Toggle sidebar

Scotty Bowman's Top 100 Canadian Players

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Taco MacArthur said:
Okay, I'm going to spell this out very slowly.

If Linden isn't better than at least half of the 223 Canadian players in the hall of fame, then there are at least 111 Canadian players better than he is.

Therefore, he can't be in the top 100 of the "best Canadian players" list.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...


It's a personal list, just like all the lists posted in the magazine.

I understand the math and how guys get into the hall in chronological order as well.

If one were to construct a HHOF backwards chronologically it would look very different.

But that's neither here or there as I'm betting lots of guys would have a guy like Guy Carbonneau on their personal top 100 list and he isn't getting into the Hall any time soon either unless he buys a ticket.

I don't have the magazine in front of me right now but pretty sure a couple of guys had guy in their top 100.

But I understand your point, any top 100 player list is going to need a list of statistics, accomplishments ect... behind them but there is also room for some what ifs don't you think?

We know that sometimes "the best team" doesn't win the Stanley Cup so maybe it can work with the slits to a degree as well.

Or perhaps not, but you are free to have your own personal list.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Re: Crosby and Doughty.

The history board generally evaluates players by "if he died tomorrow, what would his career look like." Which is one valid way, but it isn't the only one. The biggest reason we do this is because of how foolish the 1998 THN Top 100 list looks in retrospect for their high rating of Eric Lindros, based on what they expected him to do, not what he already did.

But there's no law that that's the only way to evaluate players. Bowman is obviously assuming a normal career progression for Crosby and Doughty when he ranks them where he is, and given their current peaks and with a normal career progression, their spots are fairly reasonable IMO.
Click to expand...

I guess but it's really hard to run any career progression for a guy at 4 years time, which he did for Doughty, 7 is more reasonable but still questionable given Crosby's last 2 years.

It's hard to see what criteria was the driving force behind Scotty s list.
 
Dennis Bonvie said:
As I've stated before, it doesn't look like Bowman is considering career, awards, or stats. Just who was a better hockey player. With Gretzky having zero physical game and being poor defensively I totally understand him being seen as 5th to a great coach.

Why do you think Bowman has such contempt for Coffey?

To me, Crosby & Bourque are very comparable as hockey players.
Click to expand...

Bowman traded Coffey twice in his career. He never seemed to like the guy. All-time there is absolutely no way Crosby is at Bourque's level. At their best I still can't even see Crosby as good as a 1987 or 1990 Bourque.

Jagorim Jarg said:
These guys seem to love Dave Andreychuk.
Click to expand...

Oh man, Andreychuk is starting to make me nervous now. He is falling into the Nieuwendyk syndrome of members of the media bringing his name up time and time again until it doesn't sound weird anymore. There was never, ever, ever, a time in Andreychuk's career that you thought you were looking at a future HHOFer.

Kind of reminds me of Niedermayer - a legitimate HHOFer - but a guy who will get overrated for the rest of his life because he won at every level. That's nice and all and it helps a career, but to those that watched it know that Stevens was the more important defenseman during those Cup wins.
 
Hardyvan123 said:
It's a personal list, just like all the lists posted in the magazine.

I understand the math and how guys get into the hall in chronological order as well.

If one were to construct a HHOF backwards chronologically it would look very different.

But that's neither here or there as I'm betting lots of guys would have a guy like Guy Carbonneau on their personal top 100 list and he isn't getting into the Hall any time soon either unless he buys a ticket.

I don't have the magazine in front of me right now but pretty sure a couple of guys had guy in their top 100.

But I understand your point, any top 100 player list is going to need a list of statistics, accomplishments ect... behind them but there is also room for some what ifs don't you think?

We know that sometimes "the best team" doesn't win the Stanley Cup so maybe it can work with the slits to a degree as well.

Or perhaps not, but you are free to have your own personal list.
Click to expand...

This is all well and good, but it's all a non-sequitur, and you're still evidently not following (whether it's deliberate or not, I'm not sure). It's very elementary arithmetic.

Do you believe that Trevor Linden is one of the 100 greatest Canadian hockey players of all time? Please answer this question (I will have follow-ups).
 
thom said:
The magazine was titled the best 100 canadian players it did not include americans or europeans.As for Bowman we was the first coach in nhl to put 5 russians on ice at same time.Don Cherry would go on tv and attack Bowman for that.Bowman took a lot of heat in english canada.Half of the Redwngs were europeans when bowman was coach.When he was Gm of Sabres he drafted too many europeans some who became busts.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with anything?
 
