Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would think if there were any other overlapping players for which there was a strong media lean towards one of those players specifically and seemingly no suggestion of a strong sentiment (...or even a passive one) of the inverse other than this very forum, we, as historians, would address it.

Well, it is absolutely true Messier was a media darling, especially after Gretzky left Edmonton. Not so much for Bourque.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

10 of the top-11 in total GA played in that ~1980 through ~2000 window and the other was Salming. I think, if anything, it tells us Gretzky and Messier played a lot in the highest-scoring era. 2183 GA in 1756 GP from a player who ate up a lot of minutes (22+ as a 38-year-old).

Certainly that's true.

But still, no one else (including those who played in that era) were on for more goals against.

And 22 minutes a game isn't close to what the great defensemen played. When Bourque was 38 he played over 29 minutes a game, 32 minutes in the playoffs.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I find the fact that Leetch won in '94 to be a testament to how truly great of a playoff he had. I mean, Messier with his big reputation literally promised a win in the next game and delivered big-time on it.

Today Messier would've won the Smythe on it alone, I almost feel like.

Yeah, that to me would have gotten my vote. He called his shot like Babe Ruth and actually delivered. Not only a win but he goes out and scores a natural hatty and then the Cup winning goal in game 7. Leetch was obviously amazing but that was Messier's team. Ranger curse broken. They hadn't won in 54 years and haven't since.

If he had more meat on his regular season resume, he'd be a top 10 player for me.

 

[pappyline]

I'm curious to the argument of Mikita over all of the modern era forwards available. While his peak is certainly impressive, it is at worst right there alongside all 3 of those guys. He adds a lot of good, but not spectacular (for this early in the least anyways) seasons in his 30's. I don't think anything he did after the age of 35 moves the needle much at this point, same as any of Jagr's seasons after his return from the KHL. Obviously neither have Crosby or Ovechkin, so they all seem to be on even ground there.

By my count,
Jagr has probably 10-12 relevant prime seasons beween 92-07.
Mikita has probably 9-11 between 62-75.
Ovechkin and Crosby I'd probably say 11 each from 06-18.

So their peaks and primes could be considered around the same level, Crosby easily has the best playoff resume of the bunch, both him and Crosby are the more rounded offensive threats, Ovechkin is by far the best goal scorer of the bunch (and of his era), I don't see that extra thing that puts Mikita ahead of the others.

Well I saw the entire career of all these guys. Mikita was the best in my view. His peak is certainly up there close to Jagr's. Mikita did win 4 ARS. I don't know what you mean when you say that Crosby & Jagr are the more rounded offensive threats. You have to explain that one to me. Yes Ovechkin is the better goal scorer but I have him behind Mikita in every other aspect.

I really think Crosby is getting too much love here. People don't look at him objectively. I think some time needs to pass before we consider him in the running for top 10-15 of all time.

On second thought, maybe I am not being fair to Jagr. I may reconsider his ranking.

 

[Captain Bowie]

10 of the top-11 in total GA played in that ~1980 through ~2000 window and the other was Salming. I think, if anything, it tells us Gretzky and Messier played a lot in the highest-scoring era. 2183 GA in 1756 GP from a player who ate up a lot of minutes (22+ as a 38-year-old).

For the span of 82-97 (effectively his prime/years worth considering) he was still 2nd worst at GA.

1. Gretzky - 1898
2. Messier - 1476
3. Francis - 1399
4. Yzerman - 1352
5. Hawerchuk - 1347
6. Kurri - 1342
7. Nicholls - 1281
8. Gilmour - 1210
9. Broten - 1200
10. Lemieux - 1168

Lemieux played significantly less games than the rest 745 while everyone else played 1023-1188 games.

Then when you look at team GF, Francis passes him and Hawerchuk is only 8 less.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But still, no one else (including those who played in that era) were on for more goals against.

No one else from that era played 25 NHL seasons either. He could have retired with 1640 GA in 1272 GP (1996-97) and drop down to 17th, but I don’t think that would make him any more - or any less - of a complete player than he was.

It’s just a running accumulation. Brodeur leads the category for goalies.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Well I saw the entire career of all these guys. Mikita was the best in my view. His peak is certainly up there close to Jagr's. Mikita did win 4 ARS. I don't know what you mean when you say that Crosby & Jagr are the more rounded offensive threats. You have to explain that one to me. Yes Ovechkin is the better goal scorer but I have him behind Mikita in every other aspect.

I really think Crosby is getting too much love here. People don't look at him objectively. I think some time needs to pass before we consider him in the running for top 10-15 of all time.

