HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

If using the ATD list, realize that participants are trying to build teams, so supply and demand comes into play when it comes to player position.

Basically, defensemen always go early (high demand), goalies always go late (low demand - teams only need 1 starter), and depth centers also go late (high supply). Once you realize that, it's a decent approximation of the top players of all time.

 

[Czech Your Math]

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?

This is a good start, since it's a top 100 from early '98. However, there are a handful of players that peaked in the mid-late 90s (Jagr, Lindros, Hasek, Sakic, etc.).

THN Greatest 100 Players

I'd probably start there and/or with list of HHOFers... then add players based on rankings in past couple ATDs... or just use ATDs.

 

[Leaf Lander]

This is a good start, since it's a top 100 from early '98. However, there are a handful of players that peaked in the mid-late 90s (Jagr, Lindros, Hasek, Sakic, etc.).

THN Greatest 100 Players

I'd probably start there and/or with list of HHOFers... then add players based on rankings in past couple ATDs... or just use ATDs.

The top 100 list is now outdated

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The top 100 list is now outdated

The poster was asking for an outdated list...I think the best thing to say about THN's list is that it just wasn't that good in the first place. One specific issue is that it focused too much on team accomplishments.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The poster was asking for an outdated list...I think the best thing to say about THN's list is that it just wasn't that good in the first place. One specific issue is that it focused too much on team accomplishments.

Another is that they guys who voted on the list don't appear to have done much research. Which is fine for players from about the 1950s on - most of the voters were "experts" who watched hockey since the Original 6 era. But their knowledge and rankings of pre-World War 2 guys is very poor, I think.

 

[overpass]

THN's list was compiled from Top 50 lists. It was originally a Top 50 but was extended to a Top 100 for the book.

This means that the players toward the bottom of that Top 100 list were probably listed on a small minority of Top 50 lists. Compare that to the HF HOH Top 100 list, which was based off initial lists of 120.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

THN's list was compiled from Top 50 lists. It was originally a Top 50 but was extended to a Top 100 for the book.

This means that the players toward the bottom of that Top 100 list were probably listed on a small minority of Top 50 lists. Compare that to the HF HOH Top 100 list, which was based off initial lists of 120.

Wow, each voter only submitted top 50 lists and didn't resubmit when they extended beyond 50? I didn't realize that. No wonder there are so many weird choices in the bottom 50. Babe Pratt could have only been on the list of 1 or 2 voters and gotten in if one of those lists had him high enough.

If that's the case, I'd honest just throw the bottom 50 of that list in the trash.

 

[overpass]

Wow, each voter only submitted top 50 lists and didn't resubmit when they extended beyond 50? I didn't realize that. No wonder there are so many weird choices in the bottom 50. Babe Pratt could have only been on the list of 1 or 2 voters and gotten in if one of those lists had him high enough.

If that's the case, I'd honest just throw the bottom 50 of that list in the trash.

They definitely only submitted top 50 lists. See the publisher blurb for the book (from amazon.com)

To mark the fiftieth anniversary of The Hockey News, a committee of fifty of the most respected observers of the game – including Dick Irvin, Bob McKenzie, Harry Neale, Jim Matheson, Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, Glen Sather, and Roger Nielson – selected the top 50 NHL players of all time.

The identity of the player who received the most votes was no surprise: Wayne Gretzky. The names of the next four might also have been predicted, although the order in which they were ranked – Bobby Orr, followed by Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux and Maurice Richard – has caused heated argument. Without question, however, the names that make up the rest of the list, and the order in which they are ranked, could keep all true hockey fans engaged in debate for years.

When the original list was published in The Hockey News, it inspired every possible reaction, from enthusiastic approval to indignant rage. Each great player has his own fans eager to make the case for higher placement. Now, in this splendid full-colour collector’s book, the list has been expanded to include the top 100 NHL players of all time and the debate can be renewed again with vigour.

There is no mention of individual lists being extended to a top 100, and it seems a bit unlikely that they would go back to their list of contributors asking for a list of the 51-100 ranked players.

