Top 10 Best NHL Players of All Time

[jigglysquishy]

Roy, Plante… Vezina?

Ya I have Vezina ahead of Dryden. Just by one spot though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Also, Carey Price.

 

[Namba 17]

But if you go by actual WINS, he falls below all of them. "7 top-5 goalscoring finishes" is nice but Espo and Ovy have 6 and 9 goalscoring WINS. 8 top-5 point finishes is nice but Jagr had 5 points WINS.

There was a word "overall" in my post.
So, if you go by WINS all players you listed falls below of him.
Yes, Jagr has 5 points WINS and Beliveau only 2. But Beliveau has 2 goalscoring WINS and Jagr has none.
Yes, Ovi has 9 goalscoring WINS and Beliveau only 2. But Beliveau' point finishes are 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9 and Ovi's are 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8
And neither Ovi nor Jagr can come close in term of defence. Beliveau provided top defence while providing top offence. And both in RS and in PO.
Youd have hard time trying to find another 5 players with similar package.

 

[57special]

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time The following is the final list of the top hockey players of all-time as determined by 32 voting members of the History of Hockey community. Report any errors to @quoipourquoi RankPlayerPositionBornNationBirth City 1Wayne GretzkyC1961CanadaBrantford...

forums.hfboards.com

This forum did an in depth player ranking of players 5 years ago.

For me,

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Bobby Orr
4. Mario Lemieux

5. Jean Beliveau
6. Doug Harvey
7. Sidney Crosby
8. Bobby Hull
9. Connor McDavid
10. Ray Bourque

Bourque is an interesting one. Some would put him in the same tier as Robinson, and Potvin, and below Lidstrom. The lack of Cups compared to others hurt his case, but his overall consistent excellence really stands out if you look at him closely. If you were putting a top lineup of all time on the ice, you could do worse than Orr and Bourque as your starting pair.
For me, after a while it's like choosing your fav food, or hair color on a woman. It really depends on my mood at the time.

 

[authentic]

Bourque is an interesting one. Some would put him in the same tier as Robinson, and Potvin, and below Lidstrom. The lack of Cups compared to others hurt his case, but his overall consistent excellence really stands out if you look at him closely. If you were putting a top lineup of all time on the ice, you could do worse than Orr and Bourque as your starting pair.
For me, after a while it's like choosing your fav food, or hair color on a woman. It really depends on my mood at the time.

I would never personally consider Lidstrom for a top 10 list, especially if we’re discussing peak/prime and not overall careers, there are several defenseman alone I’d take before him and atleast 20-25 forwards and a few goalies.

 

[Sentinel]

There was a word "overall" in my post.
So, if you go by WINS all players you listed falls below of him.
Yes, Jagr has 5 points WINS and Beliveau only 2. But Beliveau has 2 goalscoring WINS and Jagr has none.
Yes, Ovi has 9 goalscoring WINS and Beliveau only 2. But Beliveau' point finishes are 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9 and Ovi's are 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8
And neither Ovi nor Jagr can come close in term of defence. Beliveau provided top defence while providing top offence. And both in RS and in PO.
Youd have hard time trying to find another 5 players with similar package.

None of them were a match for Beliveau defensively, I acknowledge that.

Now remember the quality of teammates. It's much easier to be a higher point finisher (but not the WINNER) in a smaller league, while playing on a dynasty. And then there are Harts.

 

[Sentinel]

I would never personally consider Lidstrom for a top 10 list, especially if we’re discussing peak/prime and not overall careers, there are several defenseman alone I’d take before him and atleast 20-25 forwards and a few goalies.

The only defensemen I'd take ahead of him are Orr and Shore. The number of forwards that were the best in the world in their position more than Lidstrom was at his (8x) can be counted on one hand.

That said, I don't believe he belongs in the Top10 for that very reason: not enough Harts. I apply the same criteria to Beliveau: he was elite for very long but much less frequently the best player in his position.

 

[Sentinel]

Competition for Norris between Bourque's prime and Lidstrom's prime is night and day though. This is one of the most obvious cases in history where trophy counting alone is misleading.

Go ahead and rank the top 5 Bourque seasons vs the top 5 Lidstrom seasons. Or top 10 vs top 10. Or top 15 vs top 15. Or top 3 vs top 3. Actually look at the individual season itself, and decide if Bourque's very best is better than Lidstrom's best, same for #2 season, etc. Don't just count Norris finishes.

I suspect Bourque comes out ahead in almost all of those comparisons.

Also - Bourque was definitely better than Lidstrom offensively. I think it's closer on defense than offense, so not sure that's a big differentiator for Lidstrom.

I definitely have Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. I'd love to see a more in-depth analysis of their seasons though. Top 5, 10 or 15 seasons head to head, to see who ends up ahead more often. I expect it's Bourque by a lot, but I'm open to considering Lidstrom.

Actually, you can argue that Lidstrom was robbed of at least a couple of more Norrises. Remember, he didn't just win 8 Norrises, he also came second three times because voters could not wrap their heads around the fact that a defenseman doesn't have to be a hitting machine.

I don't see how beating Niedermeyer, MacInnis, and Chelios is worse than losing to the same MacInnis, Chelios, and Leetch.

Keep in mind, with prime Fetisov in NHL, Bourque likely loses another couple of Norrises, and then you'd be really hard-pressed to put him over Lidstrom.

Don’t think I’ve seen anyone take Brett Hull over Bobby before.

Peak-wise, it's Brett over Bobby easily.

 

[Golden_Jet]

.

Peak-wise, it's Brett over Bobby easily.

Bobby led the NHL in points from his rookie year until he left for the WHA by 93 points.
Led the league in goals by 140 in that time.

Brett was never the best against his peers,
If peak is more goals 86 with more games compared to 70 games, in a higher scoring era, it was a great year.
Brett was never the best against his peers.

95+% are taking Bobby over Brett, even higher for those that so both play.

Bobby led league in goals 7 times
Brett 3x

 

[authentic]

.

Bobby led the NHL in points from his rookie year until he left for the WHA by 93 points.
Led the league in goals by 140 in that time.

Brett was never the best against his peers,
If peak is more goals 86 with more games compared to 70 games, in a higher scoring era, it was a great year.
Brett was never the best against his peers.

95+% are taking Bobby over Brett, even higher for those that so both play.

Bobby led league in goals 7 times
Brett 3x

Goal scoring only Brett Hull was arguably as good though, 86 goals when the runner up had 51, it’s the most dominant goal scoring season of all-time.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Bobby Hull peaked several tiers higher than Brett Hull.

Goal scoring wise, sure, it's close. But Brett Hull never even approached his father's full game domination.

Brett just could never pass like Bobby could. His Hart winning season he finished 42nd in assists. For total points, he finished 1.19x 5th.

Bobby's peak season 1965-66, he finished 5th in assists. For total points, he finished 1.29x 5th.

 

[MadLuke]

Peak-wise, it's Brett over Bobby easily.

Never encountered that one before, not sure if it was easily peak Brett over old way past his prime 1974-1976 Bobby.... that could still lead team Canada forward in goals in international tournament....

 

[Michael Farkas]

Peak-wise, it's Brett over Bobby easily.

Absolutely not. Even in your binary world, I can't figure out how this makes sense.

 

[rmartin65]

It's pretty simple; 86>77. Brett clearly peaked higher, it's a bigger number.

 

[The Panther]

Oh great, now we're onto the "one season is all you need" scale of evidence...

Coming next: Bernie Nicholls over Guy Lafleur...

 

[Sentinel]

.

Bobby led the NHL in points from his rookie year until he left for the WHA by 93 points.
Led the league in goals by 140 in that time.

Brett was never the best against his peers,
If peak is more goals 86 with more games compared to 70 games, in a higher scoring era, it was a great year.
Brett was never the best against his peers.

95+% are taking Bobby over Brett, even higher for those that so both play.

Bobby led league in goals 7 times
Brett 3x

I said "peak-wise." Peak only. Brett's peak came against prime Gretzky and Lemieux and he beat them both. I'd say he did just fine against his peers.

Prime is irrelevant.

Never encountered that one before, not sure if it was easily peak Brett over old way past his prime 1974-1976 Bobby.... that could still lead team Canada forward in goals in international tournament....

What does 1974-76 Bobby have to do with anything?

 

[MadLuke]

What does 1974-76 Bobby have to do with anything?

If I am not sure if peak Brett was better than old Bobby, that would answer the question if he was clearly better than peak Bobby.

I said "peak-wise." Peak only. Brett's peak came against prime Gretzky and Lemieux and he beat them both. I'd say he did just fine against his peers.

What does beat mean here ? He won zero cup during his peak, the year he won the Hart Lemieux barely played during the regular season and won the actual cup, Gretzky scored 32 more points than him during the regular season.

 

[authentic]

Bobby Hull peaked several tiers higher than Brett Hull.

Goal scoring wise, sure, it's close. But Brett Hull never even approached his father's full game domination.

Brett just could never pass like Bobby could. His Hart winning season he finished 42nd in assists. For total points, he finished 1.19x 5th.

Bobby's peak season 1965-66, he finished 5th in assists. For total points, he finished 1.29x 5th.

Oh no question, they are not close as overall players. Bobby Hull was Crosby and Ovechkin level.

 

[Namba 17]

It's much easier to be a higher point finisher (but not the WINNER) in a smaller league

Why is it "much easier"? In smaller league teams rosters are much deeper. You constantly play vs good players and your TOI coud be limited because you are always substitutable because you play for deeper roster. There are much lesser games where you could just pad your stats.

Now remember the quality of teammates.

See above. Also, compare his stats to stats of his teammates - he beats any of them easily in any category.

while playing on a dynasty.

If you are 1C for dynasty team for like 15 years and you have the best stats and the most awards - its an argument pro, not contra.
And noone counted cups here.

And then there are Harts.

Find players with better Hart records and add some Selke finishes which he would definately have if it existed in his time and see what youll have.

 

[daver]

Why is it "much easier"? In smaller league teams rosters are much deeper. You constantly play vs good players and your TOI coud be limited because you are always substitutable because you play for deeper roster. There are much lesser games where you could just pad your stats.

Statistically, there is no debate that the elite offensive talent from the 06 accumulated more Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes than their current contemporaries. I.e. from '46 to '66, there were more players with multiple Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes on their resume than players from '00 to '20.

I looked at the average % gap between the 3rd, 5th and 10th scorers and the 1st/2nd place scorers for those 20 year periods. Generally speaking, a Top 3 finish in the 06 is the equivalent to a Top 5 in today's league and a Top 5 finish in the 06 is the equivalent to a Top 10 in the current league.

If one assumes that the quantity of league talent has generally increased with the expansion of the league, then it is a statistical reality that finishing in the Top XX in a league that has more teams is generally more impressive.

Crosby's resume of Top Ten point and PPG finishes are similar to Hull and Beliveau but when you look at the % behind the top scorer, he has a clear advantage over them. His Top Ten PPG finishes are closer to Howe's than they are to Hull/Beliveau. I.e. Crosby separated himself from his era peers at a greater degree than Beliveau and Hull.

I view this as giving Crosby an edge over those two when comparing their very similar offensive resumes but not as way to move him clearly above.

IMO, automatically discounting/ promoting a player's numbers because they played in an "easier"/"harder" is not reasonable.

At the end of the day, we have zero idea how a player would perform in another era but we can put reasonable context when comparing players' relative peer dominance.

 

[Namba 17]

Statistically, there is no debate that the elite offensive talent from the 06 accumulated more Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes than their current contemporaries. I.e. from '46 to '66, there were more players with multiple Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes on their resume than players from '00 to '20.

I looked at the average % gap between the 3rd, 5th and 10th scorers and the 1st/2nd place scorers for those 20 year periods. Generally speaking, a Top 3 finish in the 06 is the equivalent to a Top 5 in today's league and a Top 5 finish in the 06 is the equivalent to a Top 10 in the current league.

If one assumes that the quantity of league talent has generally increased with the expansion of the league, then it is a statistical reality that finishing in the Top XX in a league that has more teams is generally more impressive.

Crosby's resume of Top Ten point and PPG finishes are similar to Hull and Beliveau but when you look at the % behind the top scorer, he has a clear advantage over them. His Top Ten PPG finishes are closer to Howe's than they are to Hull/Beliveau. I.e. Crosby separated himself from his era peers at a greater degree than Beliveau and Hull.

I view this as giving Crosby an edge over those two when comparing their very similar offensive resumes but not as way to move him clearly above.

IMO, automatically discounting/ promoting a player's numbers because they played in an "easier"/"harder" is not reasonable.

At the end of the day, we have zero idea how a player would perform in another era but we can put reasonable context when comparing players' relative peer dominance.

Actually, it can be a very interesting recearch.
First, I fully agree with you that "automatically discounting/ promoting a player's numbers because they played in an "easier"/"harder" is not reasonable" I argued with "much easier" To me its not clear if that was easier or not and for how much.
Second - here is the link to my project The best goalscorers in the NHL
As you can see, 06 era players are below 2000th players sufficiently. It can mean, that parity in the 06 league was higher, than in 2000th league.
So, probably, we need some explanation why "from '46 to '66, there were more players with multiple Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes on their resume than players from '00 to '20".
And could you provide link on the reserch about Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes of different epochs? Should be interesting.

