Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (The Third)

[bobholly39]

Just like with Sakic and Yzerman, I think the gap between Roy and Hasek makes little sense...

3 Smythes is an incredible feat, but the stats - both regular season and playoffs - show that Hasek was the superior goalie

And while some may point to longevity as justification for having Roy ahead of Hasek, why isn't the same reasoning used when comparing Lidstrom or Bourque to Orr?

Is there any argument that Hasek's peak is the greatest in NHL history among goaltenders?

Hasek...
6x 1st Team All-Star
6x Vezina winner
6x All-Star
2x Hart winner
2x Pearson winner

Now compare that to Roy's trophy case...

Roy...
4x 1st Team All-Star
2x 2nd Team All-Star
3x Vezina winner
5x Jennings
6x All-Star (that's surprising, I would've thought he'd have more all-star appearances)
3 Conn Smythes

Roy accomplished more. That's what it boils down to. The Conn Smythes are an absolutely incredible accomplishment, that bridge some of the gap with how good Hasek was. Hasek probably was "good" enough to accomplish some things at the NHL level before he broke out in Buffalo, but he simply didn't. The stuff before the NHL does count, but it counts for less than the NHL stuff. Overall advantage Roy.

Also - you shouldn't really count the amount of players between 2 players to decide if they're close or far. As others pointed out - sometimes you can have a stretch of ~10 guys all super close, and so it ends up that 2 players have 7-8 guys between them in the final list. Doesn't mean they aren't really close.

If you could build around an 18 year old Makarov (#26) or an 18 year old Yzerman (#40), are any of you taking the winger?

I think non-NHL players (and no offense to Makarov's NHL seasons at age 31+ - but I consider him a non-NHL player) - are really hard to rank. I personally try to rank by accomplishments moreso than talent. So guys like Bure/Forsberg/Lindros - they're probably more talented than their rank indicates, because they lack more accomplishments due to injuries at the NHL level.

You can't really do that with non-NHL'ers, if not it becomes an NHL only list. I think Makarov was talented enough that yes - the expectation is if he was drafted and came over to the NHL at 18, he would be a good enough player to outdo Yzerman's career. It's not a slam dunk, as there are question marks with him acclimating to North America- but in essence that's what this rank means, and I'd agree with it.

Its about who was the better player.

According to you. I say it's about who accomplished more

 

[K Fleur]

Yzerman’s 88-89 season is overrated not because of his performance(because he was incredible) but more because it has spawned the false narrative that Yzerman would have been winning the Art Ross all the time if Gretzky and Lemieux were not around.

In actual reality that was the only season where Lemieux or Gretzky “cost” Yzerman a scoring title

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

According to you. I say it's about who accomplished more

Nah, that's not right.

 

[overpass]

Karlsson came in at 106th on the aggregate list.

He came up for voting in the last two votes of the 2nd round but didn't make it.

You would think a 2 time Norris winner and 4 time 1st team all-star would have a good shot. But at the time of the vote Karlsson only had 9 seasons played, was coming off a weak year and his career was a roller coaster (and still is).

Karlsson will always be a hard player to rate for his career. I don’t know if there’s been a player with a bigger gap between the highs and lows in his prime.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Karlsson will always be a hard player to rate for his career. I don’t know if there’s been a player with a bigger gap between the highs and lows in his prime.

And considering he just turned 30, he's still got time to go either way.

 

[Dingo]

Roy accomplished more. That's what it boils down to. The Conn Smythes are an absolutely incredible accomplishment, that bridge some of the gap with how good Hasek was. Hasek probably was "good" enough to accomplish some things at the NHL level before he broke out in Buffalo, but he simply didn't. The stuff before the NHL does count, but it counts for less than the NHL stuff. Overall advantage Roy.

Also - you shouldn't really count the amount of players between 2 players to decide if they're close or far. As others pointed out - sometimes you can have a stretch of ~10 guys all super close, and so it ends up that 2 players have 7-8 guys between them in the final list. Doesn't mean they aren't really close.



I think non-NHL players (and no offense to Makarov's NHL seasons at age 31+ - but I consider him a non-NHL player) - are really hard to rank. I personally try to rank by accomplishments moreso than talent. So guys like Bure/Forsberg/Lindros - they're probably more talented than their rank indicates, because they lack more accomplishments due to injuries at the NHL level.