I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion. The list has a few head-scratchers toward the bottom but looks much better in the top half.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Cheees for the tips, was looking for some info on pre nineties hockey and wanted to start by getting hockey cards of player outside the famous Espositos or Orrs

 

[Czech Your Math]

was looking for some info on pre nineties hockey and wanted to start by getting hockey cards of player outside the famous Espositos or Orrs

If you just want info on many of the better players before the 90s, this is a good resource as well:

Legends of Hockey

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

If you just want info on many of the better players before the 90s, this is a good resource as well:

Legends of Hockey

Joe Pelletier's site Greatest Hockey Legends is another good one.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

This thread is sort of overwhelming, but if you scroll to the bottom of the first post you'll find the players from the 90s. Depending on who made the profile you'll find some info from those linked sites and more.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1149019\

 

[Nalens Oga]

Btw which of those guys in the top 70 list or the old top 100 have never played in the NHL or had very small careers in the league (say less than 200 games)? I know so far Fred Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Kharlamov, and Tretiak.

 

[Sentinel]

12 months a year? I say it was all 15! Oh, and apparently teams like Dynamo, Khimik, and Krylia Sovetov, that did fairly well against NHL teams at different times, counted for nothing.

What keeps on bothering me is that, in spite of decent success of Soviet teams (NT and clubs) against Canada and NHL teams, individual talents of the Soviet players are often belittled or even ignored. This defies logic. Soviet teams either barely lose to Canada (72, 87) or even beat them (74, 79, 81), and yet how many Soviet players do we find in the Top 100?

 

[Big Phil]

What keeps on bothering me is that, in spite of decent success of Soviet teams (NT and clubs) against Canada and NHL teams, individual talents of the Soviet players are often belittled or even ignored. This defies logic. Soviet teams either barely lose to Canada (72, 87) or even beat them (74, 79, 81), and yet how many Soviet players do we find in the Top 100?

I guess a lot of it has to do with having such a small sample size to choose from. Yes, the Russians skated with us in these short tournaments and give them full marks. The only issue which is impossible to overcome is that we can never know how each of those players would have fared over an 80 game schedule in the NHL night in and night out facing top notch talent. We can only project whether or not Tretiak wins a Stanley Cup or a Vezina or two. We can assume that Makarov would be as good as Kurri was in the 1980s. But we really can't know for sure which makes placing them hard.

As for the original question, Cheevers had the worst game of his life in Game 3. I don't know why Bowman left him in there or why he didn't keep Dryden for Game 3 and let either one of Esposito or Cheevers try to win Game 2. Some of the goals look bad for Cheevers in Game 3 as well. It was at the end of his career which is telling (I don't think he bombs like that had he played in the 1972 Series) but this game never gets the negative press that Liut's 1981 game gets and it should.

 

[Stansfield*]

12 months a year? I say it was all 15! Oh, and apparently teams like Dynamo, Khimik, and Krylia Sovetov, that did fairly well against NHL teams at different times, counted for nothing.

What keeps on bothering me is that, in spite of decent success of Soviet teams (NT and clubs) against Canada and NHL teams, individual talents of the Soviet players are often belittled or even ignored. This defies logic. Soviet teams either barely lose to Canada (72, 87) or even beat them (74, 79, 81), and yet how many Soviet players do we find in the Top 100?

I agree with your point on the lack of Russian recognition. But some of it has to do the the lack of Russian career longevity.

Kharlemov died young, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, Kamensky and Krutov all had an underwhelming and/or short NHL careers.

Plus hfboards is an English language based site so obviously Russian/European members are in the minority. And the top 70 list is still excellent even if it does short-change non-NHL players a bit.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree with your point on the lack of Russian recognition. But some of it has to do the the lack of Russian career longevity.

Kharlemov died young, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, Kamensky and Krutov all had an underwhelming and/or short NHL careers.

Plus hfboards is an English language based site so obviously Russian/European members are in the minority. And the top 70 list is still excellent even if it does short-change non-NHL players a bit.

That top 70 does include Kharlemov (33), Fetisov (35), Tretiak (44), Makarov (61) and Mikhailov (68).

 

[Stansfield*]

That top 70 does include Kharlemov (33), Fetisov (35), Tretiak (44), Makarov (61) and Mikhailov (68).