Harvey, Beliveau and Richard ahead of Hull is certainly defensible, especially as far as Harvey is concerned.

Any list with PATRICK MARLEAU on is kinda funny, though.
 
Dennis Bonvie said:
Are you sure this isn't Lucien Bouchard's list?
Click to expand...

The funny thing with this comment is that I've never heard Red Fisher speak a word of French, and I bet there haven't been lots of people who heard such a thing either.
 
MXD said:
Harvey, Beliveau and Richard ahead of Hull is certainly defensible, especially as far as Harvey is concerned.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't see anything wrong with having some or all of those players ahead of Hull (of course, I wouldn't see anything wrong with having Hull ranked first among them either). Richard and Beliveau ahead of Gordie Howe, on the other hand...

Any list with PATRICK MARLEAU on is kinda funny, though.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that between these lists, there are so many ridiculous, not-even-close-to-HOF players that I've stopped trying to locate them all.

What's not funny is that many of them get ranked ahead of Eddie Shore.
 
Canadiens1958 said:
Posters tend to blend good/better/worse with HHOF worthy.

Two distinct concepts and criteria.
Click to expand...

Completely unrelated to my point, so I'll try presenting it in an entirely different way.

  • Take the list of Canadian hall of fame players (I've been told that there are 223 of them).
  • Rank them any way that you'd like.
  • Put Trevor Linden on the list, anywhere that you'd like.
  • If you think that any other non-HHOF Canadians are better than Linden, then add them to the list (ahead of Linden).
  • At this point, if Linden is in the top 100 of your list, then BY DEFINITION more than half of the existing Canadian HHOF members will be below him on the list.
Do you follow?
 
Point

Taco MacArthur said:
Completely unrelated to my point, so I'll try presenting it in an entirely different way.

  • Take the list of Canadian hall of fame players (I've been told that there are 223 of them).
  • Rank them any way that you'd like.
  • Put Trevor Linden on the list, anywhere that you'd like.
  • If you think that any other non-HHOF Canadians are better than Linden, then add them to the list (ahead of Linden).
  • At this point, if Linden is in the top 100 of your list, then BY DEFINITION more than half of the existing Canadian HHOF members will be below him on the list.
Do you follow?
Click to expand...

The issue was not with your point, evidenced by the plural use of posters. Nor was the issue about grade school arithmetic.

The HHOF does not have a hierarchy of honoured members. All are viewed as equal in stature. All have made HHOF worthy contributions.

The good/better/worse factor is not a part of the criteria for HHOF induction criteria.

A retired player up for consideration is not ranked by the HHOF committee in relation to existing honoured members. His HHOF worthiness is a stand alone consideration.

As such the HHOF list of members or the subset of Canadian players has no connection to any top 100 or other lists generated based on a good/better/worse consideration. To pretend otherwise is to give any such lists more credit and legitimacy then they deserve.


The various Top 100 lists in this thread SHOULD NOT BE contrasted to the HHOF.

This is the only point I wish to express.
 
Canadiens1958 said:
The issue was not with your point, evidenced by the plural use of posters. Nor was the issue about grade school arithmetic.

The HHOF does not have a hierarchy of honoured members. All are viewed as equal in stature. All have made HHOF worthy contributions.

The good/better/worse factor is not a part of the criteria for HHOF induction criteria.

A retired player up for consideration is not ranked by the HHOF committee in relation to existing honoured members. His HHOF worthiness is a stand alone consideration.

As such the HHOF list of members or the subset of Canadian players has no connection to any top 100 or other lists generated based on a good/better/worse consideration. To pretend otherwise is to give any such lists more credit and legitimacy then they deserve.


The various Top 100 lists in this thread SHOULD NOT BE contrasted to the HHOF.

This is the only point I wish to express.
Click to expand...

I'd say the bolded part is a fairly presumptuous statement on your part. Have you personally talked with the HOF voters and been told that they do not take the relative standing of a player among HOFers and non-HOFers into consideration?
 
This is the voting committee. ... Brian Burke, Jim Rutherford, Jacques Demers, Harry Neale, Kévin-Paul Dupont (Boston Globe), Al Strachan, Mike Brophy, Ken Campbell, Adam Proteau and Jason Kay of the Hockey News.

