rank | No. | Player | Pos | Height | Weight | Career

64|6| Sprague Cleghorn |D|5'10"|190|1910-1928

IIRC, Sprague wore #2. His brother Odie wore #6.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Don't know what Howe's doing ahead of Lemieux. The only argument that could be used to put him there, longevity, would put him above Orr as well. He need to be ahead of both or below both, depending entirely on whether one values longevity or dominance more. 2 or 4. There's no argument for 3. At all.

I have Howe #2 but view Orr a clear, but not huge, step above Lemieux. Orr and Howe also played a complete game, unlike Lemieux.... Their measure is not just offense alone.

 

[Dreakmur]

So if one were to lie and say that Howe peaked higher than Lemieux, one would be able to throw out longevity and rate him higher than Lemieux and lower than Orr on that basis

Or if one were to actually do some research on the subject...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

IIRC, Sprague wore #2. His brother Odie wore #6.

Can someone confirm this with a link? I don't want to change FissionFire's post that has been up for years without a good source or two.

I'm not going to bother with jersey numbers for the goalies project. They are a royal headache to find for some players, and most people don't see to care anyway.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Can someone confirm this with a link? I don't want to change FissionFire's post that has been up for years without a good source or two.

I'm not going to bother with jersey numbers for the goalies project. They are a royal headache to find for some players, and most people don't see to care anyway.

Odie wore 3, 5, 6 and 7 (and 14 for a few games). 6 for the most seasons, by one.

Sprague wore 1, 2 and 3. Mostly 2. Defencemen tended to be given the lower numbers (2, 3) at the time.

Source is the SIHR database.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Odie wore 3, 5, 6 and 7 (and 14 for a few games). 6 for the most seasons, by one.

Sprague wore 1, 2 and 3. Mostly 2. Defencemen tended to be given the lower numbers (2, 3) at the time.

Source is the SIHR database.

Oh right, the SIHR database. I'll change it then. Thanks

 

[Nalens Oga]

Is there one of yhese rankings based on 90s to present or post dead puck era? I hate comparing stuff from the distant past sincr I am one of those ppl who has difficulty with the possbilty that an star toda is beter than anyony from the sixtirs or seventies.

I mean comparing a guy from the 20s to a player from present day...it's hard to even see that when no one has seen those guys play.

 

[Sturminator]

Park was a much more prolific penalty killer over his career, if nothing else. Has a reputation as an "all rounder," while MacInnis didn't become excellent defensively until later in his career.

More of an all-rounder is correct. MacInnis was basically a very good defenseman with an all-time great shot. Park was legitimately "great" at many more skills. He was a better skater when he was young (though later on not so much), a considerably better stickhandler, was more physical (both in terms of his hipcheck and fighting), and was better defensively over the whole of his career.

It's hard to say if 30-40 spots of seperation on the all-time list is right or not, as so much of it comes down to the values of the players in between the two, but there should definitely be a meaningful gap between Park and MacInnis, yes.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Where would I go if I wanted to know roughly the 200 or 300 greatest players of all-time before the mid-90s if such a thing exists?

 

[seventieslord]

Where would I go if I wanted to know roughly the 200 or 300 greatest players of all-time before the mid-90s if such a thing exists?

the last draft list from the ATD might be a good place to start. Just remove players who peaked after 1995.