I can see that. But you'd think the second greatest hockey nation would have more than 5 top 70 players, no?

 

[Theokritos]

I can see that. But you'd think the second greatest hockey nation would have more than 5 top 70 players, no?

60 Canadians, 10 Europeans - yes, it makes you wonder.

The 5 Russians included in the list all peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. The question is: should there be more Russians from the same era or should there be some from the earlier and later times? For the earlier guys, it's very difficult to compare them with the NHLers of their time. For the later guys, some surely were Top 70 material (Pavel Bure, Sergei Fyodorov) but they didn't have ideal careers.
That leaves us with the contemporaries of the 5 Russians already in the list. All of them were born between 1944 and 1958. From the 60 Canadians on the list, 9 were born in the same time frame. 9 Canadians vs 5 Russians. Enough? Not enough?

 

[Hammer Time]

Also, Makarov is tremendously underrated on the HOF Top 70 list.

 

[Sentinel]

There should be more Russians / Europeans, period. And those that are there should be higher. Makarov at 61, ROTFL.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

The reason that the Russians are not well represented in the top 70 for that era is that the team as a whole was greater than the sum of its parts. In 79 and 81, they beat the NHL and Canada Cup teams in the crucial games before they even stepped onto the ice. The Russians, particularly Tikhonov, played a very shrewd psychological game with the Canadians. This was the masterminding behind the facades of the Cold War and one of the reasons that the Americans were able to defeat the Russians during this era and the Canadians not. The Americans played the same psychological game as the Russians while Canada could not. Most Canadians still believed the Russian empire to be an evil omnipotent power capable of anything. If you don't believe me, read about how Tikhonov approached the 81 Canada Cup final and his handling of Lafleur and Gretzky.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That leaves us with the contemporaries of the 5 Russians already in the list. All of them were born between 1944 and 1958. From the 60 Canadians on the list, 9 were born in the same time frame. 9 Canadians vs 5 Russians. Enough? Not enough?

Seems reasonable to me. I realize that Russian hockey declined after the fall of the USSR, but look at how many fewer Russians there are than Canadians in the NHL now that it's more or less integrated.

I do think Makarov is way too low, however.

 

[Stansfield*]

There should be more Russians / Europeans, period. And those that are there should be higher. Makarov at 61, ROTFL.

I'm sure that I'm in the minority, but for my money, Makarov was just as good as Kharlamov.

The reason that the Russians are not well represented in the top 70 for that era is that the team as a whole was greater than the sum of its parts. In 79 and 81, they beat the NHL and Canada Cup teams in the crucial games before they even stepped onto the ice. The Russians, particularly Tikhonov, played a very shrewd psychological game with the Canadians. This was the masterminding behind the facades of the Cold War and one of the reasons that the Americans were able to defeat the Russians during this era and the Canadians not. The Americans played the same psychological game as the Russians while Canada could not. Most Canadians still believed the Russian empire to be an evil omnipotent power capable of anything. If you don't believe me, read about how Tikhonov approached the 81 Canada Cup final and his handling of Lafleur and Gretzky.

I agree with this reasoning, but it's still not enough to justify the lack of Russians IMO. Lafleur for example, was the the greatest offensive player I've ever seen (besides Gretzky and Lemieux). But other than his amazing peak, I think he had a rather unimpressive career. Joe Malone is another guy, what makes his peak numbers better than Brett Hull, Ovechkin, Bure, or Selanne etc.? He's an iconic player sure, but the 17/18 season appears to be just as much of an anomaly as the 92/93 season.

Disclaimer: I don't claim be a hockey history expert, this is all my opinion. And I am well aware the list was made in 2009 and is subject to change.

 

[Sentinel]

I consider Makarov to be the greatest Russian player of all time.

"Greater than the sum of its parts" is a popular argument, but it's far from being the proper justification for only 5 Russians being on the list. I don't care if Tikhonov was the greatest coach of all time (which he wasn't): with a team of nobodies he had no prayer of defeating Canada's superstars, like Gretzky, Bossy, etc. Makarov should be in the Top 10.