HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think Fetisov vs. Bourque is debatable.

Apparently it's debatable, as long as you're willing to exclude all the evidence that makes the debate totally one-sided.

 

[Theokritos]

Apparently it's debatable, as long as you're willing to exclude all the evidence that makes the debate totally one-sided.

No need to be sarcastic. Bourque has the longevity and it's perfectly reasonable to rank him higher, but my point is that he wasn't in a different league than Fetisov when both were in their prime, both looked like equals and Fetisov might even has the higher peak. In that sense it's debatable, unlike Fetisov vs Gretzky/Lemieux, who were both in another league.

Feel free to prove that Canadians in the 30s were better than Russians in the 80s. Speed, puck-handling, shot, conditioning, passing, positioning...

That's not the point of the ranking!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No need to be sarcastic. Bourque has the longevity and it's perfectly reasonable to rank him higher, but my point is that he wasn't in a different league than Fetisov when both were in their prime, both looked like equals and Fetisov might even has the higher peak. In that sense it's debatable, unlike Fetisov vs Gretzky/Lemieux, who were both in another league.



That's not the point of the ranking!

Hard to judge who was better in their prime.

Watching Fetisov meant seeing him play with the Green Unit.

Watching Bourque could mean he was on the ice with Allen Pedersen, Bob Sweeney, Keith Crowder and Randy Burridge.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No need to be sarcastic. Bourque has the longevity and it's perfectly reasonable to rank him higher, but my point is that he wasn't in a different league than Fetisov when both were in their prime, both looked like equals and Fetisov might even has the higher peak. In that sense it's debatable, unlike Fetisov vs Gretzky/Lemieux, who were both in another league.

Fetisov's peak vs Bourque's peak might be debatable, but Fetisov vs Bourque isn't much of a contest. In an all-time context, it would be silly to ignore that the players had similar peaks but one of them was clearly the better player in all other phases of his career.

Again, it seems to me that you're saying "it's debatable as long as you consciously exclude the factors that make it one-sided", which is kind of symbolic of where this whole conversation has been for the past couple of pages.

 

[Theokritos]

Fetisov's peak vs Bourque's peak might be debatable, but Fetisov vs Bourque isn't much of a contest. In an all-time context, it would be silly to ignore that the players had similar peaks but one of them was clearly the better player in all other phases of his career.
Again, it seems to me that you're saying "it's debatable as long as you consciously exclude the factors that make it one-sided", which is kind of symbolic of where this whole conversation has been for the past couple of pages.

Or maybe some people value peak higher than longevity. If you think that is silly, then I have to live with that. But I for my part wouldn't call "career guys" silly (or maybe even insincere? "consciously excluding the factors that make it one-sided") just because they see things in a different way...

On the substance of the debate, I don't have a big issue with what you say. As long as you also claim that (for example) Potvin vs Bourque is not much of a contest either, I'm fine with it. I don't agree 100%, but I see your point and I think it's very reasonable. We just don't agree on what to call a contest and what not. Does that make me silly? Feel free to think so.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or maybe some people value peak higher than longevity. If you think that is silly, then I have to live with that. But I for my part wouldn't call "career guys" silly (or maybe even insincere? "consciously excluding the factors that make it one-sided") just because they see things in a different way...

On the substance of the debate, I don't have a big issue with what you say. As long as you also claim that (for example) Potvin vs Bourque is not much of a contest either, I'm fine with it. I don't agree 100%, but I see your point and I think it's very reasonable. We just don't agree on what to call a contest and what not. Does that make me silly? Feel free to think so.

I don't think you're being silly because I think you understand that what you're calling "debatable" is only debatable in the sense that someone could take an extreme, blinders-on position that peak performance is literally the only thing that matters. And you don't seem to buy that. Neither does anyone else here as far as I can tell.

If you can find such a person, I'd be interested to know their opinion on Jim Carey.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't think you're being silly because I think you understand that what you're calling "debatable" is only debatable in the sense that someone could take an extreme, blinders-on position that peak performance is literally the only thing that matters. And you don't seem to buy that. Neither does anyone else here as far as I can tell.

If you can find such a person, I'd be interested to know their opinion on Jim Carey

If we substract flukes (like Carey who has what, two good regular seasons coupled with two bad playoffs?) then the notion that peak trumps longevity seems just as reasonable to me as the contrary idea. Fetisov was world class from 1978-1989 and Bourque from 1980-2002, both are established all-time greats, not flukes.
Who was better? If Fetisov was better at his best than Bourque was at his best, then I'm fine with ranking Fetisov higher. So yes, I am silly in your eyes. Ranking Bourque higher due to his 10 additional years of excellence is also fine with me. I don't think one scale is better than the other, both are legit.

