HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Sentinel]

I have respect for the eras and players of the past.

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).

I just don't believe every era has to be represented equally. I'm glad people recognize the fact that hockey made great progress in the past 30 years (basically, when Gretzky came about). In fact, this is why there was such a heated debate on who would win the 84 Oilers vs. 02 "in their prime" Red Wings, and many people made a solid argument for the Oilers. That means that the most dominating team comes from 30 years ago! Sure Howe, Orr, Beliveau, and Plante belong on that list. I just don't think there should be as many players from the 1930s as there are from the 1980s and 90s. Cuz the latter players are clearly better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I have respect for the eras and players of the past.



I just don't believe every era has to be represented equally. I'm glad people recognize the fact that hockey made great progress in the past 30 years (basically, when Gretzky came about). In fact, this is why there was such a heated debate on who would win the 84 Oilers vs. 02 "in their prime" Red Wings, and many people made a solid argument for the Oilers. That means that the most dominating team comes from 30 years ago! Sure Howe, Orr, Beliveau, and Plante belong on that list. I just don't think there should be as many players from the 1930s as there are from the 1980s and 90s. Cuz the latter players are clearly better.

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Using a definition of "3 years played" in order to qualify for a decade, here is how the players are distributed:

Decade|No. Players
pre-1910|2
1910s|6
1920s|13
1930s|14
1940s|15
1950s|20
1960s|20
1970s|24
1980s|21
1990s|18
2000s|11

That spike in the 1970s corresponds to the introduction of the Russians -- Fetisov, Kharmalov, Tretiak, Makarov, Mikhailov -- plus Kurri. The 1990s would likely have been boosted by the impending addition of Hull, MacInnis, Salming, Stastny and/or Stevens. And of course the 2000s would be left incomplete in a list compiled in 2009. So altogether, the 1970s-2000s period would be roughly equal and a small step up from the 1950s-1960s level.

So it would seem that the collective opinion is that hockey progressed steadily until around 1950, and took another step forward with the addition of Europeans from the 1970s-present. Which should happily resolve these debates for the most part...

 

[tommygunn]

Some of the people on this Top 70 list would have a problem cracking modern NHL lineup, let alone be All Stars.

I admit I didn't see enough Delvecchio or Keon to make a judgment..

So, just curious.. who are some of the players on the Top 70 list (you've seen enough to make a judgment) who don't belong, and why?

 

[Pominville Knows]

I have respect for the eras and players of the past.



I just don't believe every era has to be represented equally. I'm glad people recognize the fact that hockey made great progress in the past 30 years (basically, when Gretzky came about). In fact, this is why there was such a heated debate on who would win the 84 Oilers vs. 02 "in their prime" Red Wings, and many people made a solid argument for the Oilers. That means that the most dominating team comes from 30 years ago! Sure Howe, Orr, Beliveau, and Plante belong on that list. I just don't think there should be as many players from the 1930s as there are from the 1980s and 90s. Cuz the latter players are clearly better.

Well, there arent. By your standards Kharlamov would also have a big problem being a star today, not that i personally think he was much better than his own linemates to begin with.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

this is a well-reasoned question. from my perspective, the first step is always to relativize players with respect to their peers and contemporaries. after that, we can start to think about weighing eras.

now, with the war/immediate post-war years, it's pretty safe to begin accounting for the fact the level of competition was at a sub-average level. the evidence is right there for us to see: players leaving for the war, other players spiking, then regressing again when their competition returned.

the 70s is another era: we saw very good competition in the soviet union and to a lesser degree other european nations, as well as the WHA. we also saw expansion in the NHL without a new talent pool to fill those new jobs.

but to me, i'm initially wary of weighing down eras without very solid evidence. if we're going to penalize players for their circumstances, i'd prefer to make as small a leap of faith as possible when making that judgment call. kind of an "innocent until proven guilty" model, where i am hesitant to downplay a guy's accomplishments (relative to his peers/era) without a very high burden of proof.

the key question with the 1970s is the degree to which the watered-down NHL was watered down. i think we can all agree that there were some elite players who would have still been elite in the NHL: kharlamov, tretiak, and the other great russians; bobby hull and others in the WHA, and eventually the WHA swedes. but was it just the very best players, or was there legitimately a deep talent pool outside of the NHL that could have replaced 1/4, 1/3, maybe even 1/2, of the NHLers of that era? and how good would WHA stars such as, say, tardif and lacroix, fared in the NHL during their best years? their actual NHL resumes say they would have been complementary scorers, not scoring champs, but did they reach another level/have their prime years in the WHA?

how to weigh the 70s, especially the early 70s with so many weak teams filled with guys who previously would have been career minor leaguers, is really tough for me. certainly too tough for me to make the claim, for example, that orr's dominance was less impressive than mario's because mario played in a more integrated league. seems like a slippery slope where we could, following that logic, also say baby boom players had "tougher" competition than gen x players.

