Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (The Third)
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Up to #8 it's defensible, after that yikes.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I would disagree that it is defensible. It would be like the previous generation making a list and putting Messier/Bourque/Roy as #5-7. It’s a sign that someone believes their generation must have seen the apex of hockey talent.
Including the big-4 (particularly when Howe is last among them) isn’t license to steer an all-time list away from all of time.
I guess if one believes or inclined to think that hockey, or any sport, can't or doesn't evolve even slightly over time this might be the case but heck it's pretty standard canon for the 3 best peak players of all time having entered the league in a 20 year span right?
We will agree to disagree then as I think if someone wanted to make the argument for Jagr, Lidstrom, Hasek and Beliveau for 5,6,7 &8 that there are good arguments to do so.
There are not good arguments to have Messier, Lindros and Sakic at 9,10 & 11.
Overall I think in making any list the actual resumes of the players depends alot more than having to include players form all eras on all levels (not saying that you are suggesting this but it's a general comment).
Peak, prime career, playoffs international level of competition, team and league dynamics, heck everything should be taken into account and analyzed when making these lists.
Of course at the e end of the day people will have a different focus on what is more important and thus that's why lists will be entirely different.
The discussion of these differences is for me more important than the actual lists themselves.
Professor What
Registered User
Sixth for Lidstrom feels like a stretch, sure, but I've read nuttier things on this forum, and I think we can all agree that this is a pretty good place to discuss this sort of thing.
To be honest, the hardest thing for me to swallow in the top 8 is Howe being fourth. Even though I rate Orr ahead of him, Howe is the the one player in the big four that I see the hardest time ranking fourth when considering skill set, level of play, and longevity.
It would be exceptionally hard to sell me any argument for that particular top eight, but I can see how the argument could be made. But yeah, after that, it's crazy. Messier at ninth is out there enough, but Lindros at tenth!? I see no valid argument for tenth at his own position, let alone overall.
Btw, did anyone else notice six centers in the top 10? Deepest position? Absolutely. But isn't 60% a bit over the top?
To be honest, the hardest thing for me to swallow in the top 8 is Howe being fourth. Even though I rate Orr ahead of him, Howe is the the one player in the big four that I see the hardest time ranking fourth when considering skill set, level of play, and longevity.
It would be exceptionally hard to sell me any argument for that particular top eight, but I can see how the argument could be made. But yeah, after that, it's crazy. Messier at ninth is out there enough, but Lindros at tenth!? I see no valid argument for tenth at his own position, let alone overall.
Btw, did anyone else notice six centers in the top 10? Deepest position? Absolutely. But isn't 60% a bit over the top?
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
It's a list that favors flair and flash over all else (naturally, a couple guys excluded)...99 and 66 at the top, Jagr at 5, Hasek at 7...
I imagine Kent Nilsson is 16th...
I imagine Kent Nilsson is 16th...
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
That would have at least been interesting. They had to get Yzerman, Forsberg, Bure, and Bossy out of the way before Richard landed at #16.
Turns out it’s just a draft rather than a formal list or anything, so I’ll at least walk back some of my criticism. Nothing wrong with just spitballing with the guys and gals and throwing out a few names.
Sentinel
Registered User
I would be totally cool with a list that put a strong emphasis on (1) peak (2) artistry / uniqueness and (3) overall excitement.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
You'd need people that can AND are willing to do the film work...
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,849
- 14,803
Players from very early eras are too high. Too different game and competition. Then Robinson is too high. He has won a lot but did not actually play or skate enough good to be up there.
These lists are put together based on and mixed by different criterias that each alone could as well tell apart players very much. Longlivety and number of Stanley Cups puts some players higher than some better players with a shorter career on lesser team(s).
These lists are put together based on and mixed by different criterias that each alone could as well tell apart players very much. Longlivety and number of Stanley Cups puts some players higher than some better players with a shorter career on lesser team(s).
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,674
- 5,102
We have a new project in the pipeline, so this one won't stay a sticky, but the 2018-19 project remains easily accessible via the Top Players of All Time Lists sticky.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Sid Abel should definitely be a C/LW. All-Star at LW, spent the first 1/3 or so of his career at LW.