 

[57special]

I'd take Perrault over at least ten of the players on the list. As much as I loved the Pocket Rocket ( grew up a Hab fan) Perrault had WAY more talent. One of those things that you don't know unless you saw them play in person.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Longivity is nothing as long as a player puts beyond reasonable doubt that his prime or peak is not a fluke like Jim Careys career. Only when prime and peak is a tie longivity should matter. A player like Bourque may or may not have had the better career than Fetisov, but who was the better player is another matter.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd take Perrault over at least ten of the players on the list. As much as I loved the Pocket Rocket ( grew up a Hab fan) Perrault had WAY more talent. One of those things that you don't know unless you saw them play in person.

Having more talent doesn't necessarily make one a better hockey player.

This is a good example of just that.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Longivity is nothing as long as a player puts beyond reasonable doubt that his prime or peak is not a fluke like Jim Careys career. Only when prime and peak is a tie longivity should matter. A player like Bourque may or may not have had the better career than Fetisov, but who was the better player is another matter.

It's really really clear the Bourque had an extremely better career post age 31 than Fetisov.

Heck there are probably over 100 players on D that did. Unless Fetisov is at an Bobby Orr level of dominance, which he wasn't, the back end of both guys careers has to matter as a separation between the 2 players.

 

[thom]

I kind of agree with Gilbert P over Pocket Rocket but one thing Henri had was heart and the hatred to loose.Gilbert was bigger and more talented but Henri would give it most games.Reminds me of LA vs Toronto in 93 yes Gretzey was a lot better than Gilmour but the heart and spirit that Gilmour showed almost won the series

 

[FissionFire]

So the move to Portland is done and I'm finally getting settled in. Assuming there are no other planned projects upcoming this summer for these boards I'm tentatively planning on doing another installment of the Top 100 list this summer. I'll post more specific details once they are worked out.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I kind of agree with Gilbert P over Pocket Rocket but one thing Henri had was heart and the hatred to loose.Gilbert was bigger and more talented but Henri would give it most games.Reminds me of LA vs Toronto in 93 yes Gretzey was a lot better than Gilmour but the heart and spirit that Gilmour showed almost won the series

Henri had heart and was a very good 2 way player but there is the luck in his playing in Montreal as well.

As much as I'm a career guy having Henri only 5 spots behind Marcel and ahead of Forsberg doesn't seem right.

 

[seventieslord]

So the move to Portland is done and I'm finally getting settled in. Assuming there are no other planned projects upcoming this summer for these boards I'm tentatively planning on doing another installment of the Top 100 list this summer. I'll post more specific details once they are worked out.

I think we've moved onto positional lists at this point.

We'll be doing centers, then wingers, then I imagine we'll go back to an "all-position" list.

 

[pdd]

On the other hand, would you keep Frank Brimsek in such a list? 'Cause you basically suggested kicking Frank Mahovlich out, and keeping Frank Brimsek in.

Brimsek or Mahovlich, if I only get one Frank?

Hmm. Mahovlich had a strong peak and a long career.

Brimsek was the best or second best goaltender in he world from the age of 23 to the age of 32 (from 1938-39 to 1947-48). He played two final seasons after that, finishing tenth in Hart voting in 1948-49.

I'll go with Brimsek over Mahovlich.

 

[Nalens Oga]

I think the next list needs to give more consideration to dead puck era players and really appreciate the ones who were able to constantly produce b/t 1996-2004 (and I'd argue even longer than 2004 because though the style of hockey did change a bit since 2004, it's not like the actual scoring went up dramatically).

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think the next list needs to give more consideration to dead puck era players and really appreciate the ones who were able to constantly produce b/t 1996-2004 (and I'd argue even longer than 2004 because though the style of hockey did change a bit since 2004, it's not like the actual scoring went up dramatically).

Not only that but the full integration of the NHL from around the early 90's makes top 10 and top 20 scoring finishes per season quite a different animal from a Canadian only league.

Certainly some consideration has to be given for that.

There is certainly room for the absolute best of the best from earlier time periods but some of the lesser lights pale in comparison to their later counterparts if one uses the apples to apples argument and comparison, ie takes into account the 6 teams to 30 difference and the composition of the league.