60: Sergei Fedorov, Détroit, Anaheim et Columbus
59: Borje Salming, Toronto et Détroit
58: Darryl Sittler, Toronto, Philadelphie et Détroit
57: Sidney Crosby. Pittsburgh
56: Denis Savard, Montréal, Chicago et Tampa Bay
55: Glenn Anderson, Edmonton, Toronto, Rangers et St-Louis
54: Yvan Cournoyer, Montréal
53: Ed Belfour, Chicago, San Jose, Dallas, Toronto et Floride
52: Stan Mikita, Chicago
51: Luc Robitaille, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Détroit et Rangers
50: Rob Blake, Los Angeles et Colorado
49: Brendan Shanahan, Détroit, New Jersey, St-Louis,Hartford et Rangers
48: Pat Lafontaine, Buffalo, Rangers et Islanders
47: Dale Hawerchuk: Winnipeg, Buffalo, Saint-Louis et Philadelphie
46: Chris Pronger, Hartford, St-Louis, Edmonton et Anaheim
45: Tony Esposito, Montréal et Chicago
44 : Pavel Bure, Vancouver, Floride et Rangers
43 : Frank Mahovlich, Toronto, Détroit et Montréal
42: Cam Neely, Vancouver et Boston
41: Bob Gainey, Montréal
40: Joe Nieuwendyk, Calgary, Dallas, New Jersey, Toronto et Floride
39: Brian Leetch, Rangers, Toronto et Boston
38: Scott Niedermayer, New Jersey et Anaheim
37: Grant Fuhr, Edmonton, Toronto, Buffalo, Los Angeles, St-Louis et Calgary
36: Brad Park, Rangers, Boston et Détroit
35 : Billy Smith, Los Angeles et Islanders
34: Serge Savard, Montréal et Winnipeg
33: Bobby Hull, Chicago, Winnipeg et Hartford
32: Chris Chelios, Montréal, Chicago et Détroit
31 : Al MacInnis, Calgary et St-Louis
30 : Peter Stastny, Québec, New Jersey et St-Louis
29 : Ken Dryden, Montréal
28 : Bernie Parent, Boston, Philadelphie et Toronto
27 : Gilbert Perreault, Buffalo
26 : Scott Stevens, Washington, St-Louis et New Jersey
25: Ron Francis, Hartford, Pittsburgh, Caroline et Toronto
24: Peter Forsberg, Québec/Colorado, Philadelphie et Nashville
23: Marcel Dionne, Détroit, Los Angeles et Rangers
22 : Brett Hull, Calgary, St-Louis, Dallas, Détroit et Phoenix
21 : Jari Kurri, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Rangers, Anaheim et Colorado
20 : Joe Sakic, Québec/Colorado
19 : Bryan Trottier, Islanders et Pittsburgh
18 : Larry Robinson, Montréal et Los Angeles
17 : Dominik Hasek, Chicago, Buffalo, Détroit et Ottawa
16 : Paul Coffey, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Détroit, Hartford, Philadelphie, Chicago, Caroline et Boston
15 : Bobby Clarke, Philadelphie
14: Denis Potvin, Islanders
13: Guy Lafleur, Montréal, Rangers et Québec
12 : Jaromir Jagr, Pittsburgh, Washington et Rangers
11 : Mike Bossy, Islanders
10: Phil Esposito, Chicago, Boston et Rangers
9: Niklas Lidstrom, Détroit
8: Raymond Bourque, Boston et Colorado
7 : Martin Brodeur, New Jersey
6 : Steve Yzerman, Détroit
5: Patrick Roy, Montréal et Colorado
4: Mark Messier, Edmonton, Rangers et Vancouver
3 : Mario Lemieux , Pittsburgh
2 : Bobby Orr, Boston et Chicago
1: Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton, Los Angeles, St-Louis et Rangers
Click to expand...
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2955 Remember when The Hockey News published their "Top 60 Since 67" book? Selanne and other international players did not make the list. I know the copy of the list is accurate, because I own the book. What do you guys think of the list?
 
God Made Me said:
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2955 Remember when The Hockey News published their "Top 60 Since 67" book? Selanne and other international players did not make the list. I know the copy of the list is accurate, because I own the book. What do you guys think of the list?
Click to expand...

This shows why you can never have a group voting on the all time greats - too much bias, too much misinformation, too much lack of research, too much different criteria.
 
Bowman put Marleau probably since he coached against him.

Strange to see Yzerman but not Sakic.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Is the point of this to show a list worse than any of the ones posted here?
Click to expand...
Just a list where defense is weighed a little better. When forming these lists defense is almost ignored completely unless they were generational defensive talents. People are blind to possession in the current day so how is one to even remotely remember how good a player was in 70's or what type of minutes he played.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom