HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Mr Kanadensisk]

What evidence do you need?

The fact that 4 out top 20 players are Russians (without even blinking an eye). That's 20%. There are 2.7% Russians among all NHLesrs as you kindly demonstrated before. With a bit bias I can make a case to squeeze those 4 into top 15 or even top 10.

Swedes. Top 20 talent: both Sedins, Karlsson, Lundqvist. That's also 4 (20%) and I'm kindly leaving Zetterberg and Backstrom out. There are 6.6% of Swedes based on your number.

Slovaks. Top 20 talent: Chara and Hossa. (substitute with Gaborik or Halak if you wish). That's 2 (10%).

That's already 50% that are not from Canada. You can add USA yourself.

Of course those numbers change over time. Russians are very strong right now, while Czechs and Finns have pretty much no players at such level. All I'm saying that you can't say Canada produces 55% of NHL talent = 55% of elite NHL talent. In current discussion (Top 70 Players of All Time) term elite NHL talent should be defined by very strict criteria. Something like players who are in discussion at being one of the best at their respective position.

Again, you are only presenting your opinion. Just because you say 4 out of the top 20 NHLers are Russian doesn't make it true. Even if you had a way to define the top 20, it is a very small sample size and you are going to have wild fluctuations from year to year if you limit yourself to that number. I agree that each country will have peaks and valleys in terms of the performance of their top players but over time the numbers even out. For example I would say the Russians were peaking statistically just before the last Olympics.

 

[lazerbullet]

Again, you are only presenting your opinion. Just because you say 4 out of the top 20 NHLers are Russian doesn't make it true.

This whole discussion board consist of opinions. And it's easier to make a case that there are 4 Russians among top 20 than making an opposite case. Just my opinion obviously, it might not be true.

 

[Sentinel]

But the Russian NT did NOT play together year round! Just two examples: in the 1972 series, the famous Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line did not play one minute together. In the 1987 series one line was from Dynamo, one from the Soviet Wings, and two from CSKA. Yes, the clubs practiced for 11 months together, but the NT was far from being a "machine": composed from different players from different clubs with different systems.

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

10 out of 70 is a minimum for Russian players, possibly more. Every game of every Soviet / Russian team (NT and clubs) against Canada / NHL (NT and clubs) was a close contest (other than Vancouver, of course), how can you give Russia less than 1/7 of the spots on the list? Realistically these #s would be like 20/35 (with 15 going to other hockey nations), but, of course, Canada gets an edge with all pre-1960 players.

Btw, somebody mentioned Firsov's numbers.

Canada 35-26 .74
Sweden 31-24 .77
Czech 28-16 .57
Finland 25-15 .60
US 15-14 .93

How are these numbers bad?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

But the Russian NT did NOT play together year round! Just two examples: in the 1972 series, the famous Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line did not play one minute together. In the 1987 series one line was from Dynamo, one from the Soviet Wings, and two from CSKA. Yes, the clubs practiced for 11 months together, but the NT was far from being a "machine": composed from different players from different clubs with different systems.

What I said was that if Canada did play together year round that they would have been much better, which I don't think anyone can deny.

The problem the Soviets faced was that obviously there weren't enough international tournaments in a year to provide their best players with the competitive experience they needed. Since they had absolute control over the Soviet league and their players they divided the top players up into a few teams so they could benefit from competing against each other. As you said they tried to place complete lines together on these teams so they would gain experience playing together. Also it should be noted that despite the massive size of the USSR all the top players played in one city so that full national team practices could be easily held when ever they wanted and the national team played together in as many tournaments as they could. There is no disputing that the Soviets had in effect a full time national team program.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

Now, concerning those who aren't already on the list, who are they bumping off the top 70?

10 out of 70 is a minimum for Russian players, possibly more.

As previously mentioned, you really mean 10 of ~35 or fewer, depending on the time frame you consider Russia to have been on par with Canada.

So you're reserving 10 spots for Russia, and I assume 10 for Canada (if they were in fact equals) and that leaves 15 for the rest of the world? Do those proportions seem right to you?