On second thought, maybe I am not being fair to Jagr. I may reconsider his ranking.

All 3 players lead the league in assist multiple times (obviously not Ovechkin), but when it came to goal scoring:

Player	Seasons	Games	Goals	GPG	Margin	GPG Margin
Alex Ovechkin	05/06-17/18	1003	607	0.61
Sidney Crosby	05/06-17/18	864	411	0.48	147.70%	127.20%
Evgeni Malkin	06/07-17/18	784	370	0.47	164.10%	128.20%
Steven Stamkos	08/09-17/18	664	348	0.52	174.40%	115.50%
Ilya Kovalchuk	05/06-12/13	589	309	0.52	196.40%	115.40%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Seasons	Games	Goals	GPG	Margin	GPG Margin
Jaromir Jagr	94/95-05/06	798	466	0.58
Peter Bondra	94/95-05/06	767	397	0.52	117.40%	112.80%
Teemu Selanne	94/95-05/06	824	391	0.47	119.20%	123.10%
Keith Tkachuk	94/95-05/06	713	374	0.52	124.60%	111.30%
Pavel Bure	94/95-02/03	478	283	0.59	164.70%	98.60%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Seasons	Games	Goals	GPG	Margin	GPG Margin
Sidney Crosby	09/10-16/17	492	250	0.51
Alex Ovechkin	09/10-16/17	597	339	0.57	73.70%	89.50%
Steven Stamkos	09/10-16/17	507	298	0.59	83.90%	86.50%
Corey Perry	09/10-16/17	600	258	0.43	96.90%	118.20%
Patrick Kane	09/10-16/17	578	239	0.41	141.80%	137.30%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Seasons	Games	Goals	GPG	Margin	GPG Margin
Stan Mikita	61/62-69/70	635	297	0.47
Bobby Hull	61/62-69/70	603	409	0.68	72.60%	69.00%
Gordie Howe	61/62-69/70	644	294	0.46	101.00%	102.50%
Frank Mahovlich	61/62-69/70	610	281	0.46	105.70%	101.50%
Norm Ullman	61/62-69/70	629	260	0.41	114.20%	113.20%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ovechkin and Jagr separated themselves from the pack in their primes. Crosby was inconsistent, but has 2 Rocket Richards to his credit. Mikita was 3 steps behind Bobby Hull (so was everyone else) bu didn't separate from the rest of the pack either.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

So again, just curious, is anyone out there really thinking Messier over Bourque now? I want to see if this is worth more than the ten minutes I just spent.

Earlier this afternoon, I spent 20 minutes of my life that I'll never get back looking at just this item. I emerged out of the comparison with the same impression that I had going into it- Bourque is, to me, comfortably on another tier above Messier. The two defining parts of the comparison were: 1) Messier sure had some mid-career inconsistencies. That was a heck of a contrast to Bourque, who just kept putting in solid year after solid year after solid year; and 2) Messier DID have that skid-mark in his wardrobe closet- the Vancouver years, especially the first two.

I kind of set aside the whole "success-relative-to-team" metric for a while. Messier composed most of his case with loaded Edmonton-- but I noticed that Bourque frequently had stronger squads than I would have suspected given the general tenor of our conversation. In his 22 year career, he only played for two sub-.500 teams. There's this narrative that's been put forward that 'poor Bourque in Boston didn't play for teams that could have been reasonably expected to compete for the Cup.' I think I gave myself reason to question that.

This turned me back, again-- to Lidström. Bet the initial author of the comparison didn't expect that I would emerge from my review higher on Lidström than before! Wherever I rank Bourque/Lidström (or Lidström/Bourque), I'm pretty sure they'll be back-to-back on my ballot.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well I saw the entire career of all these guys. Mikita was the best in my view. His peak is certainly up there close to Jagr's. Mikita did win 4 ARS. I don't know what you mean when you say that Crosby & Jagr are the more rounded offensive threats. You have to explain that one to me. Yes Ovechkin is the better goal scorer but I have him behind Mikita in every other aspect.

I really think Crosby is getting too much love here. People don't look at him objectively. I think some time needs to pass before we consider him in the running for top 10-15 of all time.

On second thought, maybe I am not being fair to Jagr. I may reconsider his ranking.

I know you've long been a detractor but I don't know if I've ever seen specifics as to why. Obviously nothing is going to the move the needle but here are some facts.

He's got multiple Harts and Ross's and the only reason those 2's aren't 4's are due to a deliberate attempt to injure and a freak slap to the face late in a season. He lost essentially 2 of his prime years because of asshat players and doctors who didn't diagnose him correctly for the better part of a year. That isn't his fault and it cost him dearly yet his career is still up for discussion right now. Doesn't THAT say a lot about the player?

