HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[seventieslord]

You know, I think at this point that even if FF had the originally submitted lists, I'd still rather re-submit 71-120.

I'm definitely down for this. Do we want to start relatively soon or wait for the ATD to finish in a few months?

What if we at least wait for the draft and first round to be over, and then start it after that? Things slow down a lot more after the first round.

I'm even more down for this than you are.

 

[Pierre Gotye]

 

[FissionFire]

End of April/Start of May is when I'll be back in here. I post still but not too much just because school is hellish this semester. Biochemistry II, Physical Chemisty I, Microbiology, Microbiology Lab, and Organic Chemistry Lab......lol. I definitely got way too ambitious this semester.

Also need to fix my old laptop. It has all the data from both years on it. It's not a hard fix, just takes a little time that I don't have until after finals. Promise, I haven't forgotten about this and I fully intend to complete it ASAP. It just takes alot of time to compile, organize, document, etc. all the pertinent data so it can be posted at the end to follow the "open process" mandate. Between all that and the PMing to get votes and other such behind-the-scenes type of stuff it really was a major time commitment that this semester totally derailed. I'll be back soon and this WILL get done!

 

[seventieslord]

End of April/Start of May is when I'll be back in here. I post still but not too much just because school is hellish this semester. Biochemistry II, Physical Chemisty I, Microbiology, Microbiology Lab, and Organic Chemistry Lab......lol. I definitely got way too ambitious this semester.

Also need to fix my old laptop. It has all the data from both years on it. It's not a hard fix, just takes a little time that I don't have until after finals. Promise, I haven't forgotten about this and I fully intend to complete it ASAP. It just takes alot of time to compile, organize, document, etc. all the pertinent data so it can be posted at the end to follow the "open process" mandate. Between all that and the PMing to get votes and other such behind-the-scenes type of stuff it really was a major time commitment that this semester totally derailed. I'll be back soon and this WILL get done!

Thanks for checking in. As long as you're interested, I'm sure we're all fine with you running it. Two things:

1 - There have been two ATDs since this got derailed. Lots of new info has come to light, and perspectives have developed. Also, a couple of active players just might have a shot at the list. Could we look at submitting new top-50s of the unranked players?

2. We should call this the 2009-10 version now.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for checking in. As long as you're interested, I'm sure we're all fine with you running it. Two things:

1 - There have been two ATDs since this got derailed. Lots of new info has come to light, and perspectives have developed. Also, a couple of active players just might have a shot at the list. Could we look at submitting new top-50s of the unranked players?

2. We should call this the 2009-10 version now.

I'm interested in continuing this project too.

I see pros and cons to re-submitting the top fifty player list.

The main benefit? Like Seventies said, we'd have the benefit of a few more months' worth of research. We'd also get to have a pretty interesting discussion about whether Ovechkin and Crosby have earned a spot yet.

The drawbacks? There are a couple of active players in the top fifty (Lidstrom and Brodeur) who's reputations could have changed a bit since we've done the top seventy. It seems a bit inconsistent to revise our voting more than halfway through (though I suppose we'll be free to use the new research done over the past few months when voting on the last thirty spots, regardless of if we use our original or revised lists).

 

[seventieslord]

I'm interested in continuing this project too.

I see pros and cons to re-submitting the top fifty player list.

The main benefit? Like Seventies said, we'd have the benefit of a few more months' worth of research. We'd also get to have a pretty interesting discussion about whether Ovechkin and Crosby have earned a spot yet.

The drawbacks? There are a couple of active players in the top fifty (Lidstrom and Brodeur) who's reputations could have changed a bit since we've done the top seventy. It seems a bit inconsistent to revise our voting more than halfway through (though I suppose we'll be free to use the new research done over the past few months when voting on the last thirty spots, regardless of if we use our original or revised lists).

I definitely like the benefits, and though I accept that that drawback exists, I think the "percentage" change that could occur for those players (+/- 3 spots out of 20-40?) is little compared to the 50-100 spots (whether onto the final top-100 or not) that Crosby and Ovechkin could have, in theory, moved up since this project started.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Par For the Course

I'm interested in continuing this project too.

I see pros and cons to re-submitting the top fifty player list.

The main benefit? Like Seventies said, we'd have the benefit of a few more months' worth of research. We'd also get to have a pretty interesting discussion about whether Ovechkin and Crosby have earned a spot yet.

The drawbacks? There are a couple of active players in the top fifty (Lidstrom and Brodeur) who's reputations could have changed a bit since we've done the top seventy. It seems a bit inconsistent to revise our voting more than halfway through (though I suppose we'll be free to use the new research done over the past few months when voting on the last thirty spots, regardless of if we use our original or revised lists).