It will be very interesting to see if a guy like Henri Richard, as an example, can come out ahead of guys like Forsberg and Fedorov based on top ten finishes and playing for a dynasty in a 6 team league.

Even as a career guy, after taking into account their team and league situation there is very little support for putting a guy like Henri over Forsberg or Fedorov IMO, unless one completely ignores the differences in the league.

 

[Beau Knows]

This list is really interesting. When will the next list be done? What major changes do you guys see in the rankings?

 

[Hardyvan123]

It is interesting to note that these were the players up for voting for places 71-80

Johnny Bower
Frank Brimsek
Bill Cowley
Anatoli Firsov
Bill Gadsby
Brett Hull
Dave Keon
Elmer Lach
Al MacInnis
Frank Nighbor
Bernie Parent
Borje Salming
Peter Stastny
Scott Stevens
Nels Stewart

 

[jigglysquishy]

This list is really interesting. When will the next list be done? What major changes do you guys see in the rankings?

I believe we're doing forwards this summer.

This list was done after the 08-09 season. Since then Brodeur, Lidstrom, Selanne, Ovi, Sid and Malkin have all done something noteworthy. I have Ovi in my top 70, though I doubt he'll make it. Selanne does have a chance, however. I doubt Brodeur jumps any higher. I don't think the '12 Cup run, further records or the extra Jennings will do much for the guys here.

Lidstrom's extra Norris will, however. Finishing twice more in the top ten in defensive scoring (including a second) as well as 1st and 2nd AS selection. He has a decent shot of making the top 15.

Thornton added an 8th in scoring. He also added a 2nd and 5th in assists. He'll likely finish top 10 in assists again this year.

Malkin added another Art Ross plus his first Hart. I have a hard time seeing the guys keeping a multiple Art Ross winner out of the top 70, but he's still young enough that I accept it. Also had another 1st AS selection.

Ovi won another Pearson. He added point finishes of 3 and 7. He added goal finishes of 3 and 5. He also added a 1st and 2nd AS selection.

Sid is Sid and it looks like he's gonna sweep the AS/Hart/Art Ross/Pearson race. Plus add a 1st AS.



I see Ovi and Sid joining the top 70. Selanne, Thornton and Malkin stand a chance too. Lidstrom likely jumps a few spots.


I see people re-evaluating Jagr. The further away we get from the late 90s the more dominant his play looks.

I'm most curious to see how we re-evaluate our top 10. I think the order of the Big Four is locked, but Beliveau might sneak into 5th.

 

[Nalens Oga]

I'd be more interested in doing #71-140 or something, maybe exclude players who are still playing in order to keep it simple.

Too many top 100 or top 50 lists, let's see a 101-200 list.

 

[RSeen]

Brodeur is the 6th best goalie? Give me a break, he is #1. Best of all time.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Not only that but the full integration of the NHL from around the early 90's makes top 10 and top 20 scoring finishes per season quite a different animal from a Canadian only league.

Means squat. Full integration would have zero affect on what a player did during his era if he played in another era. Prior to the 90s, other countries did not have player that were of NHL caliber. The Red Army you say? I think what the Canadian Teams did during the Canada Cup proved not only were they better but they could dominate. Sure didn't see any Russian keep up with Cup in 76 and he was on one leg.

Outside of the USSR, there were not many players deserving to be in the NHL from other countries. So what are we talking? A handful of Soviets that should have been in the NHL?!?!?! That does not make it a different animal. Makes it a few guys difference.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Since this was done. Crosby has added a 2nd place scoring finish. A rocket richard trophy. a 2nd team All star selection. Looks poised to add an Art Ross, Hart, Lindsay and 1st team AS.

Well I dunno what type of career Crosby will end up having but as far as forwards go, Gretzky/Lemieux are the top two for me followed by Howe then a bit of drop-off. I think Beliveau should be ahead of Hull and Richard is with the two of them. I certainly don't think that the difference between Hull and Mikita was 5th and 15th, many would prefer Mikita.

So I'd slot Crosby based on domination and trajectory around 5th-10th. Unfortunately, his career due to injuries or dead puck era or whatever may not ever make his whole body of work as good as those guys but certainly at his peak considering how much better than everyone else he is today, he's top 5-10.

It's so damn tough for a player to distinguish themselves above others today but if you're able to do it year after year like Crosby has when healthy and do it by the distance he's doing it then that's something else.