 

[daver]

Actually, it can be a very interesting recearch.
First, I fully agree with you that "automatically discounting/ promoting a player's numbers because they played in an "easier"/"harder" is not reasonable" I argued with "much easier" To me its not clear if that was easier or not and for how much.
Second - here is the link to my project The best goalscorers in the NHL
As you can see, 06 era players are below 2000th players sufficiently. It can mean, that parity in the 06 league was higher, than in 2000th league.
So, probably, we need some explanation why "from '46 to '66, there were more players with multiple Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes on their resume than players from '00 to '20".

I would echo the same comments made about your method in that thread; it is a proven flawed metric.

Is Brett Hull the best because he wins because he has the best flawed adjustment metric?

Or is Bobby Hull because he separated himself from his era peers more than anyone else?

The latter is the best that we can come up with, IMO. Trying to place players in other eras is way too much of a hypothetical rabbit hole.

To be honest, noone should look at Bobby Hull's numbers and then at your chart and NOT be suspicious of your method. It simply does not pass the smell test.

And could you provide link on the reserch about Top 3/5/10 scoring finishes of different epochs? Should be interesting.

Comparing Top 3, 5 or 10 scoring and Hart finishes from different eras

Sidney Crosby now has a scoring finish resume and Hart trophy nomination resume that rivals the two players who usually are viewed as the #5 player of all-time, Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau. Here are their best Hart finishes: Crosby - 1, 1, 2 ,2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (total of 10) Hull - 1...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[bobholly39]

Actually, you can argue that Lidstrom was robbed of at least a couple of more Norrises. Remember, he didn't just win 8 Norrises, he also came second three times because voters could not wrap their heads around the fact that a defenseman doesn't have to be a hitting machine.

I don't see how beating Niedermeyer, MacInnis, and Chelios is worse than losing to the same MacInnis, Chelios, and Leetch.

Keep in mind, with prime Fetisov in NHL, Bourque likely loses another couple of Norrises, and then you'd be really hard-pressed to put him over Lidstrom.


Peak-wise, it's Brett over Bobby easily.

Lidstrom has 7 Norris, not 8. Bourque has 5.

Bourque also has 6x he finished in 2nd place, so 11 total top 2, to Lidstrom's 10 top 2. But again - if all we're doing is looking at finishes, and ignoring context and strength of season, it's useless.

Did Corey Perry in 2011 have a better season than Mario Lemieux 1989 for you? Because one won a hart, and another finished 2nd place...

If you really want to compare Bourque and Lidstrom accurately - what you should do is rank Bourque's top 10 seasons, #1 to 10. Then do the same for Lidstrom. Then - compare Bourque's #1 best season to Lidstrom's best, and decide which is better. Then do the same for 2nd best season, 3rd best, etc. You can even do the same for individual playoff runs.
If we did that - do you think Lidstorm still comes ahead? Because I don't.

 

[Namba 17]

I would echo the same comments made about your method in that thread; it is a proven flawed metric.

There were no comments that "it is a proven flawed metric", so I have no idea what comments are you takling about.
Method as method. Has its pro and contras.

Is Brett Hull the best because he wins

The answer is "no" which is obvious for any reasonble person. And I have no idea what "win" are you talking about.
There is no one easy number, that gives you all the information you wish.
But different aproaches and different metrics can give you more or less correct food for thoughts. My method, for example, shows, that parity among first 80% of 06 players was more sufficient, than in 2000 league. What to do with this information is up to user.

To be honest, noone should look at Bobby Hull's numbers and then at your chart and NOT be suspicious of your method. It simply does not pass the smell test.

There is no such a thing as a "smell test". Each number has an explanation. Explanation is a part of the method and a point of beginning of a new research.

Comparing Top 3, 5 or 10 scoring and Hart finishes from different eras

Sidney Crosby now has a scoring finish resume and Hart trophy nomination resume that rivals the two players who usually are viewed as the #5 player of all-time, Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau. Here are their best Hart finishes: Crosby - 1, 1, 2 ,2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (total of 10) Hull - 1...

forums.hfboards.com

Thanks! The most interesting part is missed though - your results of each of 06 and 2000th year. But even numbers you posted in the thread are very interesting. It definately couldve been very useful research - to see how difference between top players changed from year to year.
Probably, Ill do it when Ill have some time.
It can be very very useful.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I said "peak-wise." Peak only. Brett's peak came against prime Gretzky and Lemieux and he beat them both. I'd say he did just fine against his peers.

Prime is irrelevant.


What does 1974-76 Bobby have to do with anything?

Wow one whole year

Anyways this is about the 10 best, which Brett doesn’t make.