You can't really do that with non-NHL'ers, if not it becomes an NHL only list. I think Makarov was talented enough that yes - the expectation is if he was drafted and came over to the NHL at 18, he would be a good enough player to outdo Yzerman's career. It's not a slam dunk, as there are question marks with him acclimating to North America- but in essence that's what this rank means, and I'd agree with it.



According to you. I say it's about who accomplished more

It looks like Hasek’s 80s and Makarov’s 80s are being looked at very differently here. I suppose their post 30 yrs old NHL careers are, too.

 

[wetcoast]

And considering he just turned 30, he's still got time to go either way.

I think that the last 2 seasons have hurt the narrative on Karlsson.

For years all we heard about was what if he could actually play on a good team and the results have not been very flattering overall.

Not that he is the same type of player but Bill Gadbsy comes to mind, lots of offense but no real success.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think that the last 2 seasons have hurt the narrative on Karlsson.

For years all we heard about was what if he could actually play on a good team and the results have not been very flattering overall.

Not that he is the same type of player but Bill Gadbsy comes to mind, lots of offense but no real success.

I mean, the Sharks were last place in the Western Conference (28th in GF, 28th in GA); I think they’re maybe a little past being a good team.

They made it to the Conference Finals with Karlsson last year (16 points in 19 playoff games), so I think what we’re seeing isn’t Karlsson on a good team but rather Karlsson on a team on the descent. The Sharks went 4-8-1 to end the season during Karlsson’s injury.

 

[wetcoast]

I mean, the Sharks were last place in the Western Conference (28th in GF, 28th in GA); I think they’re maybe a little past being a good team.

Sure that is true for this season but at some point Karlsson has to share some responsibility for his teams fortunes.

He is a high event player, when he is on the ice scoring does take place, unfortunately alot of the time it is the other team.

They made it to the Conference Finals with Karlsson last year (16 points in 19 playoff games), so I think what we’re seeing isn’t Karlsson on a good team but rather Karlsson on a team on the descent. The Sharks went 4-8-1 to end the season during Karlsson’s injury.

You are right the Sharks are on the decline but Karlsson also is playing second fiddle to an older Burns and that does not help his all time narrative.

That being said alot of people are going to look at the 2 Norris trophies and give them more weight than deserved much like Bobby Clarke with his 3 Hart trophies.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That being said alot of people are going to look at the 2 Norris trophies and give them more weight than deserved much like Bobby Clarke with his 3 Hart trophies.

I don’t really see the Clarke parallel. Karlsson was 1st place in All-Star voting in addition to Norris voting in 2012 and 2015, so there’s not really a Phil Esposito Hart/All-Star split here.

If anything, Karlsson having just two is giving too little weight. How many defensemen have finished top-4 in scoring and not won the Norris (2015-16)? How many defensemen have finished top-5 for the Hart and not won the Norris (2016-17)? And we’re worried that two Norris Trophies that he did win carry more weight than they deserve?

He had a stretch from February 12th, 2015 to November 11th, 2017 where he scored 200 points in 200 games (only three forwards had more, and no one had more than 215), and in that time frame, Ottawa went 112-70-28 (98-point pace) and had a run to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals. Seems like they had some success.

 

[Theokritos]

It looks like Hasek’s 80s and Makarov’s 80s are being looked at very differently here.

For good reason. Hašek is six and a half years younger and didn't dominate before 1987 while Makarov was a standout through the entire 1980s.

Makarov's competition for awards: On the one hand the undiluted Soviet talent pool, on the other hand European and Canadian forwards at the World Championship. Plus he provided himself against NHL competition dozens of times.

Hašek's competition: One the one hand the diluted Czechoslovak talent pool (quite a few had already gone to the NHL), on the other hand European and Canadian goaltenders at the World Championship – not exactly on par with what you had at the forward positions.

 

[wetcoast]

I don’t really see the Clarke parallel. Karlsson was 1st place in All-Star voting in addition to Norris voting in 2012 and 2015, so there’s not really a Phil Esposito Hart/All-Star split here.

I brought up the case for Clarke as he obviously was not a better player or had better seasons than Bobby Orr in 2 of those years and Clarke gets way more mileage out of those 3 Harts than his actual resume really deserves in context. I am also not a Clarke hater he was my favorite player as a young child as I liked his desire and hustle to win.

If anything, Karlsson having just two is giving too little weight. How many defensemen have finished top-4 in scoring and not won the Norris (2015-16)? How many defensemen have finished top-5 for the Hart and not won the Norris (2016-17)? And we’re worried that two Norris Trophies that he did win carry more weight than they deserve?

