THN's Top 100 Players Of All-Time By Position (2010)

[John Flyers Fan]

Gainey over Barber.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay, so this is a question I've been pondering for a long time: Why is Johnny Bower thought of so lowly by THN? I mean, considering the 1998 list's love for Original 6 players and Cup counting, you'd think they'd love Johnny Bower. But he barely made the original list (and was under Lorne Chabot) and now gets pushed off. What gives?

Is THN underrating Johnny Bower by a lot or is the HOH board here overrating him by a lot?

By the way, I love that THN is giving Eddie Belfour the recognition he deserves. It seems that we here tend to forget just how good he was in a historical context, since he was overshadowed by Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur.

 

[Epsilon]

Okay, so this is a question I've been pondering for a long time: Why is Johnny Bower thought of so lowly by THN? I mean, considering the 1998 list's love for Original 6 players and Cup counting, you'd think they'd love Johnny Bower. But he barely made the original list (and was under Lorne Chabot) and now gets pushed off. What gives?

Is THN underrating Johnny Bower by a lot or is the HOH board here overrating him by a lot?

By the way, I love that THN is giving Eddie Belfour the recognition he deserves. It seems that we here tend to forget just how good he was in a historical context, since he was overshadowed by Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur.

Agreed. I think 1990-2005 is arguably the strongest period in NHL history for goaltending talent, with 3 consensus top 7ish goaltenders of all-time (I have them at 1, 3, and 4 personally), a surefire HOFer in Belfour, and a bunch of guys who, while possibly/probably not HOFers, at least generate discussion (Barrasso, Vernon, Richter, Osgood, etc.).

 

[arrbez]

Agreed. I think 1990-2005 is arguably the strongest period in NHL history for goaltending talent, with 3 consensus top 7ish goaltenders of all-time (I have them at 1, 3, and 4 personally), a surefire HOFer in Belfour, and a bunch of guys who, while possibly/probably not HOFers, at least generate discussion (Barrasso, Vernon, Richter, Osgood, etc.).

Cujo as well. Yeah, it was definitely a time where a lot of goalies seemed to have staying power as starters.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Top 20 RWs in my opinion, excluding guys who never played in North American (since you know THN will exclude them):

1. Gordie Howe
2. Maurice Richard
3. Guy Lafleur
4. Jaromir Jagr
5. Mike Bossy
6. Bernard Geoffrion
7. Bill Cook
8. Charlie Conacher
9. Jari Kurri
10. Andy Bathgate
11. Brett Hull
12. Jarome Iginla
13. Teemu Selanne
14. Mickey MacKay
15. Pavel Bure
16. Yvon Cournoyer
17. Bryan Hextall, Sr.
18. Cam Neely
19. Babe Dye
20. Punch Broadbent? Didre Pitre? Gordie Drillon? Cecil Dillon? Dit Clapper? Lanny McDonald? (gasp) Daniel Alfredsson?

Honestly, there is absolutely no way Mogilny deserves to be even close to the top 20 RWs of all time, even if you completely ignore guys who starred in Europe like Makarov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Martinec, and Nedomansky.

I'd take Daniel Alfredsson over Mogilny for sure.

Mackay didn't play enough RW for him to be in that list, but if you were to rank him as far as RW's, I loved where you put him and would say it's fairly accurate. Good list.

-------------------------------


The THN list makes me want to puke repeatedly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Looking at the new list, I can't believe just how lazy they were.

They needed to add some LWs to fill out the bottom of the list, so they just stuck two active LWs there (Kovalchuk and Zetterberg) without bothering to do any research.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Looking at the new list, I can't believe just how lazy they were.

They needed to add some LWs to fill out the bottom of the list, so they just stuck two active LWs there (Kovalchuk and Zetterberg) without bothering to do any research.

Pretty much. But hey, whatever sells I guess was at least some of the logic.

I wish we could get the guys who made this list to participate in an ATD here.