 

[overpass]

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

I'm having a hard time seeing Larionov in a top 70. Players like Alex Delvecchio, Dave Keon, and Ron Francis didn't make the list despite having tons of longevity, versatility, and hockey sense.

Malkin and Datsyuk may deserve to make the top 70 when their careers are over. Let's wait and see where they end up and gain a bit of perspective. In any case you couldn't have expected them to place on a 2009 list.

 

[Sentinel]

Now, concerning those who aren't already on the list, who are they bumping off the top 70?

Honestly, I'd take out a whole lot of pre-1950 players. They are simply not as good as those who came later (for purely objective reasons). To give equal share of the "Best Of" list to all eras is to admit that hockey has not made any progress over the past century, which, to me, is just wrong.

As previously mentioned, you really mean 10 of ~35 or fewer, depending on the time frame you consider Russia to have been on par with Canada.

So you're reserving 10 spots for Russia, and I assume 10 for Canada (if they were in fact equals) and that leaves 15 for the rest of the world? Do those proportions seem right to you?

Well, basically Russia/USSR should be just a couple of notches below Canada. In the Realm of the Relics Canada has the undisputed advantage. Then we'd have (roughly) 15 for Russia, 20 for Canada, 15 for Canadian relics, and 20 for the rest of the world... that sounds about right.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm having a hard time seeing Larionov in a top 70. Players like Alex Delvecchio, Dave Keon, and Ron Francis didn't make the list despite having tons of longevity, versatility, and hockey sense.

Malkin and Datsyuk may deserve to make the top 70 when their careers are over. Let's wait and see where they end up and gain a bit of perspective. In any case you couldn't have expected them to place on a 2009 list.

I admit I didn't see enough Delvecchio or Keon to make a judgment, but I hold Larionov in far higher regards than Francis in spite of the latter's stats. Heck, he never made the national team, while Larionov made it at the tail end of his career in 2002. Speaking of 2002: Francis and the Professor had a nice head-to-head in the SC Finals and both scored OT goals.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I admit I didn't see enough Delvecchio or Keon to make a judgment, but I hold Larionov in far higher regards than Francis in spite of the latter's stats. Heck, he never made the national team, while Larionov made it at the tail end of his career in 2002. Speaking of 2002: Francis and the Professor had a nice head-to-head in the SC Finals and both scored OT goals.

No Francis didn't make the national team but it should also be noted that Canada was typically loaded at Center though out his career and his skating wasn't the best fir for large international ice surfaces either.

Even taking into account the Jagr factor, Francis had by far the greater career from age 29 onwards (in which both players played in the NHL).

I think if anything the argument is better against Keon and Delvecchio
for Larinov.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Honestly, I'd take out a whole lot of pre-1950 players. They are simply not as good as those who came later (for purely objective reasons). To give equal share of the "Best Of" list to all eras is to admit that hockey has not made any progress over the past century, which, to me, is just wrong.

That's one way to look at it but won't get any traction in the history section, regardless if there is validity in what you say or not.

Another way to look at it is to ask the question "what does a modern day player in a fully integrated NHL have to do to knock off or surpass an older 06 or before player on the list?"

There is a huge problem in counting top 5,10 ect finishes or SC or hardware or even all-star teams in a 6 team league to one that is 4-5 times larger, along with an influx of players from Europe who are clearly better than they were in the pre 70ish era.

Really to be fair to all groupings of players it is much more fair and easier to judge and compare players at least in some time constraints or eras IMO.

Well, basically Russia/USSR should be just a couple of notches below Canada. In the Realm of the Relics Canada has the undisputed advantage. Then we'd have (roughly) 15 for Russia, 20 for Canada, 15 for Canadian relics, and 20 for the rest of the world... that sounds about right.

If it was just based on talent sure but we ahve the problem of lots of Russian talent today and much less international success, due in part to the lessening of the iron grip control the communists had on the entire society.

It is entirely possible that the Russian teams from the communist era were greater than the sum of their parts and their is quite a bit of evidence to support this idea as well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Honestly, I'd take out a whole lot of pre-1950 players. They are simply not as good as those who came later (for purely objective reasons). To give equal share of the "Best Of" list to all eras is to admit that hockey has not made any progress over the past century, which, to me, is just wrong.