Not a big deal, but Messier and Mark Howe have their secondary positions listed first... though those two are accurate if the listings are chronological.
Not a big deal, but Messier and Mark Howe have their secondary positions listed first... though those two are accurate if the listings are chronological.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,594
- 16,271
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
No. I've completely abdicated my responsibilities for this project after I stepped in to see it to its completion. I readily admit that and I definitely harbor some personal guilt about it. None of the data is lost and I do fully intend to get it all released eventually. I am truly sorry it has taken this long.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,594
- 16,271
No worries (and obviously no rush). I was just wondering as I couldn't find it, and I wasn't sure if I missed it somewhere.
If done today, McDavid obviously makes it in the top 100. The real question is whether or not he cracks the top 50.
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,322
- 5,998
Many posters on the main board seem to believe that Cale Makar has already surpassed Erik Karlsson in terms of career value. Karlsson was ranked #109 on the top-200 list. Makar surely would make it onto The List given his 2022 campaign.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
There's a lot more to a career than 2.5 seasons of elite play.
He hasn't overtaken Karlsson or Keith yet. He has a better start to his career, but we're comparing someone with 178 career regular season games to men at the end of their careers.
He hasn't overtaken Karlsson or Keith yet. He has a better start to his career, but we're comparing someone with 178 career regular season games to men at the end of their careers.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
For reference, three years ago the #51 and #52 guys were Forsberg and Malkin.
Basic comparisons:
Forsberg
Seasons/Games: 13 / 708
Hart: 1
AS Center: 1, 1, 1, 3, 5
Scoring: 2, 4, 5
Goals: no top-5
Assists: 1, 2, 3, 4
Selke: 2, 4
Cups: 2
Smythe: none
International: Iconic in Sweden for his WJC and 1994 Olympic performances, but his record in best-on-best tournaments isn't remarkable.
Malkin
Seasons/Games: 16 / 981
Hart: 1, 2, 2
AS Center: 1, 1, 1, 4
Scoring: 1, 1, 2, 4
Goals: 2, 4, 4, 5
Assists: 1, 3
Selke: no top-5
Cups: 3
Smythe: 1
International: Has generally played well individually, even though Team Russia has fallen short of expectations.
McDavid
Seasons/Games: 7 / 487
Hart: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5
AS Center: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3
Points: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
Goals: 2, 6, 6, 7, 10
Assists: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3
Selke: no top-5
Cups: none
Smythe: none
International: Has never had the opportunity to play in an Olympics. Has performed well in successful lower-level international tourneys.
It's pretty clear that McDavid belongs above these guys, IMO. But I suspect the discussion thread would still have made a debate out of it, because these are three of the most debatable players in the entire project, and the comparison tends to hit on points that are often controversial (healthy seasons, Cups, international play).
Black Gold Extractor
Registered User
- May 4, 2010
- 3,092
- 4,967
A decent comparable is Mikita at #24:
Mikita
Seasons/Games: 22/1396
Hart: 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
AS Center: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6
Points: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4
Goals: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Assists: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Selke: Played in a time before the Selke, but was generally considered decent defensively.
Cups: 1
Smythe: none
International: Had 1 assist in 2 games in the 1972 Summit Series, which occurred after he turned 30... so it's probably barely worth mentioning. (Then again, Hull led the 1974 Summit Series in scoring at age 35... so maybe it is worth mentioning?)
There are a couple of other parallels between Mikita and McDavid. Both had teammates who largely played on different lines at even strength but were still able to compete with them in terms of points production (but were better goal-scorers). Each led one postseason in scoring and plus-minus without winning the Cup.
At this point, Mikita is ahead due to the fact that he finished his career (and had more years to accumulate more significant seasons), and McDavid is still only 25.
So I'd guess McDavid at somewhere between 30-50... for now.
Staniowski
Registered User
McDavid, Malkin, Forsberg were all a lot better hockey players than Mikita.....if Chicago had any one of those 3 instead of Mikita, they would've had a lot more success.