Part of the problem is that he might have deserved the Norris in 15-16 but he won his second Norris the year before by a slight margin, just like his first one was by a slight margin.

Narrative voting will do this at times.

He had a stretch from February 12th, 2015 to November 11th, 2017 where he scored 200 points in 200 games (only three forwards had more, and no one had more than 215), and in that time frame, Ottawa went 112-70-28 (98-point pace) and had a run to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals. Seems like they had some success.

Seriously how many people look at time periods in this manner, perhaps some around here, but most hockey fans don't.

Even so usage for Karlsson was perfect in many senses, he played for a team that allowed him to be the focal point of the offense.

He had a huge TOI advantage to rack up those points on other players with a green light as well, might as well called him a rover in that time period.

That playoff run was a great piece to his resume but how much other post season success has he really had.

The main point that I was bringing up was the narrative that Karlsson was supposed to add to his achievements with San Jose and it has not gone as planned for either him or the Sharks.

Burns has been the better Dman for the Sharks the last 2 years, despite being 5 years older and it is an open question if he even makes the HHOF.

 

[ted2019]

Sure that is true for this season but at some point Karlsson has to share some responsibility for his teams fortunes.

He is a high event player, when he is on the ice scoring does take place, unfortunately alot of the time it is the other team.



You are right the Sharks are on the decline but Karlsson also is playing second fiddle to an older Burns and that does not help his all time narrative.

That being said alot of people are going to look at the 2 Norris trophies and give them more weight than deserved much like Bobby Clarke with his 3 Hart trophies.

Karlsson was never an elite 2 way player ( or even a decent 2 way player) like Clarke. As I said before, if the Selke was available in Clarke's prime, he would've had 3 to 4 Selke's to go with his 3 Hart's.

 

[wetcoast]

Karlsson was never an elite 2 way player ( or even a decent 2 way player) like Clarke. As I said before, if the Selke was available in Clarke's prime, he would've had 3 to 4 Selke's to go with his 3 Hart's.

I will repeat it again, I was never comparing them as players but rather how some might trophy count and not look deeper into context.

Clarke was a great 2 way player with an impressive peak but he was not as good a playoff performer that one might guess and some of his defensive legacy ESGF-ESGA was due to the incredibly high amount of time those Flyers teams spent on the PK and not at ES, not to mention how many softer teams in an already extremely unbalanced 70s NHL would take the night off against the broad street bullies.

 

[seventieslord]

I will repeat it again, I was never comparing them as players but rather how some might trophy count and not look deeper into context.

Clarke was a great 2 way player with an impressive peak but he was not as good a playoff performer that one might guess and some of his defensive legacy ESGF-ESGA was due to the incredibly high amount of time those Flyers teams spent on the PK and not at ES, not to mention how many softer teams in an already extremely unbalanced 70s NHL would take the night off against the broad street bullies.

1. Clarke scored in the playoffs when his team needed him to - when they didn't, he shut down the opposition. Very much like Messier. This has been studied closely.
2. If Clarke was on the ice for 6X as many goals for as goals against at even strength, how on earth does the quantity of time spent at even strength matter?
3. Even if this rate stat would have been any worse with less ES time, the difference isn't nearly as drastic as you think. Taking 74-75 as an example, the Flyers killed 47% more PP opportunities than the average team. At 1.8 minutes per PP, they spent 3.375 more minutes killing penalties than an average team. This would have come out of their ES time, of course. But it works both ways because by the same calculation, they spent 1.33 fewer minutes on the PP than the average team. So in total, they spent 2.0 minutes less per game at ES than an average team, or approximately 4.3% less. Can you seriously say that their ES results are less meaningful because they spent 4.3% less time at even strength than the average team?

 

[Perennial]

So Hasek was better than Roy & Yzerman was better than Makarov because you say so?

Look, I ranked Hasek ahead of Roy. That's my opinion. That doesn't mean its fact.

I also ranked Makarov well ahead Yzerman.

Try making a list of the top 120 players. It ain't easy. Nor will it be "correct".

Show me where I said Yzerman was better than Makarov...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Show me where I said Yzerman was better than Makarov...

"If you could build around an 18 year old Makarov (#26) or an 18 year old Yzerman (#40), are any of you taking the winger?"

Is there something else I should imply from this?

 

[Perennial]

"If you could build around an 18 year old Makarov (#26) or an 18 year old Yzerman (#40), are any of you taking the winger?"