Well, basically Russia/USSR should be just a couple of notches below Canada. In the Realm of the Relics Canada has the undisputed advantage. Then we'd have (roughly) 15 for Russia, 20 for Canada, 15 for Canadian relics, and 20 for the rest of the world... that sounds about right.

Then players from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be viewed the same way. Hasn't hockey made any progress in the last 25 years?

 

[pappyline]

Then players from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be viewed the same way. Hasn't hockey made any progress in the last 25 years?

yep, for sure. Lets take out anybody who played prior to 2000. They can't be any good.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

But the Russian NT did NOT play together year round! Just two examples: in the 1972 series, the famous Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line did not play one minute together. In the 1987 series one line was from Dynamo, one from the Soviet Wings, and two from CSKA. Yes, the clubs practiced for 11 months together, but the NT was far from being a "machine": composed from different players from different clubs with different systems.

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

10 out of 70 is a minimum for Russian players, possibly more. Every game of every Soviet / Russian team (NT and clubs) against Canada / NHL (NT and clubs) was a close contest (other than Vancouver, of course), how can you give Russia less than 1/7 of the spots on the list? Realistically these #s would be like 20/35 (with 15 going to other hockey nations), but, of course, Canada gets an edge with all pre-1960 players.

Btw, somebody mentioned Firsov's numbers.

How are these numbers bad?

With the listing being from 2009, how could Malkin be on it after only 3 Pro seasons?
Ovechkin would have been higher rated at that point anyway.

Larionov is not a top 70 player. Period.

Federov had a 1 year prime. His defensive ability makes him a possibility.

Bure was too one dimensional for many voters here (though he was in my top 70).

Datsyuk, you said it yourself, not enough stats.

I had Firsov ahead of Bure on my list.

 

[MXD]

But the Russian NT did NOT play together year round! Just two examples: in the 1972 series, the famous Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line did not play one minute together. In the 1987 series one line was from Dynamo, one from the Soviet Wings, and two from CSKA. Yes, the clubs practiced for 11 months together, but the NT was far from being a "machine": composed from different players from different clubs with different systems.

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

10 out of 70 is a minimum for Russian players, possibly more. Every game of every Soviet / Russian team (NT and clubs) against Canada / NHL (NT and clubs) was a close contest (other than Vancouver, of course), how can you give Russia less than 1/7 of the spots on the list? Realistically these #s would be like 20/35 (with 15 going to other hockey nations), but, of course, Canada gets an edge with all pre-1960 players.

Btw, somebody mentioned Firsov's numbers.

How are these numbers bad?

Thanks for basically telling me to NOT EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY again. Fetisov certainly belongs. Tretiak as well. 95% convinced Makarov does. Kharlamov is massively overrated in NA, but certainly belongs in the Top-70.

Other than that, Fedorov is close (But not cigar) and the other guys are probably locks for the Top-200.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Then players from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be viewed the same way. Hasn't hockey made any progress in the last 25 years?

No because hockey from all those eras is similar to today. Not just in stule but also season and playoff structure.

I would be more accepting of the russians mentioned above than Lalonde or Clancy. Should have a pre and post 60s list.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Honestly, I'd take out a whole lot of pre-1950 players. They are simply not as good as those who came later (for purely objective reasons). To give equal share of the "Best Of" list to all eras is to admit that hockey has not made any progress over the past century, which, to me, is just wrong.

As pointed out above, this list and pretty much anything on the History section operate from the assumption that all eras of hockey are to be respected and given equal proportionate weight (the rare exception being times like WWII when the best players were demonstrably not participating). So while your point of view is certainly valid, it is in philosophical conflict with the list, and I'm not sure there is any hope of a resolution between them.

On top of that, I think you're going to run into another problem. From a "purely objective" point of view, today's best players are easily more effective at playing hockey than the guys you want to add. Larionov needs to get in line behind Crosby, Tretiak comes somewhere after Lundqvist, and Mikhailov can wait till we get Iginla on the list.

And that is the reason why we give equal weight to all eras.

