HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Thanks for that, Chico.

 

[Evincar]

Thanks for that, Chico.

But he is #1 without a doubt. He's 1st all-time in wins and shutouts.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I guess it means squat if one thinks all eras are the same.

Players should be viewed in context when doing a proper comparison otherwise the comparison is incomplete.

The numbers in the NHL and how other teams do against Canada tell a different story though.

 

[BamBamCam*]

I guess it means squat if one thinks all eras are the same.

Players should be viewed in context when doing a proper comparison otherwise the comparison is incomplete.

The numbers in the NHL and how other teams do against Canada tell a different story though.

By all means, make a list of non-Canadians that should have been in the NHL prior to the 1990s. I bet there are not many, the explosion of Europe and American players happened during the 80s and really blew up in the 90s.

You have no evidence that the best players were not playing in the league during any given era. I will say some of the Russians during the 70s should have been but how many? 5? 10? 12? Not enough to lessen the records or accomplishments of those Canadian players.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I guess it means squat if one thinks all eras are the same.

Players should be viewed in context when doing a proper comparison otherwise the comparison is incomplete.

The numbers in the NHL and how other teams do against Canada tell a different story though.

Except that your idea of a "proper comparison" only entails giving full marks to players that played in your "fully integrated NHL". Anything else is diminished to you, despite anything like absolute lack of any Euro's or Yanks that did and/or could have played at the NHL level previously.

Again, if say, the Japanese began funneling resources into their hockey programs and in 10-15 years suddenly hold a 5-7% chunk of the League population. Suddenly your "current" fully integrated NHL is no more because they weren't playing against the Japanese players.

It's a flawed premise based on flawed logic.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except that your idea of a "proper comparison" only entails giving full marks to players that played in your "fully integrated NHL". Anything else is diminished to you, despite anything like absolute lack of any Euro's or Yanks that did and/or could have played at the NHL level previously.

Again, if say, the Japanese began funneling resources into their hockey programs and in 10-15 years suddenly hold a 5-7% chunk of the League population. Suddenly your "current" fully integrated NHL is no more because they weren't playing against the Japanese players.

It's a flawed premise based on flawed logic.

Just because you disagree it's flawed?

Give me a break, you simply refuse to understand the difference between the 2 sets of Canadians for some self serving purpose, what it is one could only imagine.

As usual you throw in a diversion tactic of the Japanese while I'm taking about real actual changes to the NHL and the differences over time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just because you disagree it's flawed?

Give me a break, you simply refuse to understand the difference between the 2 sets of Canadians for some self serving purpose, what it is one could only imagine.

As usual you throw in a diversion tactic of the Japanese while I'm taking about real actual changes to the NHL and the differences over time.

You can keep calling it a "diversion" in an attempt to avoid answering it all you want but it is EXACTLY the logic you use in your pre-integrated NHL rhetoric.

It's not about whether I disagree with your logic, it's that I don't actually recognize it as logic in the first place. Nor should anyone else.

 

[Hardyvan123]

By all means, make a list of non-Canadians that should have been in the NHL prior to the 1990s. I bet there are not many, the explosion of Europe and American players happened during the 80s and really blew up in the 90s.

You have no evidence that the best players were not playing in the league during any given era. I will say some of the Russians during the 70s should have been but how many? 5? 10? 12? Not enough to lessen the records or accomplishments of those Canadian players.

Once again you are only looking at one side of the equation.

The 2nd group of Canadians, increasingly so in the late 80-mid 90s at it's current rate, did have to compete with the new talent streams, and the new talent streams with the existing "best in the world Canadians.

If Canada is the best hockey nation in the world back then and today why don't people rate Canadians on a Canadian only list to at least compare apples with apples then?

The only way to say that the current and recent increased composition of the NHL doesn't matter is if one believes that Canadians simply aren't nearly as good as they used to be in hockey and there is no indication of that being true.

We also see frequent use of top 5, 10 and 20 lists from season to season.

Is it really the same to finish 9th in scoring in a 6 team league than a 30 team one with 18 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 6 team set and 90 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 2nd set.

One would expect an increased chance of variation, especially after the top truly elite players like Wayne Gretzky being the obvious example.

But no the idea that all eras are the same keeps getting peddled out there as a mantra and unfortunately it is mostly hidden and not spoken about.

The differences in the makeup of the NHL talent pool also don't ahve anything to do with the sticky, as some have tried to suggest.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You can keep calling it a "diversion" in an attempt to avoid answering it all you want but it is EXACTLY the logic you use in your pre-integrated NHL rhetoric.

It's not about whether I disagree with your logic, it's that I don't actually recognize it as logic in the first place. Nor should anyone else.