Like changing the rules after two periods of a game because you do not like the potential outcome.

Defining the difference between incredible and uncredible.

 

[seventieslord]

Like changing the rules after two periods of a game because you do not like the potential outcome.

More like, playing two periods of a game, tiring out the referee with incessant yapping and chippy play, resulting in the chippiest and yappiest of them all getting ejected, and then the ref takes off somewhere for six months because he has other priorities, and then everyone starts to get the itch to finish the game and decide to reconvene at the rink only to find out that the ice quality has changed substantially and that we have to all play with new and different equipment and sticks, and while they are all discussing how to handle this, the referee comes back and says that if we come back in a month he is willing to referee the third period, and while we're discussing what to make of all these changes, the player that got kicked out walks by on the sidewalk and says "hey losers, enjoy your stupid game!!!!"

I would say it's more like that.

 

[HFpapi]

Might get a few facepalms, but im interested in hearing some thoughts on this

Im only 20 so im not going to pretend to be an expert on the history of hockey, but it seems to me certain players (say, pre '67 expansion) get built up to such legendary status that it becomes blasphemy to mention them in the same breath with a player from a more recent era.

I know players are judged comparatively to their era and not head to head, but is it inconceivable that maybe jaromir jagr is/was a more impactful player then stan mikita, who we were told growing up is a legend of the game? Also what does Brodeur have to do in order to be considered a top 5 goalie of all time? A goalie is always going to be a product of his team to some extent, it shouldnt diminish his accomplishments or be used to downplay his obvious talent. Was Shawchuk really easily better then him?

And has anyone ever actually seen Howie Morenz play hockey? If not whats his selection based on? Its a pretty bold statement to say hes the 11th greatest hockey player ever based on reputation.

Im not sure if this is the right place to post this, and im not trying to be ignorant considering most of the older posters are in better position to judge where a player stands all time, but im interested in learning about the history of the game so please enlighten me as to why im wrong.

 

[seventieslord]

Might get a few facepalms, but im interested in hearing some thoughts on this

Im only 20 so im not going to pretend to be an expert on the history of hockey, but it seems to me certain players (say, pre '67 expansion) get built up to such legendary status that it becomes blasphemy to mention them in the same breath with a player from a more recent era.

I know players are judged comparatively to their era and not head to head, but is it inconceivable that maybe jaromir jagr is/was a more impactful player then stan mikita, who we were told growing up is a legend of the game? Also what does Brodeur have to do in order to be considered a top 5 goalie of all time? A goalie is always going to be a product of his team to some extent, it shouldnt diminish his accomplishments or be used to downplay his obvious talent. Was Shawchuk really easily better then him?

And has anyone ever actually seen Howie Morenz play hockey? If not whats his selection based on? Its a pretty bold statement to say hes the 11th greatest hockey player ever based on reputation.

Im not sure if this is the right place to post this, and im not trying to be ignorant considering most of the older posters are in better position to judge where a player stands all time, but im interested in learning about the history of the game so please enlighten me as to why im wrong.

Hockey has changed so drastically over the years that any top-100 list put together by someone with the benefit of eyeballing every player in history and judging their raw skills against eachother would likely end up with a distribution that include about 80 active players, 15 recently retired ones, Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull, Maurice Richard, Wayne Gretzky, and Gordie Howe.

Since that is not possible to achieve, and is absolutely no fun, the preferred method of grading players is to judge them by their dominance of their peers.

Most people on this board have not seen most players in hockey history. Even the crustiest of us can only go back to the late 50s, which is not even half of hockey's relevant history. Luckily, there are many tools at our disposal to help to assess how dominant a player was compared to their peers:

- Their scoring statistics
- The voting on individual awards and all-star teams
- What was written about them by writers, and said about them by other players and executives

With all that information known, those who have studied and processed it are able to come together and debate the merits of each player ("I think Howie Morenz dominated his era more than Stan Mikita, and here's why...") and then those whose viewpoints are the strongest and most substantiated by evidence will tend to convert others. That's how you end up with a list like this.

I hope that sort of answers your questions.

 

[FissionFire]

Might get a few facepalms, but im interested in hearing some thoughts on this

Im only 20 so im not going to pretend to be an expert on the history of hockey, but it seems to me certain players (say, pre '67 expansion) get built up to such legendary status that it becomes blasphemy to mention them in the same breath with a player from a more recent era.