Well, basically Russia/USSR should be just a couple of notches below Canada. In the Realm of the Relics Canada has the undisputed advantage. Then we'd have (roughly) 15 for Russia, 20 for Canada, 15 for Canadian relics, and 20 for the rest of the world... that sounds about right.

So you believe that Canada has produced about 57% of the world's best players since roughly 1970?

Not saying you're wrong, but would you be prepared to defend that number?

 

[Sentinel]

Thanks for basically telling me to NOT EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY again.

Uhm... OK. Feel free to explain the nail-biting nature of the USSR-Canada contests if Soviet players were massively inferior.

Then players from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be viewed the same way. Hasn't hockey made any progress in the last 25 years?

Do we have to take it to the absurd? Hockey evolved much more from the O6 days to the 1980s than in the past 25 years. Even the lockout changes were not as drastic. Selanne, Jagr, and other stars of the "dead puck era" did just fine after the lockout. OTOH very few stars of the 70s made a smooth transition into the late 80s-early 90s.

 

[Sentinel]

So you believe that Canada has produced about 57% of the world's best players since roughly 1970?

Not saying you're wrong, but would you be prepared to defend that number?

Sure, that sounds about right, although this is a pure gut feeling. Less than 2/3 of the top end talent, very respectable. Top end players on Soviet, Czech, American, and Swedish teams certainly gave Canadian stars a run for their money. This is why so many Europeans became stars on the NHL teams in the 90s, when the gates opened.

 

[Hardyvan123]

As pointed out above, this list and pretty much anything on the History section operate from the assumption that all eras of hockey are to be respected and given equal proportionate weight (the rare exception being times like WWII when the best players were demonstrably not participating). So while your point of view is certainly valid, it is in philosophical conflict with the list, and I'm not sure there is any hope of a resolution between them.

On top of that, I think you're going to run into another problem. From a "purely objective" point of view, today's best players are easily more effective at playing hockey than the guys you want to add. Larionov needs to get in line behind Crosby, Tretiak comes somewhere after Lundqvist, and Mikhailov can wait till we get Iginla on the list.

And that is the reason why we give equal weight to all eras.

Thanks for acknowledging the elephant in the room but why separate the WW2 players as different from late 60 players from Europe?

Everyone both knows that the level of play and competition was less than the best at the time, in both cases, but it's really a hard circle to square as we saw with the treatment of some guys in the top 60 Dman project.

It causes a huge problem in the respecting past players by treating all eras as equal when they clearly are not equal.

Like I stated earlier, it's pretty clear that all players post early to mid 90's must be way and beyond better to jump on any top lists if all eras are to be treated equal and we ignore the quality of competition and number of teams and talent and variance that comes with such issues.

I respectfully submit that to be fair and equal and indeed more relevant players shouldn't be judged too far out of their eras if the equal treatment analysis is the criteria as it really does a disservice to the title "the greatest players of all time" IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But the Russian NT did NOT play together year round! Just two examples: in the 1972 series, the famous Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line did not play one minute together. In the 1987 series one line was from Dynamo, one from the Soviet Wings, and two from CSKA. Yes, the clubs practiced for 11 months together, but the NT was far from being a "machine": composed from different players from different clubs with different systems.

I believe the following players squarely belong on the Top 70 list:

Makarov (in the Top 10, the best player Russia ever produced)
Fedorov
Fetisov
Malkin
Datsyuk (personal stats be damned, just look at him when he's on the ice)
Kharlamov
Tretiak
Bure
Larionov (I value longevity, versatility, and hockey sense)
Mikhailov

10 out of 70 is a minimum for Russian players, possibly more. Every game of every Soviet / Russian team (NT and clubs) against Canada / NHL (NT and clubs) was a close contest (other than Vancouver, of course), how can you give Russia less than 1/7 of the spots on the list? Realistically these #s would be like 20/35 (with 15 going to other hockey nations), but, of course, Canada gets an edge with all pre-1960 players.

Btw, somebody mentioned Firsov's numbers.

How are these numbers bad?

Honestly the teams that Canada, US, Sweden, Finland ect were sending to the WC in the 60's were made up of teams that on aggregate might have been able to compete with some AHL teams at the time and that's only in some cases.

Even in the 70's when we had some best on best tourney's there was a clear drop off from the top 3 teams and the others and don't even get me started about the German teams at the time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thanks for acknowledging the elephant in the room but why separate the WW2 players as different from late 60 players from Europe?

Because in the case of WWII, players who had already demonstrated that they were the best in the world against elite competition during full seasons abruptly left the league for non-hockey reasons. The group of leftover players should be treated with a grain of salt, for inescapably logical reasons, particularly since almost all of them fell back to the minors after WWII.

That's obviously different than a group of players which is isolated from elite competition and may possibly have some players worth recognizing. That presents its own challenges, but the situations aren't similar at all.

It causes a huge problem in the respecting past players by treating all eras as equal when they clearly are not equal.

"Clearly" according to whom? "Not equal" in what way? The bolded statement sounds closer to opinion than fact.

Like I stated earlier, it's pretty clear that all players post early to mid 90's must be way and beyond better to jump on any top lists if all eras are to be treated equal and we ignore the quality of competition and number of teams and talent and variance that comes with such issues.

And what's wrong with that, considering EVERY player on the list was "way and beyond better" during his own era? Isn't that the point of a board called History of Hockey?

Going by the "objective" standard you're promoting, it would be almost impossible for a player whose career began before about 1978 to make it into any all-time list. Goalies prior to 1990 may as well not even exist.

 

[Sentinel]

Going by the "objective" standard you're promoting, it would be almost impossible for a player whose career began before about 1978 to make it into any all-time list. Goalies prior to 1990 may as well not even exist.

I could never understand this "all or nothing," take-to-the-absurd approach. Of course there should be players from the past eras! And it's possible that there was equal number of geniuses from each decade that stood head and shoulders above their peers (possibly more in the expansion era). But it doesn't mean every era must be represented equally.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I could never understand this "all or nothing," take-to-the-absurd approach. Of course there should be players from the past eras! And it's possible that there was equal number of geniuses from each decade that stood head and shoulders above their peers (possibly more in the expansion era). But it doesn't mean every era must be represented equally.

I will agree with you that there are too many pre-1950 players on the list. But not to the extent that you would like to dismiss them.

Basically most voters here look at the pre-1950 players much as you look at Russian player. If we has a list of say 7 or 8 more Russians replacing pre-50 players, the outrage would be pretty much like your own.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I could never understand this "all or nothing," take-to-the-absurd approach. Of course there should be players from the past eras! And it's possible that there was equal number of geniuses from each decade that stood head and shoulders above their peers (possibly more in the expansion era). But it doesn't mean every era must be represented equally.

It's really simple. From an objective standpoint, excluding all era considerations, the best hockey players are almost entirely from the past 20-30 years. They're bigger, faster, stronger, and more mechanically skilled than their predecessors. They are optimized hockey-playing robots that would blow even the best Original Six teams completely out of the building. That's really not a revelation to anybody.

Don't even get me started on goalies.

So if you are going to make a list of the "objectively best" players ever, it's going to be REALLY short on guys who played prior to the modern era. You might squeeze a Howe or Orr in there if you're feeling generous, but a 170-pound guy like Mikhailov or a 1960s-trained goalie like Tretiak? Forget it. They'd be lucky to even be IN the current NHL let alone dominating it.

I'm sure you agree that such players should be recognized, so we open up the door a bit and say, "Tretiak might not be objectively as good a goalie as Lundqvist, but he was one of the best of his time and deserves to be on our list". Ok, well, Ken Dryden played at the same time and was just as good, so he belongs too. And nobody who saw Sawchuk, Plante and Hall seems to believe that Dryden was on a higher level than those guys, so we have to throw them in there too, right?

And so on and so forth. At what point do we arbitrarily decide that this process cuts off? Whatever year we pick, it will simply be a reflection of our modern bias about what era "matters most" in hockey history, which is contrary to the point of an all time list. So instead of shooting for a list of objectively best players, we instead assemble a list of the greatest players, with a clearly stated objective of including all eras.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

A gentle reminder to read the second post in this thread:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=140503

Thanks.

To summarize: all eras don't need to be recognized equally, but all eras deserve respect.