Is there something else I should imply from this?

Imply what you like...

I was asking a question, not stating an opinion...

 

[Perennial]

You didn't say that.

NHL GOALS
Yzerman: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 6th
Sakic: 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 10th

NHL CAREER POINTS
Yzerman 1755
Sakic 1641

Yzerman was better at his peak in the regular season. (And as i will show, played with much less.)

Yzerman scored more over his career, each passing the 20-year mark.

I graduated high school in '87.

Yzerman had this many MORE points than EVERY other teammate from then:
18
29
63
47
29
17
40
= 243 points more than ANY and EVERY other Wing before the stacked Detroit years when Bowman asked Yzerman to sacrifice offense to have elite Selke-winning defense.

Sakic was beat out in scoring by Sundin in Quebec, Forsberg, Kamensky, ... (though the Avs did start to suck late in his career).

The gap between Yzerman and every other human on his team was STARK over half a decade into his career. It was epic!

While I lean towards Yzerman having the higher peak, Sakic had 102 points in 1990 and 109 points in 1991... those point totals lead Quebec by 40 and 50 points respectively...

So, while Sakic didn't have to carry the offensive load for as long as Yzerman did, he did have seasons early on in his career where his dominance over his teammates was comparable to Yzerman's...

 

[Doctor No]

I was asking a question, not stating an opinion...

"Hey, I was just *asking* if Blaine Lacher belonged in the Hall of Fame. I wasn't advocating for it."

(Blaine Lacher does belong in the nickname HOF for Lach Ness Monster)

 

[Perennial]

Thornton (91) vs Iginla (NR) seems like it could make for an interesting debate...

Both have an Art Ross

Iginla
3x 1st Team All-Star, albeit at a weaker position
1x 2nd Team All-Star
2x Rocket Richard winner
3x Hart finalist, 2x runner-up

Thornton
1x 1st Team All-Star
3x 2nd Team All-Star
3x Assists leader
Hart winner in his lone year as a finalist

 

[bobholly39]

Thornton (91) vs Iginla (NR) seems like it could make for an interesting debate...

Both have an Art Ross

Iginla
3x 1st Team All-Star, albeit at a weaker position
1x 2nd Team All-Star
2x Rocket Richard winner
3x Hart finalist, 2x runner-up

Thornton
1x 1st Team All-Star
3x 2nd Team All-Star
3x Assists leader
Hart winner in his lone year as a finalist

They're not worlds apart or anything, but to me this is very easily Thornton > Iginla.

1. Better peak. Hart voting/finalists is close - but Thornton's best season is significantly better (more competition to hart in 2006 and 2002). His second best is probably better than Iginla's best season too

2. Better and more consistent offense. 10 ppg seasons for Thornton, only 5 for Iginla

3. They played in exact same era/seasons. Iginla's highest point total is 96 points. Thornton hit that or above 4x.

4. Thornton gets a lot of flack for his playoffs (and rightfully so imo) - but he's probably still has a better playoff resume than Iginla has.

 

[BenchBrawl]

4. Thornton gets a lot of flack for his playoffs (and rightfully so imo) - but he's probably still has a better playoff resume than Iginla has.

Crazy. Iginla was one win away from a Smythe trophy. In no universe is Thornton a better playoff performer than Iginla.

 

[bobholly39]

Crazy. Iginla was one win away from a Smythe trophy. In no universe is Thornton a better playoff performer than Iginla.

Well I didn't say he's better, just that his playoff resume is probably better. More than 2x the amount of playoff games.
Also - Iginla wasn't winning the smythe in 2004, this was probably gonna be Kiprussof.

Even if you prefer Iginla's playoffs - it's nowhere near enough a differentiator to make up for the regular season gap imo. His playoffs simply aren't that strong

 

[wetcoast]

Well I didn't say he's better, just that his playoff resume is probably better. More than 2x the amount of playoff games.
Also - Iginla wasn't winning the smythe in 2004, this was probably gonna be Kiprussof.

Even if you prefer Iginla's playoffs - it's nowhere near enough a differentiator to make up for the regular season gap imo. His playoffs simply aren't that strong

While Thornton doesn't deserve the playoff choker noose around his neck from playing injured in the 04 playoffs he is still well behind Iggy in terms of overall playoff resume.

While Kipper might have won the Smythe had the Flames won, Iggy had a Smythe worthy playoff that year....PERIOD