I have laid out the differences in the composition of the makeup mof the league over time and nay fan can easily go over the top 20 lists each season and see in the players there the changes that occurred form the 70's until the mid 90s-today.

The bottom line is that the NHL was almost exclusively a Canadian only league and over time and increasingly so the numbers of non Canadians on the top 20 lists, trophy and all star voting and winners have been from basically zero non Canadians to around 40% ballpark.

If these non Canadians played in their homelands, as they traditionally did then we would still have a "list year in year out of the best of the best Canadians" over time from the inception of the NHL to today.

But we all know the changes that have taken place right?

If one chooses to ignore or downplay the huge impact of these changes on the lists and trophy voting ect... then it's not a fair comparison of apples and apples is it?

It also has nothing to do with time, the NHL could ahve started as a super league with multiple nations feeding it then broken up in smaller nation only leagues which would have had the same affect.

It just so happens that the changes ahve followed a fairly chronological increase for a number of reasons.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Once again you are only looking at one side of the equation.

The 2nd group of Canadians, increasingly so in the late 80-mid 90s at it's current rate, did have to compete with the new talent streams, and the new talent streams with the existing "best in the world Canadians.

If Canada is the best hockey nation in the world back then and today why don't people rate Canadians on a Canadian only list to at least compare apples with apples then?

The only way to say that the current and recent increased composition of the NHL doesn't matter is if one believes that Canadians simply aren't nearly as good as they used to be in hockey and there is no indication of that being true.

We also see frequent use of top 5, 10 and 20 lists from season to season.

Is it really the same to finish 9th in scoring in a 6 team league than a 30 team one with 18 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 6 team set and 90 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 2nd set.

One would expect an increased chance of variation, especially after the top truly elite players like Wayne Gretzky being the obvious example.

But no the idea that all eras are the same keeps getting peddled out there as a mantra and unfortunately it is mostly hidden and not spoken about.

The differences in the makeup of the NHL talent pool also don't ahve anything to do with the sticky, as some have tried to suggest.

A) You are still trying to punish the players for not playing against those new talent streams when those talent streams didn't even exist/weren't good enough to exist.

B) You continue to greatly exaggerate how fast the league changes and greatly underestimate the ability of players to adjust to those changes.

C) You continue to try and defer/explain each individual player mentioned that defies your theories like they are unique when there are literally 100's of them. Taken as a whole, you have no ground to stand on.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Once again you are only looking at one side of the equation.

The 2nd group of Canadians, increasingly so in the late 80-mid 90s at it's current rate, did have to compete with the new talent streams, and the new talent streams with the existing "best in the world Canadians.

If Canada is the best hockey nation in the world back then and today why don't people rate Canadians on a Canadian only list to at least compare apples with apples then?

The only way to say that the current and recent increased composition of the NHL doesn't matter is if one believes that Canadians simply aren't nearly as good as they used to be in hockey and there is no indication of that being true.

We also see frequent use of top 5, 10 and 20 lists from season to season.

Is it really the same to finish 9th in scoring in a 6 team league than a 30 team one with 18 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 6 team set and 90 top line players in each 60 minute game for the 2nd set.

One would expect an increased chance of variation, especially after the top truly elite players like Wayne Gretzky being the obvious example.

But no the idea that all eras are the same keeps getting peddled out there as a mantra and unfortunately it is mostly hidden and not spoken about.

The differences in the makeup of the NHL talent pool also don't ahve anything to do with the sticky, as some have tried to suggest.

And I don't think you are hearing me out. I believe the best players in the world sans a few were playing in the NHL during any era you would like to chose.

I don't believe other countries had the talent that was significant enough to break into the other 80%.

I think the best litmus test for you would be to make a list of players you feel should have been in the NHL that were not because they were Euros or Yanks. I believe you will find, they were not many outside of Canada. As I agreed, there are some Soviets, probably a few Czechs and Slovaks. But again, how many do you think that will add up to?

Maybe the top two lines of the Soviets, maybe 4 defensemen. Thats 10 players, now how many Czechs and Slovaks? 5 tops? So, my my estimation, the league might have been missing 15 NHL quality players at any given era before the 80s/90s.

If you really want to look at it, there are more players in the KHL now, that should be NHL than players that were allowed to compete in the 70s in the NHL.

 

[Hardyvan123]

A) You are still trying to punish the players for not playing against those new talent streams when those talent streams didn't even exist/weren't good enough to exist.

Just compare Canadians to Canadians then, why punish the more recent guys?

B) You continue to greatly exaggerate how fast the league changes and greatly underestimate the ability of players to adjust to those changes.

Actually I went over this in another thread then got locked out of it, the rate has increased from a trickle then some guys from Europe and much more for the US to the current % which has been since the mid 90's.