 

[seventieslord]

Pretty much. But hey, whatever sells I guess was at least some of the logic.

I wish we could get the guys who made this list to participate in an ATD here.

it's funny that you say that. I was thinking the exact same thing. How do I issue a challenge?

 

[BM67]

Okay, so this is a question I've been pondering for a long time: Why is Johnny Bower thought of so lowly by THN? I mean, considering the 1998 list's love for Original 6 players and Cup counting, you'd think they'd love Johnny Bower. But he barely made the original list (and was under Lorne Chabot) and now gets pushed off. What gives?

Is THN underrating Johnny Bower by a lot or is the HOH board here overrating him by a lot?

By the way, I love that THN is giving Eddie Belfour the recognition he deserves. It seems that we here tend to forget just how good he was in a historical context, since he was overshadowed by Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur.

I think his long stay in the minors is what hurts him in their eyes, and it shouldn't. Remember that the Rangers had to trade to get him from an independent Cleveland Baron team. The AHL of the 40s-50s was much more like the expansion Western Division, than the current AHL. His 3 AHL MVP awards are probably just a step down from Hasek's Czech league MVPs.

 

[seventieslord]

I think his long stay in the minors is what hurts him in their eyes, and it shouldn't. Remember that the Rangers had to trade to get him from an independent Cleveland Baron team. The AHL of the 40s-50s was much more like the expansion Western Division, than the current AHL. His 3 AHL MVP awards are probably just a step down from Hasek's Czech league MVPs.

the fact that he was not only the AHL's top goalie, but its MVP, three times, tells me that he was the 3rd-6th-best goalie in the world, and just trapped down in the minors.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for looking into that GBC.

I suspected THN would try to be consistent with the 1998 list, but I'm amazed that they made virtually no changes. Aside from a couple of very minor shifts (switching Cook/Kurri and adding Goulet) it seems like they took the 1998 list as gospel. Mind you, that's not necessary a bad thing - it was put together by an extremely knowledgeable panel. Perhaps the current THN panel decided that they lacked the knowledge of the previous panel and would merely update the Top 100 list, rather than start from scratch.

I'm still confused why Kovalchuk and Zetterberg are on their LW list. Obviously they ran out of LW from the 1998 list, as there were only 12 in the top hundred. Did they not do any research about pre-expansion LWs? Or did they include a couple more modern players to keep current readers happy?

 

[nik jr]

Looking at the new list, I can't believe just how lazy they were.

They needed to add some LWs to fill out the bottom of the list, so they just stuck two active LWs there (Kovalchuk and Zetterberg) without bothering to do any research.

zetterberg is not a LW. he is a natural C and has played C since the lockout.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Is THN underrating Johnny Bower by a lot or is the HOH board here overrating him by a lot?

Most people on the HOH board know that Bower's save percentage (as published in "The Hockey Compendium" in 2001) was superb. He led the league four times (I think) and had the best save percentage of the Original Six era. Clearly, save percentage is imperfect but I think it still provides valuable information. Most people on the HOH board agree that position.

THN couldn't have been aware of his save percentage when they made the 1998 list (as these stats weren't published until 3 years later). As GBC demonstrated, it looks like THN basically took the 1998 list and updated it for players who have been active in the past 12 years - thus they probably took Bower's original low ranking as gospel and didn't think about revisiting his ranking.

====

For the record, I'm not talking about save percentage for the sake of looking at it as an isolated statistic. Currently, Bower only has one all-star selection to his name. This is speculation, but perhaps he would have had another two or three all-star spots had the media known how effectively he stopped the puck.

 

[kaiser matias]

I'll point out for those that haven't seen the magazine yet, but they directly state that they used the ranking from 1998 and simply slotted in players who produced after 1998. They pretty much just said that it is an updated list from 1998, as they refused to change the position of any retired players, and treated the original list as gospel.