Multiple Rocket Richard's and he lost what would have been his best goal scoring season, and 3rd one, in 2010-11.

Consider the fact he's been the best or right there since he came into the league. He's this generations greatest player. I really wonder how one comes to the conclusion people aren't looking at him "objectively". How should we be looking at him?

https://www.tsn.ca/crosby-tops-tsn-top-50-players-poll-1.581381

Very strong postseason career already and he's only 31. Certainly much better than his main comp, Ovechkin.

Very strong international resume. Certainly much better than his main comp, Ovechkin.

He came into the league with monumental pressure both because he was that talented and the league was coming off a lockout. And he has delivered far more than he hasn't. Been an amazing ambassador for the game, incredible work ethic and character.

Here's a very long bio I did on him last year.

ATD 2017 Bios

Worth a read. I know it probably won't do anything for you and you are more than welcome to rank him how you see fit. I'd just like to hear more as to why you consider him getting too much love when we're in the 10-15 range right now.

 

[MXD]

I kind of set aside the whole "success-relative-to-team" metric for a while. Messier composed most of his case with loaded Edmonton-- but I noticed that Bourque frequently had stronger squads than I would have suspected given the general tenor of our conversation. In his 22 year career, he only played for two sub-.500 teams. There's this narrative that's been put forward that 'poor Bourque in Boston didn't play for teams that could have been reasonably expected to compete for the Cup.' I think I gave myself reason to question that.

I'll be brief about this :

- Playing over .500 is barely indicative of being in Cup contention, especially when there's two dynasties in the timespan.

- Raymond Bourque, himself, probably has a lot to do in those teams playing for .500 in the first place. 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1992. Some of these teams were really close to not play for .500 : 85, 87 and 92. Bourque led those three teams in scoring.

 

[sr edler]

Bragging for a newspaper about your clairvoyant skills is nice, but 94 Rangers was obviously Brian Leetch’s team. Messier had an opportunistic knack of ending up on really good teams.

When Leetch missed half the season in 92–93 with an injury, in between two Presidents’ Trophies, the team didn’t even make the playoffs. Can it get more obvious.

Richter and Leetch showed in 96 World Cup they were the real backbone of that team.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I know you've long been a detractor but I don't know if I've ever seen specifics as to why. Obviously nothing is going to the move the needle but here are some facts.

He's got multiple Harts and Ross's and the only reason those 2's aren't 4's are due to a deliberate attempt to injure and a freak slap to the face late in a season. He lost essentially 2 of his prime years because of asshat players and doctors who didn't diagnose him correctly for the better part of a year. That isn't his fault and it cost him dearly yet his career is still up for discussion right now. Doesn't THAT say a lot about the player?

Multiple Rocket Richard's and he lost what would have been his best goal scoring season, and 3rd one, in 2010-11.

Consider the fact he's been the best or right there since he came into the league. He's this generations greatest player. I really wonder how one comes to the conclusion people aren't looking at him "objectively". How should we be looking at him?

https://www.tsn.ca/crosby-tops-tsn-top-50-players-poll-1.581381

Very strong postseason career already and he's only 31. Certainly much better than his main comp, Ovechkin.

Very strong international resume. Certainly much better than his main comp, Ovechkin.

He came into the league with monumental pressure both because he was that talented and the league was coming off a lockout. And he has delivered far more than he hasn't. Been an amazing ambassador for the game, incredible work ethic and character.

Here's a very long bio I did on him last year.

ATD 2017 Bios

Worth a read. I know it probably won't do anything for you and you are more than welcome to rank him how you see fit. I'd just like to hear more as to why you consider him getting too much love when we're in the 10-15 range right now.

Like rating Jean Beliveau at the age of 31. Fine wine deserves a chance to mature.

 

[The Macho King]

I'll be brief about this :

- Playing over .500 is barely indicative of being in Cup contention, especially when there's two dynasties in the timespan.

- Raymond Bourque, himself, probably has a lot to do in those teams playing for .500 in the first place. 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1992. Some of these teams were really close to not play for .500 : 85, 87 and 92. Bourque led those three teams in scoring.

Yeah the argument confuses me. A lot of the reason so many Bruins teams were over .500 was *because* of Bourque. And a lot of those teams even without Bourque - while not objectively bad - were no where close to having contending rosters. I'm trying to think of a modern team that encapsulates a comparison - maybe the Wild? Fine teams, but never really contenders.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I really think Crosby is getting too much love here. People don't look at him objectively. I think some time needs to pass before we consider him in the running for top 10-15 of all time.