Just count all non Canadians on the top 20's list (goals, assists, or points) in the 70's, 80's and 90's and tell em it's a gradual curve.

And I don't think you are hearing me out. I believe the best players in the world sans a few were playing in the NHL during any era you would like to chose.

I don't believe other countries had the talent that was significant enough to break into the other 80%.

I think the best litmus test for you would be to make a list of players you feel should have been in the NHL that were not because they were Euros or Yanks. I believe you will find, they were not many outside of Canada. As I agreed, there are some Soviets, probably a few Czechs and Slovaks. But again, how many do you think that will add up to?

Maybe the top two lines of the Soviets, maybe 4 defensemen. Thats 10 players, now how many Czechs and Slovaks? 5 tops? So, my my estimation, the league might have been missing 15 NHL quality players at any given era before the 80s/90s.

If you really want to look at it, there are more players in the KHL now, that should be NHL than players that were allowed to compete in the 70s in the NHL.

Why are you stuck on the 06 point, everyone agree that the best players in the world at the time were from Canada.

That has become increasingly less so the further in the late 1900's we went, that's the point you are glossing over.

It would be one thing if Canada was no longer a hockey superpower but that's not the case either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just compare Canadians to Canadians then, why punish the more recent guys?

How about we just compare the best vs the best regardless of nationality.

Actually I went over this in another thread then got locked out of it, the rate has increased from a trickle then some guys from Europe and much more for the US to the current % which has been since the mid 90's.

You keep saying this but the facts don't support it.
http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php

In 92/93 the Russians and Czech accounted for 1.39 teams out of a 24 team league.
This season, they account for 2.46 teams out of 30.
6 teams were added, the Czechs and Russians added about a teams worth.
Not sure what argument you're trying to make on this one, sorry.

Just count all non Canadians on the top 20's list (goals, assists, or points) in the 70's, 80's and 90's and tell em it's a gradual curve.

When other nationalities starting producing players capable of cracking those lists, they did and got recognition for it.
Do the names Salming, Stastny, Jagr, Lidstrom, Selanne sound at all familiar to you?
Even players outside the NHL like Kharlamov, Tretiak, the KML line, Fetisov and Kasatonov were well recognized and appreciated.

Why are you stuck on the 06 point, everyone agree that the best players in the world at the time were from Canada.

That has become increasingly less so the further in the late 1900's we went, that's the point you are glossing over.

It would be one thing if Canada was no longer a hockey superpower but that's not the case either.

So what's the problem then???
Who's not being treated fairly?
Is it because you feel too many Canadian's are in the top 100?
Why wouldn't that be the case when Canadian's were the only ones good enough to play in the league for like 70 years.
It's only a relatively recent thing that non-Canadian's have been invading the all-time lists because they have only been around a relatively short time.
And again I certainly don't see Jagr or Lidstrom having any trouble getting into the upper echelon of said lists.

So seriously, why don't you once and for all tell us exactly what problem you have, please?

 

[Epsilon]

Claiming US players add something that diminishes the finishes of pre-1990 Canadian players is ridiculous because it's not like there were elite US players that were competing in a virtually incomparable league, as is the case for Kharlamov, Makarov, Kasatonov, and a handful of others. While there may be some merit in a hypothetical statement like "Consistent 5th place all-star forward X is not actually the 5th best forward of the 1980s due to Makarov and Larianov", that's a far cry from some of what is being suggested here (again, especially with regards to players from the USA and non-Soviet European leagues).

 

[BamBamCam*]

Why are you stuck on the 06 point, everyone agree that the best players in the world at the time were from Canada.

That has become increasingly less so the further in the late 1900's we went, that's the point you are glossing over.

It would be one thing if Canada was no longer a hockey superpower but that's not the case either.

Sorry, I am not following your rebuttal, it doesn't make sense.

The NHL has a vast network of scouts and talent assessors. If there/were players not in the NHL after the early 90s, it's by thier own choosing. Seems you are punishing the Canadian players on a hypothetical curve like you claim we are to Euros and Yanks.

 

[Theokritos]

Claiming US players add something that diminishes the finishes of pre-1990 Canadian players is ridiculous because it's not like there were elite US players that were competing in a virtually incomparable league

But isn't it more impressive to be, let's say, the best scorer in a league where 5 world class forwards from Canada and 2 world class forwards from the USA compete with you than to be the best scorer in a league with 'only' the 5 world class forwards from Canada as competitors?

 

[BamBamCam*]

But isn't it more impressive to be, let's say, the best scorer in a league where 5 world class forwards from Canada and 2 world class forwards from the USA compete with you than to be the best scorer in a league with 'only' the 5 world class forwards from Canada as competitors?

It sure would!

