Scotty Bowman's Top 100 Canadian Players

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

H-R's point shares try to weigh defense. Unfortunately, their formula was created by people who don't know the difference between being on a powerplay or killing penalties, so they have guys like Steve Duschesne and Phil Housley as elite defensive players...

 

[OrrNumber4]

Huh? Sakic is 31st on Bowman's list.

Completely missed that.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

And yet look at the names on his list.

He's pretty much spent his whole life in Montreal, no?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Ooh, interesting omission from all the lists we've seen so far. Are there any others who might be borderline cases (no pun intended)?

It's because Brett Hull is considered an American player not a Canadian player. Bobby was Canadian but Brett was apparently born and raised in the US.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's because Brett Hull is considered an American player not a Canadian player. Bobby was Canadian but Brett was apparently born and raised in the US.

brett hull was born in ontario, and spent good parts of his childhood in winnipeg and north vancouver. he was eight years old when the family left chicago for winnipeg. canada was where he was mostly trained until he went to university of minnesta-duluth, where he only stayed two years.

he is considered an american player because he holds dual citizenship and couldn't make the canadian WJC team when he was an overweight teenager.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

brett hull was born in ontario, and spent good parts of his childhood in winnipeg and north vancouver. he was eight years old when the family left chicago for winnipeg. canada was where he was mostly trained until he went to university of minnesta-duluth, where he only stayed two years.

he is considered an american player because he holds dual citizenship and couldn't make the canadian WJC team when he was an overweight teenager.

Ah ok. Thanks for the info

 

[whatname]

Sidney Crosby ahead of Ray Bourque?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ah ok. Thanks for the info

no problem. my aunt was neighbours with the hull family (well, with the mom and the kids; bobby was out of the picture). this was after brett had moved from home. but those kids were canadians through and through. younger brother bart hull was considered a native vancouverite and played pro football for the local CFL team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

he is considered an american player because he holds dual citizenship and couldn't make the canadian WJC team when he was an overweight teenager.

Yeah, I'm sure there are differences of opinion on this, but personally I don't consider Hull to be American in a nationalistic sense. Glad he was on our team in a few tournaments, but it's not like he was a homegrown kid or anything. Just a weird case of duality.

 

[MXD]

And yet look at the names on his list.

He's pretty much spent his whole life in Montreal, no?

He did, but describing Montreal as a French-only city is an even worst misnomer than describing LA as a Spanish-only city.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

H-R's point shares try to weigh defense. Unfortunately, their formula was created by people who don't know the difference between being on a powerplay or killing penalties, so they have guys like Steve Duschesne and Phil Housley as elite defensive players...

Oh I agree, it is far from complete. They are trying to fix the flaw in offense only thinking. Nobody seems to understand how much defense should count and how to measure it. Fenwick/Zonestarts/QOC are just starting to crack the surface.

 

[Epsilon]

Perhaps the worst general aspect of these lists, other than mostly ignoring pre-O6 players, is that they display little to no internal consistency.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Let's keep the topic away from language politics in Montreal and Quebec. It doesn't belong here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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).

To answer your question in the strictest sense no Linden is not one of the top 100 Canadian players of all time.

I had already answered that question though as it's pretty obvious that any such list would need to use a metric to compare players.

The reason he is on my list is perhaps complicated and at the same time simple.

Any top 100 best of all time list is going to become an exercise in stat counting and awards, finishes ect...

If Bob Gainey and Guy can be on guys lists Trevor can be on my personal one.

Like I said above, Linden doesn't meet the top 100 criteria in the counting aspect, in any metric.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

To answer your question in the strictest sense no Linden is not one of the top 100 Canadian players of all time.

I had already answered that question though as it's pretty obvious that any such list would need to use a metric to compare players.

The reason he is on my list is perhaps complicated and at the same time simple.

Any top 100 best of all time list is going to become an exercise in stat counting and awards, finishes ect...

If Bob Gainey and Guy can be on guys lists Trevor can be on my personal one.

Like I said above, Linden doesn't meet the top 100 criteria in the counting aspect, in any metric.

So to sum up your post, Linden's on your personal top 100 list of Canadians of all time, but you don't consider him one of the top 100 Canadians of all time?

I feel like Alice. Is the rabbit hole around here?

 

[Hardyvan123]

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?

Even with the list being NHL centric, ie no WHA credit, it's pretty amazing that Bobby Hull's 5 seasons left him in the 30's.

That being said, that list of 60 isn't as bad as the lists in the magazine IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Perhaps the worst general aspect of these lists, other than mostly ignoring pre-O6 players, is that they display little to no internal consistency.