I know players are judged comparatively to their era and not head to head, but is it inconceivable that maybe jaromir jagr is/was a more impactful player then stan mikita, who we were told growing up is a legend of the game? Also what does Brodeur have to do in order to be considered a top 5 goalie of all time? A goalie is always going to be a product of his team to some extent, it shouldnt diminish his accomplishments or be used to downplay his obvious talent. Was Shawchuk really easily better then him?

And has anyone ever actually seen Howie Morenz play hockey? If not whats his selection based on? Its a pretty bold statement to say hes the 11th greatest hockey player ever based on reputation.

Im not sure if this is the right place to post this, and im not trying to be ignorant considering most of the older posters are in better position to judge where a player stands all time, but im interested in learning about the history of the game so please enlighten me as to why im wrong.

The beauty of this is that everyone has their own set of criteria. The only requirement is that a voter maintain an open mind to differing viewpoints and be able to offer researched and credible points to support their rankings if they come into question. So you may feel that current players are better than some older players. All you need to do is construct an argument as to why you feel, for example, Jagr was a better player than Mikita. If you show that you are willing to put in the time and effort to present your views in a mature manner, than no matter how much your rankings or thoughts differ from others you'll be accepted and respected. Nobody is asking anyone to accept the rankings or views of the group or any single voter as necessarily the "right" one. In fact, if everyone did that the entire purpose of the project would be ruined since diversity is the most important element to sparking debates, conversation, and continued research.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Might get a few facepalms, but im interested in hearing some thoughts on this

Im only 20 so im not going to pretend to be an expert on the history of hockey, but it seems to me certain players (say, pre '67 expansion) get built up to such legendary status that it becomes blasphemy to mention them in the same breath with a player from a more recent era.

I know players are judged comparatively to their era and not head to head, but is it inconceivable that maybe jaromir jagr is/was a more impactful player then stan mikita, who we were told growing up is a legend of the game? Also what does Brodeur have to do in order to be considered a top 5 goalie of all time? A goalie is always going to be a product of his team to some extent, it shouldnt diminish his accomplishments or be used to downplay his obvious talent. Was Shawchuk really easily better then him?

And has anyone ever actually seen Howie Morenz play hockey? If not whats his selection based on? Its a pretty bold statement to say hes the 11th greatest hockey player ever based on reputation.

Im not sure if this is the right place to post this, and im not trying to be ignorant considering most of the older posters are in better position to judge where a player stands all time, but im interested in learning about the history of the game so please enlighten me as to why im wrong.

We substitute newspaper articles and other eyewitness reports for seeing them ourselves. Then there are the usual stats and awards.

As for Howie Morenz, he won a poll taken in 1950 on the "best hockey player of the last 50 years" by a huge margin to go along with several Hart Trophies.

 

[HFpapi]

Yeah, i just wasnt sure if people went into this with an open mind about where more recent players rank, or if certain "legends" of the game were basically already penciled into the top spots, but everything you guys said makes perfect sense.

Thanks guys for the insight to the process!

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yeah, i just wasnt sure if people went into this with an open mind about where more recent players rank, or if certain "legends" of the game were basically already penciled into the top spots, but everything you guys said makes perfect sense.

Thanks guys for the insight to the process!

You can also read through our discussions (linked at the bottom of this post and this post). This explains our arguments for/against each player.

 

[fireworks]

Until Valeri Kharlamov is in the top 5, the list lacks credibility. He is considered the greatest russian player who ever lived so if he's going to be on this list, he has to be top 5. Keep in mind, Canada could not stop this guy during the 1972 super series until bobby clarke "intervened". PS - i'm not russian.

P.S. You may not be RUSSIAN, but you sure are delusional

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

1 thing I never understood about these lists are the guidelines. It seems Hasek and Orr are ranked high based on their peak, which I am ok with. Then I look down the list and see guys like Frank Mahovlich on there instead of Eric Lindros, who in his peak, was one of the 15 most dominant forwards of all time given the era. Frank Mahovlich was nothing special until he joined the Canadiens save for one big season with Toronto.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

1 thing I never understood about these lists are the guidelines. It seems Hasek and Orr are ranked high based on their peak, which I am ok with. Then I look down the list and see guys like Frank Mahovlich on there instead of Eric Lindros, who in his peak, was one of the 15 most dominant forwards of all time given the era. Frank Mahovlich was nothing special until he joined the Canadiens save for one big season with Toronto.[/QUOTE]

Really?

I guess if 2 first team all-star and 6 second team all-star selections, 3 Stanley Cups,
4 times 2nd, one time 3rd and one time 4th in the NHL in goals is nothing special.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

1 thing I never understood about these lists are the guidelines. It seems Hasek and Orr are ranked high based on their peak, which I am ok with. Then I look down the list and see guys like Frank Mahovlich on there instead of Eric Lindros, who in his peak, was one of the 15 most dominant forwards of all time given the era. Frank Mahovlich was nothing special until he joined the Canadiens save for one big season with Toronto.[/QUOTE]

Really?

I guess if 2 first team all-star and 6 second team all-star selections, 3 Stanley Cups,
4 times 2nd, one time 3rd and one time 4th in the NHL in goals is nothing special.

I don't mean nothing special in the sense that you are taking my response. I mean to rank him in the top 40 players of all time. He was never the best player in the league, he was never close to the most dominant. Lindros for a period of 5 years was considered the most dominant forward in the NHL.

Stanley Cups are a little less meaningful when comparing players from different eras. It is easier to win a cup with 6 teams then with 30.

First and second team allstars are great, but LW has historically been the weakest position up front and once again 6 to 18 teams are a little different.

I'm not saying Frank was a poor player but my original point was that this list has no criteria on longevity, peak and consistency.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lindros for a period of 5 years was considered the most dominant forward in the NHL.

I disagree, Jagr always beat him in the end.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I disagree, Jagr always beat him in the end.

There is more to a game then points. Lindros did to defensmen what Stevens or Robinson did to forwards. He was basically changed the way teams scout and build teams.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Hell you don't even have Bucyk or Delvecchio on the list. I guess players had to play on a Canadian team to make this list..

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Hell you don't even have Bucyk or Delvecchio on the list. I guess players had to play on a Canadian team to make this list..

Your two points almost seem to contradict eachother here. You're arguing for more weight on peak value, but list these two players who are clearly more longevity than peak. On the first edition of the list I think Bucyk ranked around 80th and Delvecchio 95th or something close to that, so they'll come up once we resume.

Lindros' peak may be truely great on a per-game basis, but even in his best seasons he missed significant time. Lindros only cracked the top five in scoring once in his career, won one major award, and had two AST selections. He only had one playoff run of any significance. This is not a peak worthy of placing a player in the top-70 of all time on its own (and it's all Lindros has to bolster his case). Actually keeping yourself on the ice is important, and Lindros simply couldn't do this. The lockout-shortened 1995 season is the only full season he managed to play in his prime (46 of 48 games). Even Orr played 95% of the games available to him over his best six-year stretch.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't mean nothing special in the sense that you are taking my response. I mean to rank him in the top 40 players of all time. He was never the best player in the league, he was never close to the most dominant. Lindros for a period of 5 years was considered the most dominant forward in the NHL.

Stanley Cups are a little less meaningful when comparing players from different eras. It is easier to win a cup with 6 teams then with 30.

First and second team allstars are great, but LW has historically been the weakest position up front and once again 6 to 18 teams are a little different.

I'm not saying Frank was a poor player but my original point was that this list has no criteria on longevity, peak and consistency.

Lindros won a single Hart trophy during the lockout shortened year. He never played anythign close to an 82 game season until he was past his prime. He also showed he could be shut down in the playoffs by better teams.

For most of Lindros' career, Jagr was clearly better, and Forsberg and Sakic were in the conversation too.

Mahovlich has much more career value than Lindros and was a fantastic playoff performer.

As for Bucyk and Delvecchio, they are in the Ron Francis category of "good for a very long time, never a gamebreaking talent." They'll probably sneak into the bottom of the Top 100, once this thing is finished (though I'm not sure they should personally).

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Your two points almost seem to contradict eachother here. You're arguing for more weight on peak value, but list these two players who are clearly more longevity than peak. On the first edition of the list I think Bucyk ranked around 80th and Delvecchio 95th or something close to that, so they'll come up once we resume.

Lindros' peak may be truely great on a per-game basis, but even in his best seasons he missed significant time. Lindros only cracked the top five in scoring once in his career, won one major award, and had two AST selections. He only had one playoff run of any significance. This is not a peak worthy of placing a player in the top-70 of all time on its own (and it's all Lindros has to bolster his case). Actually keeping yourself on the ice is important, and Lindros simply couldn't do this. The lockout-shortened 1995 season is the only full season he managed to play in his prime (46 of 48 games). Even Orr played 95% of the games available to him over his best six-year stretch.

No my point is that there doesn't seem to be a criteria.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No my point is that there doesn't seem to be a criteria.

Every voter weighs things a little differently. Some value peak heavily, others not so much. It's a combination of all aspects of a player's career, and this is the result.

Your seemed to suggest that Lindros not appearing on the list is an inconsistency based on the rankings of Orr and Hasek, and I disputed this notion.