 

[Grohlyone]

I don't have time to read the 30 pages right now, but I'm curious why Fedorov wasn't included. I would personally place him about someone like Peter Forsberg, just to name a player from the same era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't have time to read the 30 pages right now, but I'm curious why Fedorov wasn't included. I would personally place him about someone like Peter Forsberg, just to name a player from the same era.

I haven't read the whole thread either, but I'd imagine Forsberg's international legacy was a factor.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't have time to read the 30 pages right now, but I'm curious why Fedorov wasn't included. I would personally place him about someone like Peter Forsberg, just to name a player from the same era.

Forsberg finished 74th on the 2008 top 100 list; Fedorov finished 80th.

Fedorov, however, was not eligible for the 71-80 range of the 2009 list.

Forsberg was a more consistent point producer in the regular season that Fedorov, especially on a per-game basis. (He wasn't helping his team when he was injured, however).

 

[Stansfield*]

I don't have time to read the 30 pages right now, but I'm curious why Fedorov wasn't included. I would personally place him about someone like Peter Forsberg, just to name a player from the same era.

Fedorov's problem is that he was basically done as a regular season star by the age of 27. And his career post-Detroit is unmemorable to say the least.

From the 1990-91 season to the 1995-96 season, his scoring finishes are: 2, 9, 14, 22, 27, 35. Over this period he was a PPG player in every season and his total PPG was 1.22. Then his offense disappears.

From the 1996-97 season onwards, his scoring finishes are: 12, 28, 28, 31, 42, 45, 48, 140, 157, 158, 226, 328 (Holdout, prorates to 25.) He's only a PPG player once all these years and his total PPG was 0.8.

 

[Sentinel]

From the 1990-91 season to the 1995-96 season, his scoring finishes are

You know there are other aspects of hockey player's game besides points, right? It's debatable, of course, but I think Feds was more useful to his team than Forsberg.

1920s 13
1930s 14
1940s 15
1950s 20
1960s 20
1990s 18

See, to me this is just wrong.

 

[tarheelhockey]

See, to me this is just wrong.

If it makes you feel better, 15 of those 20 players from the 1950s also count toward the 1960s:

Howe, Hull, Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Lindsay, Geoffrion, Mahovlich, Pilote, H. Richard, Bathgate, Horton, Moore


And those bolded... they count toward the 1970s too!

Meanwhile you will find only 5 players whose careers began in the 1990s, the latest being 1991 -- suggesting not an era bias, but a cut-off date for eligibility as an all-timer. As guys like Selanne, Iginla and Chara add exclamation points to their careers, that 1990s number should grow. And it will eventually be followed by the addition of post-2000 players, which increases the pressure to shift older players to lower spots. Earlier players can't realistically be added, they can only drop off, and only in rare cases would they advance instead of dropping lower.

My point being, the list does in fact have exactly the feature of "progress" that you are looking for. Some players who were pigeonholed as Original Six relics in this conversation were actually contemporaries of Kharlamov, Fetisov and Tretiak for a while (even Makarov, but that's just Gordie Howe's freakish longevity) and for a few years of overlap, they were all among the best players in the world simultaneously. That suggests some equivalence in all-time value, does it not? Then add in the fact that the list appears to communicate a huge leap forward circa 1950, and another around 1970, and that Europeans were apparently the distinct reason for the latter. Meanwhile the project barely even touches the 1990s and still finds 20 worthy players there, a number all but guaranteed to grow as our perspective on that era becomes grounded in completed careers.

The fact that this happened relatively organically, without any mandate to maintain fixed proportions, strongly suggests that the final list is in fact historically sound.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If it makes you feel better, 15 of those 20 players from the 1950s also count toward the 1960s:

Howe, Hull, Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Lindsay, Geoffrion, Mahovlich, Pilote, H. Richard, Bathgate, Horton, Moore


And those bolded... they count toward the 1970s too!