When I read that, I cringed. It doesn't look so good going into it, but we shall see.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll point out for those that haven't seen the magazine yet, but they directly state that they used the ranking from 1998 and simply slotted in players who produced after 1998. They pretty much just said that it is an updated list from 1998, as they refused to change the position of any retired players, and treated the original list as gospel.

When I read that, I cringed. It doesn't look so good going into it, but we shall see.

They do indeed state that. They even have a small section on how LW is a weak position, yet they tout this as a revamped top-100 sorted by position... which it is clearly not, since the bottom 8 or so LWs and RWs and bottom 4 goalies should be replaced by about 8 goalies and 12 centers if this is truly about the top-100 players.

They can't seriously believe they have a top-100 list here.

 

[Czech Your Math]

My biggest objections would have more to do with players who were already on the list:

Messier 4th and Trottier 13th... someone has to explain that one to me

Why at Mogilny or gasp at possibility of Alfredsson... when there's Gartner at 15th

 

[canucks4ever]

My biggest objections would have more to do with players who were already on the list:

Messier 4th and Trottier 13th... someone has to explain that one to me

Why at Mogilny or gasp at possibility of Alfredsson... when there's Gartner at 15th

Yeah i agree, messier has no case to be ranked above stan mikita and howie morenz, they blow him out of the water.

 

[Loto68]

For the record, who does it have as the top 20 defensemen?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I expect everything to be slanted significantly in favor of modern players. Guys like Stevie Y, Sakic, Messier, Forsberg, Crosby, Ovechkin, Robitaille, etc. will be ranked higher than they deserve to be.

Was I right, or was I right? Every one of those guys (except maybe Sakic) is higher than he should be.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm almost through this issue and I've definitely found a lot that I disagree with. But I LOL'd at this part; it stuck out for me right away. See if you can catch it too!

From the time Smythe declared Richard to be "just a wartime player", after Richard scored 50 goals in 50 games in 1944-45, the notion has persisted the Rocket prospered only because the best players were in Europe fighting the second world war.

But let's deal in the facts. First of all, Richard tried to enlist twice and was turned down. Secondly, it's true that he scored his 50-in-50 during the war, but he led the league in goals four more times after the war and the reality is he was more productive after the war than before. With 87 goals and 138 points in 112 games, Richard averaged 1.23 points per game his first three years. With 457 goals and 1147 points in 866 games after 1944-45, Richard averaged 1.32 points per game."

As Habs coach Dick Irvin would say years later, "The war must still be going on because Richard is still scoring."

Think I can get on their staff as a fact checker?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm almost through this issue and I've definitely found a lot that I disagree with. But I LOL'd at this part; it stuck out for me right away. See if you can catch it too!



Think I can get on their staff as a fact checker?

What the hell? It looks like his goal total is probably right at least...

 

[seventieslord]

What the hell? It looks like his goal total is probably right at least...

It didn't pass the smell test right away for me because I knor Richard didn't reach 1000 points, let alone over 1100 with the first three years of his career removed.

They had the first part right about the war years, then the remaining goals were correct too, but for remaining points, they subtracted the war years points from his career PIMs. Eep!

How'd this slip by?

It actually bugs me because probably only one in ten people will catch this, and it will further lead to the canonizing of Richard as the #5 player of all-time, something I strongly disagree with, and the overlooking of his war year domination is a big reason why I feel he's overrated, and this segment appears on the surface to completely refute that idea, except it doesn't at all.

Richard actually had 827 points in his remaining years after the worst war-weakened seasons, for a PPG average of 0.95. (and, if you ignore his first partial season as a youngster with 11 points in 16 games, his wartime PPG average was actually 1.32 - whichever way you look at it, he definitely scored more during the war.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It didn't pass the smell test right away for me because I knor Richard didn't reach 1000 points, let alone over 1100 with the first three years of his career removed.

Me too. I also knew that he had more career goals than assists.

They had the first part right about the war years, then the remaining goals were correct too, but for remaining points, they subtracted the war years points from his career PIMs. Eep!

Ugh. That's what happened? I tried for about a minute to figure out where the number came from then gave up.

It actually bugs me because probably only one in ten people will catch this, and it will further lead to the canonizing of Richard as the #5 player of all-time, something I strongly disagree with, and the overlooking of his war year domination is a big reason why I feel he's overrated, and this segment appears on the surface to completely refute that idea, except it doesn't at all.

Richard actually had 827 points in his remaining years after the worst war-weakened seasons, for a PPG average of 0.95. (and, if you ignore his first partial season as a youngster with 11 points in 16 games, his wartime PPG average was actually 1.32.)

I agree. I mean, Richard obviously proved he wasn't a product of the war (and then some), but his 50 in 50 season is probably the most overrated season by a player of all time.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I'm almost through this issue and I've definitely found a lot that I disagree with. But I LOL'd at this part; it stuck out for me right away. See if you can catch it too!



Think I can get on their staff as a fact checker?

You should be able to get on their staff as head writer if all was right in the world. The ATD community could produce a list better than this, as well as better background stuff, from what I've seen.

But at any rate, a picture for whoever wrote/edited/checked that:

 

[God Bless Canada]

Most people on the HOH board know that Bower's save percentage (as published in "The Hockey Compendium" in 2001) was superb. He led the league four times (I think) and had the best save percentage of the Original Six era. Clearly, save percentage is imperfect but I think it still provides valuable information. Most people on the HOH board agree that position.

THN couldn't have been aware of his save percentage when they made the 1998 list (as these stats weren't published until 3 years later). As GBC demonstrated, it looks like THN basically took the 1998 list and updated it for players who have been active in the past 12 years - thus they probably took Bower's original low ranking as gospel and didn't think about revisiting his ranking.

====

For the record, I'm not talking about save percentage for the sake of looking at it as an isolated statistic. Currently, Bower only has one all-star selection to his name. This is speculation, but perhaps he would have had another two or three all-star spots had the media known how effectively he stopped the puck.

Johnny Bower's placement was one of the few that I had a legit beef with in the 1998 list. They had him 80-something overall, and 19th among goalies. I believe he's somewhere between 10-12 on my list. Granted, you all know that I place a premium on winning, and on Cups, especially among goalies. That's not to say that winning is the be-all and end-all in evaluations, because it isn't. But last I checked you played to win the game, and you play the regular season games to qualify for the post-season.

The people who assembled the 1998 list probably all watched Bower play. And they could tell you more about him than GAA and save percentage, and even Stanley Cup titles, ever could. But I have a hard time rating him behind Lorne Chabot (who isn't in the HHOF), or Tony Esposito (who never backstopped a team to the Cup), or some of the other goalies who finished ahead of Bower.

I'd have him high regardless of the save percentage, and I don't think the save percentage findings would alter the perceptions of the 1998 panel. Bower backstopped a dynasty, and there's something to be said for being the goalie on the team that many view as the greatest defensive team of all-time.

When you talk about the goalies who backstopped a dynasty, you're talking Broda, Sawchuk, Plante, Bower, Worsley, Dryden, Smith and Fuhr. Worsley's the only one not in my top 20, and even then, he's just outside of that list.

Critics might point to the lack of all-star selections, but keep in mind the competition factor. He was the only goalie selected to an all-star team between 56 and 63 whose name wasn't Hall, Sawchuk or Plante.

When you really think about it, Bower's career is one of the most remarkable in NHL history. He's one of those guys who was victimized by the realities of the Original 6 - teams carried only one goalie. There were, essentially, six goalie jobs available in the Show. Outside of a 70-game season in 1953-54, he didn't play regularly in the NHL until a couple months before his 35th birthday. Sometimes all that a player needs is an opportunity, and once he got that opportunity, he went on to backstop a dynasty, and get into the HHOF.