Guess what? They didn't exist so you are talking hypothetically. The rest of the world didn't catch up in great numbers until the the 80s when the US broke into the league in droves, than the Euros started coming over in the 90s.

Before that...they just didn't exist no matter you wish they did. They were only a handful around so the best players of the world were playing, doesn't matter where they came from, they were the best at the time.

 

[Theokritos]

They were only a handful around so the best players of the world were playing, doesn't matter where they came from, they were the best at the time.

Sure, but when we are comparing different times the question remains: Isn't it more impressive to be the best at a time where there is more competition than to be the best at a time when there is fewer competition? Best player in 2000 > best player in 1960?

 

[BamBamCam*]

Sure, but when we are comparing different times the question remains: Isn't it more impressive to be the best at a time where there is more competition than to be the best at a time when there is fewer competition? Best player in 2000 > best player in 1960?

Well, that's what I think you are missing. The best players in the world were playing in 1960 as they currently are in 2000. The league has always had the best of the best playing.

Like I suggested, make a list of who wasn't in the league in 1960 that you think should have been. You will find there will not be many because the rest of the world had not caught up to how Canada trained it's players. It's not like the league ran around saying "this guy isn't Canadian" and barred that player from the league. It was more, those players outside of Canada that were NHL quality didn't exist.

 

[Theokritos]

Well, that's what I think you are missing. The best players in the world were playing in 1960 as they currently are in 2000. The league has always had the best of the best playing.

I am not missing anything. What you are suggesting is that being a big fish in a little pond is the same as being a big fish in a big pond.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sure, but when we are comparing different times the question remains: Isn't it more impressive to be the best at a time where there is more competition than to be the best at a time when there is fewer competition? Best player in 2000 > best player in 1960?

That might be true if top talent followed a mathematical probability formula, but that is definitely not the case. I think it's absolutely true that the 100th best player in 2000 is better than the 100th best player in 1960 because the talent pool is larger, but the guys at the very top are outliers and not determined by mathematical probabilities.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The True Comparable

That might be true if top talent followed a mathematical probability formula, but that is definitely not the case. I think it's absolutely true that the 100th best player in 2000 is better than the 100th best player in 1960 because the talent pool is larger, but the guys at the very top are outliers and not determined by mathematical probabilities.

Let's put the 1960/2000 comparable in context.

Take your 100th player from 2000 and position him on each 1960 NHL team. What role would he have on each team? Would they make a 1960 team? Skaters you would be trying to find a spot for players like Chris Gratton, Mike York, Daymond Langkow, Robert Svehla, Martin Rucinsky.

Now compare the 1960 1st and 2nd AST with the 2000 version.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Heh, I guess on its face it might seem that way.
That is until you look at the number of teams in the league for each year.

The number of teams doesn't matter since it's still a % breakdown of all NHL players

And the FACT remains that the Russian's and Czech's do NOT make up anything remotely close to the 9 teams added since the early 90's.

Why the distraction and focus on just 2 countries?

Does the US, Sweden, Finland and other countries not exist in your world?

 

[Hardyvan123]

It sure would!

Guess what? They didn't exist so you are talking hypothetically. The rest of the world didn't catch up in great numbers until the the 80s when the US broke into the league in droves, than the Euros started coming over in the 90s.

Before that...they just didn't exist no matter you wish they did. They were only a handful around so the best players of the world were playing, doesn't matter where they came from, they were the best at the time.

So basically because the best players in the world all came from Canada pre 1970ish they get a free pass and lower bar to pass, which is what it comes down to.

Look if people don't want to acknowledge the higher degree of difficulty in finishing top 5,10, 20 as we go on later in the 80's, 90's to today that's fine but it makes for a weak base when comparing players because it's missing a major contextual component.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That might be true if top talent followed a mathematical probability formula, but that is definitely not the case. I think it's absolutely true that the 100th best player in 2000 is better than the 100th best player in 1960 because the talent pool is larger, but the guys at the very top are outliers and not determined by mathematical probabilities.

What exactly is the very top and outliers though?

Sure Wayne Gretzky is an outlier but really are guys finishing in the top 5,10 or 20 in any season really outliers?

It's virtually impossible to deny that to finish in the top 5,10,20 is more difficult in 2013 than in 1962 for example for 2 huge reasons.

1) the large makeup of the top 20 in any category of non traditional talent pool stream players, ie. not Canadian and

2) the greater amount of variance possible in a 30 team league where there are 30 top lines, 30 top PP units and 30 #1 Dmen ect...

Let's put it another way before the nHL there were 2 or 3 other league and leaders in those leagues, always a top 5,10 ect.

What is more impressive a constant top 5 in one of the various leagues pre NHL or a top 5 in a consolidated NHL circa 1930?

There really is only one answer and it applies then as it does now.