On second thought, maybe I am not being fair to Jagr. I may reconsider his ranking.

I agree with two of the three paragraphs you've posted, i.e.: the quoted material. Guess I can't give ⅔ of a like, can I? I've known for a long time that I'm kind of spitting into the wind here on the Crosby issue. It doesn't really count for much, but in the last vote, I posted a find concerning the meetings of hemi-dynasty Pittsburgh & hemi-dynasty Chicago:

[Click the arrow above for a bunch of possibly interesting stuff that might be worth reading, if you haven't already. If visiting, please be sure to check out the post before. Spoiler alert: in the period covered by these two posts, Crosby is Ophir-Chicago]

Apropos Jagr, my initial foray into this thread, way back on page 1, was the start of a case for Jagr over Crosby.

Now Mikita- well... if the NHL was run like the EPL, Mikita could comfortably be on my ballot this round. However, to paraphrase Eliot, 'between the conception and the creation- between the desire and the spasm... fall The Playoffs.'

 

[ImporterExporter]

Like rating Jean Beliveau at the age of 31. Fine wine deserves a chance to mature.

Well I'd say even at age 31 Jean Beliveau could have probably been up for discussion as a top 20 player or so. But you are correct in saying that it's hard to fully appreciate a career that isn't over. And Beliveau is a good example of somebody who did quite a bit beyond the age of 31...although he's in the minority there.

But I do agree with being able to appreciate a player more and more as time passes.

 

[Killion]

How should we be looking at him?

Through the rear view mirror in a few or several years time. Thats how. He is, being devoid of any personality or color an entirely enigmatic amorphous man/child being & player. He's like those crazy Sasquatch or UFO videos people plaster all over youtube.... Manna from heaven for every Mother****ing sufferer of Pareidolia. Cities & structures miles high on the Moon. Jesus on Toast.... Look Man. Give the guy some ROOM. Let his career play itself out. Then and only then you can get back to me with a truly objective on the "It Boy" of this new millennium.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bragging for a newspaper about your clairvoyant skills is nice, but 94 Rangers was obviously Brian Leetch’s team. Messier had an opportunistic knack of ending up on really good teams.

When Leetch missed half the season in 92–93 with an injury, in between two Presidents’ Trophies, the team didn’t even make the playoffs. Can it get more obvious.

Richter and Leetch showed in 96 World Cup they were the real backbone of that team.

I agree with this to a point. I should have been more clear. I think that moment, Messier took the Rangers, put them on his back and went out and led the charge winning games 6 and 7. He was a very well respected captain in the league (given the C from day 1 in NY btw), and certainly enhanced his credentials in 94.

You can't fault somebody for ending up on good teams. Messier didn't pick where he started his career. Edmonton picked a top 20 player of all time in the 3rd round. And Messier led Edmonton to a title almost immediately after 99 left. Gets traded to NY, is tasked with leading an 06 team that had a half century of "misery" to a title. And he was a big, big part of it happening. Does NY win a title without Messier? Probably not.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Through the rear view mirror in a few or several years time. Thats how. He is, being devoid of any personality or color an entirely enigmatic amorphous man/child being & player. He's like those crazy Sasquatch or UFO videos people plaster all over youtube.... Manna from heaven for every Mother****ing sufferer of Pareidolia. Cities & structures miles high on the Moon. Jesus on Toast.... Look Man. Give the guy some ROOM. Let his career play itself out. Then and only then you can get back to me with a truly objective on the "It Boy" of this new millennium.

Fair enough.

I will say I have never understood people that don't like Crosby because he's "boring". Playing for a rival? Sure. Didn't like the fact he was "the chosen one"? (not his fault but whatever). Fine. Not saying you are specially btw.

If I cared about flash and pomp and diva personalities I'd watch football, basketball or most other major sports out there more closely. Gretzky was a boring personality. Howe wasn't exactly the biggest rah, rah player. Jean Beliveau certainly wasn't. Those guys let their play do the talking far more often than not. They played the game the right way, from day 1 more or less and were insanely respected. Crosby absolutely has that in common, sans his first year or so (difference being he was an 18 year old kid entering the game of men, compared to 06 players who never saw the NHL at that age) when he had a problem with whining, but that was essentially gone by the time he was 20.

I agree that looking back after the process is over will yield a more complete picture, but that doesn't mean we can't praise a person for what they've done already and compare it against his peers, past and present. And what Crosby's done stacks up very well, IMHO, with others on this list.