I found this as well, it's hard to peg down with each list if the guy preferred 2 way guys, peak, career, it's literally a dogs breakfast and guys seem to be pulled out of a hat sometimes.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

Worst list ever

Jonathan Toews>Chris Pronger and Paul Coffey

 

[Ben Grimm]

Even with the list being NHL centric, ie no WHA credit, it's pretty amazing that Bobby Hull's 5 seasons left him in the 30's. That being said, that list of 60 isn't as bad as the lists in the magazine IMO.

I'm not sure if you think Hull should be higher or lower. I don't think Hull's (#33) 5 post O6 seasons are more valuable than Chelios' (#32) entire NHL record 24 playoff appearances career.

 

[Pominville Knows]

If Bob Gainey and Guy can be on guys lists Trevor can be on my personal one.

Like I said above, Linden doesn't meet the top 100 criteria in the counting aspect, in any metric.

His inclusion on your list perhaps follows the logic of many of Bowmans choices. Linden was good enough and above all needed enough as a role player on Team Canada both in the 1996 World Cup and then on the 1998 olympic team. Bowman has a lot of those players on his list, not top-100 per se but able to fill other vital needs on a really good Team. A coach sees that.

 

[Hardyvan123]

His inclusion on your list perhaps follows the logic of many of Bowmans choices. Linden was good enough and above all needed enough as a role player on Team Canada both in the 1996 World Cup and then on the 1998 olympic team. Bowman has a lot of those players on his list, not top-100 per se but able to fill other vital needs on a really good Team. A coach sees that.

I thought a little more on this and yes you pretty much hit it on the head. any list of "best" is going to be personal and is extremely open to interpretation.

Basically it comes down to a roster of 100 and Linden being a personal favorite and being skilled enough and versatile enough to play many roles.

His game also didn't go south in the playoffs and at his peak in the early 90's he makes "my team".

I also think alot of people are missing the openness of the term best.

There is no criteria that the guys in the magazine had to adhere to any sticky, heck they could have had a list of all post 67 players if they really wanted to.

Red even went as far to say that he would not include any players that he never saw play, which is his right isn't it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not sure if you think Hull should be higher or lower. I don't think Hull's (#33) 5 post O6 seasons are more valuable than Chelios' (#32) entire NHL record 24 playoff appearances career.

Fair enough, it might be that I'm having a hard time not including his pre 67 game and his WHA days.

I also can't remember if the cutoff included 67 or started in 68.

If it includes 67 we have a guy who lead the league in goal scoring for 3 straight seasons followed by a 4,3,2 placing.

He also is a 1st team all star 5 times and a 2nd team 1.

If it starts in 68 then we knock off one 1st in both categories.

Maybe I was feeling in a peak mood with him, but if his WHA is not included and we are looking at careers then sure his placing might be okay and maybe should be lower.

If we throw in his WHA (and level of play) it might be hard to keep him out of the top 10 IMO.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I'm not sure if you think Hull should be higher or lower. I don't think Hull's (#33) 5 post O6 seasons are more valuable than Chelios' (#32) entire NHL record 24 playoff appearances career.

And if anyone doesn't think his WHA career is of value, look at his performance in the 76 Canada Cup. He clearly showed he was still a scoring threat at 37 years old; outscoring Lafleur, Shutt, Perreault all at least 10-12 years younger than him.

 

[Jarko2004]

What's Bowman's explanation for ranking Maurice Richard over Lemieux and Gretzky? Also, what's his explanation for ranking Gretzky down in 5th?

Well thankfully Bowman actually saw Richard play and doesn't need to simply look at a stat sheet and disregard players from older eras. I don't think it's difficult at all to see Orr, Howe and especially Richard as more fearless and complete players than Gretzky and Lemieux.
Also, the domination of stats (if the that's your criteria) are comparable relative to the other players in their eras. As are the number of seasons playing at a top level (except Orr unfortunately).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well thankfully Bowman actually saw Richard play and doesn't need to simply look at a stat sheet and disregard players from older eras. I don't think it's difficult at all to see Orr, Howe and especially Richard as more fearless and complete players than Gretzky and Lemieux.

Yes, Scottie Bowman saw Maurice Richard play when Scotty he was between the ages of 11 and 27.

When you say "especially Richard," are you saying he's more complete than Howe or Orr? More fearess, sure, Richard was famous for his intensity and fearlessness. More complete than Howe or Orr? Definitely not.

Also, the domination of stats (if the that's your criteria) are comparable relative to the other players in their eras. As are the number of seasons playing at a top level (except Orr unfortunately).

Agreed with all this. And Gretzky dominated statistically far more than Maurice Richard, who never won an Art Ross (but who finished 2nd many times). It's definitely an unusual ranking, to say the least.