Meanwhile you will find only 5 players whose careers began in the 1990s, the latest being 1991 -- suggesting not an era bias, but a cut-off date for eligibility as an all-timer. As guys like Selanne, Iginla and Chara add exclamation points to their careers, that 1990s number should grow. And it will eventually be followed by the addition of post-2000 players, which increases the pressure to shift older players to lower spots. Earlier players can't realistically be added, they can only drop off, and only in rare cases would they advance instead of dropping lower.

My point being, the list does in fact have exactly the feature of "progress" that you are looking for. Some players who were pigeonholed as Original Six relics in this conversation were actually contemporaries of Kharlamov, Fetisov and Tretiak for a while (even Makarov, but that's just Gordie Howe's freakish longevity) and for a few years of overlap, they were all among the best players in the world simultaneously. That suggests some equivalence in all-time value, does it not? Then add in the fact that the list appears to communicate a huge leap forward circa 1950, and another around 1970, and that Europeans were apparently the distinct reason for the latter. Meanwhile the project barely even touches the 1990s and still finds 20 worthy players there, a number all but guaranteed to grow as our perspective on that era becomes grounded in completed careers.

The fact that this happened relatively organically, without any mandate to maintain fixed proportions, strongly suggests that the final list is in fact historically sound.

This is an analysis I did when it looked like the project was dying out:

Since this round is pretty dead compared to the last ones, I figure I'll post what we have so far in the Top 70 to see if there is a trend of over- or under-representing positions or eras.

Section | C | LW | RW | D | G | R
1-10|3|1|2|4|0|0
11-20|3|0|1|3|3|0
21-30|4|2|0|1|2|1
31-40|4|1|1|2|2|0
41-50|3|1|2|3|1|0
51-60|2|0|1|4|3|0
61-70|2|3|2|3|0|0
Total|21|8|9|20|11|1

38 forwards, 20 defensemen, 11 goalies (and a rover), basically a 4-2-1 ratio. Are we slightly overrating forwards?


Here it is by era of the player's prime.

Section| Pre-WW2 | Original 6 | post-expansion | post-Iron Curtain | prime in USSR/Europe
1-10|1|5|4|0|0
11-20|1|3|4|2|0
21-30|2|3|4|1|0
31-40|1|2|2|3|2
41-50|3|2|4|0|1
51-60|4|6|0|0|0
61-70|3|3|1|1|2
Total|15|24|19|7|5

Original 6 is 1942-1967 and Post-Expansion is the high scoring 1967-1993 phase. Post-Iron Curtain is basically the modern era with the Europeans in the NHL.

Only tough call was Syl Apps, who I gave to the O6 era. As is usual on these lists, the 06 era (1942-1967) has the most representation. Note that if you add the number of Soviets to the post-expansion North Americans (from 1967-1993 or so), you get the exact same number of players as the O6 era (24), albeit over a slightly longer time frame.

If I did the analysis again, I'd separate the 1970s from the 1980s and beyond, as I think the 70s was very well represented. It's the 1980s and beyond that I think are a little underrepresented if you just look at the numbers.

 

[Stansfield*]

You know there are other aspects of hockey player's game besides points, right? It's debatable, of course, but I think Feds was more useful to his team than Forsberg.

Obviously, but the majority of the players on this list did more than just score, and those who didn't, scored prolifically. It's not as if Fedorov was the only well-rounded player. He had an incredible peak, but didn't age that well; which seems to be a trend among Russian players.

 

[Sentinel]

And yet again I claim that Russians constituting less than 1/7 of the list is an insult not just to all Russian hockey, but all those Canadians that barely, by the skin of their teeth, beat those Soviet teams (or lost to them). If every meeting between USSR and Canada ended like the one in Vancouver, I could see that. But, obviously, this was not the case.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

And yet again I claim that Russians constituting less than 1/7 of the list is an insult not just to all Russian hockey, but all those Canadians that barely, by the skin of their teeth, beat those Soviet teams (or lost to them). If every meeting between USSR and Canada ended like the one in Vancouver, I could see that. But, obviously, this was not the case.

The fact the Soviets had a full time national team program OBVIOUSLY greatly skewed international results in their favour. By far the most reliable way to evaluate individual players is by having them all competing regularly against each other under equal conditions (i.e. in the same league, such as in the NHL). If anything the Russians are statistically over represented in this top 70 list which you can thank to the fact that prior to ~1990 the only means of evaluating individual Soviets were under conditions greatly in their favour.

COUNTRY| % Registered U20 players in 2011| % Indoor Rinks in 2011| % NHL Skaters in 2011| % Players from Top 70 List (careers began after 1966)

CAN & USA| 74| 66| 78|66
RUS| 6| 5| 3| 17
SWE| 4| 5| 7|7
FIN| 3| 4| 2|3
CZE| 2| 1| 4|7

I should also mention that of the 11 Best on Best tournaments since 1976, 73% were won by either Canada or the USA, 9% were won by Russia/USSR, 9% by Sweden and 9% by the Czech's. Amazing how over time the averages work out.

The fundamental truth in all this is that all these numbers directly relate to the number of kids each country has playing the game, and after all why wouldn't they?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And yet again I claim that Russians constituting less than 1/7 of the list is an insult not just to all Russian hockey, but all those Canadians that barely, by the skin of their teeth, beat those Soviet teams (or lost to them). If every meeting between USSR and Canada ended like the one in Vancouver, I could see that. But, obviously, this was not the case.

Once again ignoring that there are only 9 Candians on the list born in the same time period as the 5 Russians on the list. Given the fact that, yes the USSR was close, but Canada still usually won, why should there be 10 Russians on the list?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Using a definition of "3 years played" in order to qualify for a decade, here is how the players are distributed:

Decade|No. Players
pre-1910|2
1910s|6
1920s|13
1930s|14
1940s|15
1950s|20
1960s|20
1970s|24
1980s|21
1990s|18
2000s|11

That spike in the 1970s corresponds to the introduction of the Russians -- Fetisov, Kharmalov, Tretiak, Makarov, Mikhailov -- plus Kurri. The 1990s would likely have been boosted by the impending addition of Hull, MacInnis, Salming, Stastny and/or Stevens. And of course the 2000s would be left incomplete in a list compiled in 2009. So altogether, the 1970s-2000s period would be roughly equal and a small step up from the 1950s-1960s level.

So it would seem that the collective opinion is that hockey progressed steadily until around 1950, and took another step forward with the addition of Europeans from the 1970s-present. Which should happily resolve these debates for the most part...

I haven't run the numbers but given the increased levels of even average and some star NHL players in the past 30 years from previously not as productive areas, like BC, the entire US, and increased "stars" from Finland and Sweden, one could surmise that Canadian players are being held to a different standard than players from the past. we are going to find that %wise on the lsit it's going to look like Canadian talent just dried up after the integration of the league in the early to mid 90's.

Conor McDavid had better lead the league in scoring 5 times and win multiple cups before he is 30 or he is doomed to not be even considered for this list.

In fact as time goes on and we treat all eras "equally" Canadian players are the ones being judged against a different standard here.

Heck even a guy likely Lidstrom couldn't pass Shore (mostly to the 4 Harts argument), so it's not only the Canucks I guess.

I'll trot out the most obvious example of the recent top 60 Dman project in Nieds who played from 93-10 and is the top scoring Canadian Dman during that time. but over that time he is playing in league directly with Lidstrom, Zubov, Leetch, Gonchar, Chelois (all non Canadians)...heck look at the list.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=points&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Here we have a guy who is the highest scoring Canadian Dman for the years he played, plays huge minutes and a significant role in 4 SC winning teams, in a pretty large league in a fully integrated competitive NHL. you would think he would be rated really high, right?

He gets ranked 33rd according to "our criteria" in large part because some of other players ahead of him only played against Canadians or only played in Russia and had to do less and against much lesser competition to get higher on the list. Simply put the holes in every players resume are much greater and easier to find post early 90's.

Not enough Stanley Cups, never mind there are more than 6 teams now.

Not enough all star berths, once again more variance due to 30 teams having #1 Dmen and #1 power play units ect..

Not enough top 10 scoring finishes (or top 5 ,top 3 whatever) once again to great degree of variance with the number of teams and all of the top end talent in the world being concentrated in the NHL, not just Canadians.

I think alot of nieds 33rd ranking, and probably guys in the top 70 and future rankings for other potions are going to make it alot tougher for the more modern guys simply because he has to stand out against him competition much more than past players did in terms of difficulty.

Somewhere along the way respecting the past has been mis interpreted for treating it as equal which causes the list to be less than what it could be IMO.

I have stated it before but there probably should be an inverse pyramid chronologically over time for the %of players on the all time list to make it more meaningful and truly representative but as time goes on that would make it even more difficult for past players (players pre WW@ at least) to remain on the list.

A pre and post WW@ list would be a good dividing line to start IMO.

I know it wouldn't be an "all time list" but it might make it more relevant and avoid, at least partly, the misplaced criteria of treating all eras equally IMO.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I haven't run the numbers but given the increased levels of even average and some star NHL players in the past 30 years from previously not as productive areas, like BC, the entire US, and increased "stars" from Finland and Sweden, one could surmise that Canadian players are being held to a different standard than players from the past. we are going to find that %wise on the lsit it's going to look like Canadian talent just dried up after the integration of the league in the early to mid 90's.

Well, there is some roundabout truth to that. Between Gretzky and Crosby, the standout superstar was Lindros and we know how his career went. The other Gretzky-lite was Kariya... same story. Luongo, probably the best Canadian goalie to enter the league recently, has a pretty flawed career (and time to turn it around, which shouldn't surprise anyone if he does). I know you're high on Niedermayer, but he simply wasn't an all-time player until late in his career. Thornton is putting the finishing touches on a great career that has one single huge flaw, and I think he will "get better" in retrospect. There are a couple of other Canadians who could be getting the shaft here, maybe Pronger and Iginla, but who else would belong? It's an era of disappointing careers all around, and that comes into sharp relief when you consider the immediate superstardom of guys like Crosby and Stamkos, who will easily make a list like this if their careers don't get derailed somewhere along the line.

I find it hard to work up outrage over guys from the next tier, like Lecavalier and Marleau and Boyle, falling short of inclusion. Even in an Orginal Six context they wouldn't be very close.

In fact as time goes on and we treat all eras "equally" Canadian players are the ones being judged against a different standard here.

That's an interesting point, and probably true, but I don't see the problem with a Canadian from 2009 being judged by a different standard than one from 1935. Hockey itself is different, both on and off the ice, so of course the standard changes with time.

Heck even a guy likely Lidstrom couldn't pass Shore (mostly to the 4 Harts argument), so it's not only the Canucks I guess.

You're saying that as if Lidstrom couldn't possibly have been any better than he was. I'd argue that he could have surpassed Shore, and it's not the voters' fault he didn't.

I have stated it before but there probably should be an inverse pyramid chronologically over time for the %of players on the all time list to make it more meaningful and truly representative but as time goes on that would make it even more difficult for past players (players pre WW@ at least) to remain on the list.

A pre and post WW@ list would be a good dividing line to start IMO.

I know it wouldn't be an "all time list" but it might make it more relevant and avoid, at least partly, the misplaced criteria of treating all eras equally IMO.

That's exactly what we see in the numbers you quoted. The farther you go back before WWII, the fewer players are on the list (IIRC, only 5 of the players from the 1950s actually played in the 1940s, none of them before the war).

I think the core issue here is simply whether the 1950s and 1960s are on par with the 1970s-present.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or to put it another way: Jagr, Hasek and Lidstrom all managed to have top-5 careers at their respective positions after 1995. The fact that Lindros, Kariya and Lecavalier didn't do that, is their own failure and not a systemic flaw with this project. Even in an all-Canadian league, injuries still cut all three of them short.

 

[seventieslord]

My point being, the list does in fact have exactly the feature of "progress" that you are looking for. Some players who were pigeonholed as Original Six relics in this conversation were actually contemporaries of Kharlamov, Fetisov and Tretiak for a while (even Makarov, but that's just Gordie Howe's freakish longevity) and for a few years of overlap, they were all among the best players in the world simultaneously. That suggests some equivalence in all-time value, does it not? Then add in the fact that the list appears to communicate a huge leap forward circa 1950, and another around 1970, and that Europeans were apparently the distinct reason for the latter. Meanwhile the project barely even touches the 1990s and still finds 20 worthy players there, a number all but guaranteed to grow as our perspective on that era becomes grounded in completed careers.

The fact that this happened relatively organically, without any mandate to maintain fixed proportions, strongly suggests that the final list is in fact historically sound.

Well said!

Once again ignoring that there are only 9 Candians on the list born in the same time period as the 5 Russians on the list. Given the fact that, yes the USSR was close, but Canada still usually won, why should there be 10 Russians on the list?

Exactly!

Somewhere along the way respecting the past has been mis interpreted for treating it as equal which causes the list to be less than what it could be IMO.
.

That couldn’t be more inaccurate. The “pyramid†that you strive for should and does exist; you just yearn for it to be far steeper than anyone else does.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I haven't run the numbers but given the increased levels of even average and some star NHL players in the past 30 years from previously not as productive areas, like BC, the entire US, and increased "stars" from Finland and Sweden, one could surmise that Canadian players are being held to a different standard than players from the past. we are going to find that %wise on the lsit it's going to look like Canadian talent just dried up after the integration of the league in the early to mid 90's.

Conor McDavid had better lead the league in scoring 5 times and win multiple cups before he is 30 or he is doomed to not be even considered for this list.

In fact as time goes on and we treat all eras "equally" Canadian players are the ones being judged against a different standard here.

Heck even a guy likely Lidstrom couldn't pass Shore (mostly to the 4 Harts argument), so it's not only the Canucks I guess.

I'll trot out the most obvious example of the recent top 60 Dman project in Nieds who played from 93-10 and is the top scoring Canadian Dman during that time. but over that time he is playing in league directly with Lidstrom, Zubov, Leetch, Gonchar, Chelois (all non Canadians)...heck look at the list.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=points&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Here we have a guy who is the highest scoring Canadian Dman for the years he played, plays huge minutes and a significant role in 4 SC winning teams, in a pretty large league in a fully integrated competitive NHL. you would think he would be rated really high, right?

He gets ranked 33rd according to "our criteria" in large part because some of other players ahead of him only played against Canadians or only played in Russia and had to do less and against much lesser competition to get higher on the list. Simply put the holes in every players resume are much greater and easier to find post early 90's.

Not enough Stanley Cups, never mind there are more than 6 teams now.

Not enough all star berths, once again more variance due to 30 teams having #1 Dmen and #1 power play units ect..

Not enough top 10 scoring finishes (or top 5 ,top 3 whatever) once again to great degree of variance with the number of teams and all of the top end talent in the world being concentrated in the NHL, not just Canadians.

I think alot of nieds 33rd ranking, and probably guys in the top 70 and future rankings for other potions are going to make it alot tougher for the more modern guys simply because he has to stand out against him competition much more than past players did in terms of difficulty.

Somewhere along the way respecting the past has been mis interpreted for treating it as equal which causes the list to be less than what it could be IMO.

I have stated it before but there probably should be an inverse pyramid chronologically over time for the %of players on the all time list to make it more meaningful and truly representative but as time goes on that would make it even more difficult for past players (players pre WW@ at least) to remain on the list.

A pre and post WW@ list would be a good dividing line to start IMO.

I know it wouldn't be an "all time list" but it might make it more relevant and avoid, at least partly, the misplaced criteria of treating all eras equally IMO.

Yet Bourque had 19 all-star berths.

 

[Sentinel]

Once again ignoring that there are only 9 Candians on the list born in the same time period as the 5 Russians on the list. Given the fact that, yes the USSR was close, but Canada still usually won, why should there be 10 Russians on the list

They won more but they also lost a few. Certainly not by the 7 to 1 margin. And I don't care about who was born when. I already gave my reasoning and my suggested proportions. Again: tell Gretzky and his entire 1987 gang that they barely defeated a team, where only 2 people would make the Top 70 list, one in the 30s and one in the 60s. I imagine they would have an issue with that, considering that much of their lineup is on that list.

 

[Stansfield*]

They won more but they also lost a few. Certainly not by the 7 to 1 margin. And I don't care about who was born when. I already gave my reasoning and my suggested proportions. Again: tell Gretzky and his entire 1987 gang that they barely defeated a team, where only 2 people would make the Top 70 list, one in the 30s and one in the 60s. I imagine they would have an issue with that, considering that much of their lineup is on that list.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, Messier and Coffey are the only Canadians from '87 on the list. And they're all very justified selections.

Not sure how I missed those two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky, Lemieux and Coffey are the only Canadians from '87 on the list. And they're all very justified selections.

Bourque and Messier too.

They won more but they also lost a few. Certainly not by the 7 to 1 margin. And I don't care about who was born when. I already gave my reasoning and my suggested proportions. Again: tell Gretzky and his entire 1987 gang that they barely defeated a team, where only 2 people would make the Top 70 list, one in the 30s and one in the 60s. I imagine they would have an issue with that, considering that much of their lineup is on that list.

Why on Earth would the number of Canadian players on the list from before the USSR had a hockey program be relevant in the comparative strengths of Canada vs the USSR when they played each other? The 7-1 number is utterly meaningless

 

[Sentinel]

They are all ranked above Makarov and all but one ranked above Fetisov. Same with 1981: all Canadian players are above all Russian players that defeated them. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? (quoting another Canadian cultural icon).