 

[seventieslord]

10 of the top-11 in total GA played in that ~1980 through ~2000 window and the other was Salming. I think, if anything, it tells us Gretzky and Messier played a lot in the highest-scoring era. 2183 GA in 1756 GP from a player who ate up a lot of minutes (22+ as a 38-year-old).

And both killed a lot of penalties...

 

[Captain Bowie]

The thing I take away from this graphic the most is that Jonathan Toews gets a higher and more consistent ranking year after year than Ovechkin. That's TSN for you. One is in discussion to be among the top 20 players ever, and the other won't get a sniff at the top 100.

That's TSN for you.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The thing I take away from this graphic the most is that Jonathan Toews gets a higher and more consistent ranking year after year than Ovechkin. That's TSN for you. One is in discussion to be among the top 20 players ever, and the other won't get a sniff at the top 100.

That's TSN for you.

Hey nobody is perfect

And yes TSN has plenty of faults.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bragging for a newspaper about your clairvoyant skills is nice, but 94 Rangers was obviously Brian Leetch’s team. Messier had an opportunistic knack of ending up on really good teams.

When Leetch missed half the season in 92–93 with an injury, in between two Presidents’ Trophies, the team didn’t even make the playoffs. Can it get more obvious.

Richter and Leetch showed in 96 World Cup they were the real backbone of that team.

The 1990-91 Edmonton Oilers went 8-17-2 without Mark Messier. The 1988-89 Boston Bruins went 8-10-2 without Ray Bourque. All we have established is that teams can do worse when they lose star players.

Mike Richter being the backbone? Come on. Vanbiesbrouck went 20-18 (.900) in 1992-93 while Richter went 13-19 (.886). How on Earth is he escaping criticism?

Leetch and Richter were on the Rangers in 1989-90 (85 points) and 1990-91 (85 points), and they gained 20 points in the standings by adding a star in 1991-92 (Messier) and then lost those 20 points by losing a star in 1992-93 (Leetch). You can’t give Leetch the bulk of the credit for the tumble without giving Messier a lot of the credit for the ascension.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Through the rear view mirror in a few or several years time. Thats how. He is, being devoid of any personality or color an entirely enigmatic amorphous man/child being & player. He's like those crazy Sasquatch or UFO videos people plaster all over youtube.... Manna from heaven for every Mother****ing sufferer of Pareidolia. Cities & structures miles high on the Moon. Jesus on Toast.... Look Man. Give the guy some ROOM. Let his career play itself out. Then and only then you can get back to me with a truly objective on the "It Boy" of this new millennium.

But we're obviously not going to exclude him or other current players from the list simply because they are still playing, so that doesn't really help us now.

I agree players really do need some time for their careers to breathe for us to better understand or appreciate them, however the challenge is trying to analyze them now without the breathing room, not just ignoring them all together.

 

[VanIslander]

I will say I have never understood people that don't like Crosby because he's "boring". Playing for a rival? Sure. Didn't like the fact he was "the chosen one"? (not his fault but whatever). Fine. Not saying you are specially btw.

If I cared about flash and pomp and diva personalities I'd watch football, basketball or most other major sports out there more closely.

Federer and Sampras were the two greatest I've ever seen and both were boring as hell but efficient as heck.

I grew up on Joe Montana vs. that flashy long bomb goof in Miami. No contest who was better. But the flashier guy had Miami Vice star power. Ugh.

In hockey I think Howe the greatest, though flashier Gretzky and Orr often get more support.

Crosby is less flashy than Ovechkin but I respect his ability more. I dont like to watch him or his team, but he is greater than flashy 'star power' Morenz in my books.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Federer and Sampras were the two greatest I've ever seen and both were boring as hell but efficient as heck.

I grew up on Joe Montana vs. that flashy long bomb goof in Miami. No contest who was better. But the flashier guy had Miami Vice star power. Ugh.

In hockey I think Howe the greatest, though flashier Gretzky and Orr often get more support.

Crosby is less flashy than Ovechkin but I respect his ability more. I dont like to watch him or his team, but he is greater than flashy 'star power' Morenz in my books.

"Star power" is something i give very, very little credence to. Glad to see somebody else in that same boat. When I see Howie Morenz almost unanimously chosen (by Canadian Press) as the greatest player from 1900-1950 I expect to see someone who dominated the league almost every year at levels that would be historic. That was rarely the case. Hence why I scoff at Morenz in particular. It's not that he's not worthy of being discussed now but where is the domination year after year that would lend people making him far and away the best hockey player of the first half century?