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

[tarheelhockey]

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.

They were a lot better than a 2-time Hart winner, 4-time scoring champ who was well regarded for his defense and toughness?

Am I missing something? Why is Mikita not in the same class as Malkin and Forsberg? I can understand the argument for him being below McDavid’s caliber, but that’s why @Black Gold Extractor mentioned that the difference is purely on longevity.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

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.

In terms of playoff performance, sure. If Mikita had a playoff resume that was commensurate with his regular season, he'd be ~10 spots higher on the list (if I had to guess).

 

[jigglysquishy]

If Mikita had a playoff resume comparable to his regular season resume he would be placed above Beliveau for #3 centres.

He is a consensus top ten centre of all time as it is.

 

[Staniowski]

If Mikita had a playoff resume comparable to his regular season resume he would be placed above Beliveau for #3 centres.

He is a consensus top ten centre of all time as it is.

You mean, if he was Stan Mikita except a lot better, then he would be better than Beliveau.

It would have to be a LOT better. Mikita is not in the same universe as Beliveau.

 

[Staniowski]

They were a lot better than a 2-time Hart winner, 4-time scoring champ who was well regarded for his defense and toughness?

Am I missing something? Why is Mikita not in the same class as Malkin and Forsberg? I can understand the argument for him being below McDavid’s caliber, but that’s why @Black Gold Extractor mentioned that the difference is purely on longevity.

Forsberg and Malkin were a lot better hockey players than Mikita. It's not even close.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

People are asking you why, and you're just repeating your claim without adding any "why".

 

[Staniowski]

People are asking you why, and you're just repeating your claim without adding any "why".

Mikita was a (relative) lightweight. He and Pilote were the two most overrated players of that era. Few teams would ever be afraid to go up against Mikita, ever. He was kind of like Denis Savard or Adam Oates. These are not scary players. In the '60s, Hull, Howe, Beliveau were much better players.

Watch Mikita play. He's not even close to being as good as Forsberg and Malkin (and McDavid).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Mikita was a (relative) lightweight. He and Pilote were the two most overrated players of that era. Few teams would ever be afraid to go up against Mikita, ever. He was kind of like Denis Savard or Adam Oates. These are not scary players. In the '60s, Hull, Howe, Beliveau were much better players.

Watch Mikita play. He's not even close to being as good as Forsberg and Malkin (and McDavid).

Not saying much there. They're all much better than Malkin & Forsberg also.

 

[DitchMarner]

Other than McDavid, which active players that didn't make the current Top 100 list would be good candidates to make such a list if one was made now?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Other than McDavid, which active players that didn't make the current Top 100 list would be good candidates to make such a list if one was made now?

We're only 18 months removed from the 101 to 200 list, which is basically two playoffs and 1.5 regular seasons.

McDavid added two Art Rosses, a first and second finish in Hart voting, and arguably the greatest 3 playoff rounds by a forward post Lemieux. I have him as a top 20 centre all time now and rapidly gaining ground. Besides him:

Matthews added a first and second place Hart finish, plus a dominant Rocket. He's not in the top 100 yet, but he's knocking on the door.

Hedman added two third place Norris finishes and two great Cup runs. He has solidified himself as the best post Chara defenseman and will likely overtake Chara as the best post Lidstrom defenseman. I would have to take a closer look, but he's probably the best non McDavid candidate to join the top 100.

Vasilevsky had two great regular seasons, including an AS 1. Plus two very dominant playoffs. Longevity is difficult for goalies, but he's crossing the threshold.

Kucherov and Draisailt have added to their legacies too, but are not top 100 players yet. Makar has had a tremendous start to his career, but we are several years away from him joining the group.

 

[Batis]

Kucherov and Draisailt have added to their legacies too, but are not top 100 players yet. Makar has had a tremendous start to his career, but we are several years away from him joining the group.

To me Kucherov seems like a borderline top-100 player already at this point. I mean while Martin St Louis (98th on our list) still may have an advantage over Kucherov when it comes to regular season resumes thanks to more longevity I would think that Kucherovs massive advantage when it comes to playoff resumes (Kucherov scored more playoff points during the last three seasons than St Louis scored throughout his entire playoff career) already should put him in the same tier as St Louis. And even when it comes to the regular season it is not as if St Louis is very far ahead of Kucherov when it comes to things such as scoring finishes, Hart voting finishes and All-Star selections.

Hart voting
St Louis: 1st, 3rd, 9th
Kucherov: 1st, 6th, 8th

All-Star team selections
St Louis: 1 first team selection, 4 second team selections
Kucherov: 2 first team selections, 2 second team selections

Scoring finishes
St Louis: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th 6th
Kucherov: 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th

Points per game finishes (per hockey reference)
St Louis: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 9th
Kucherov: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 8th

 

[Strong Hearts]

Patrick, Starshinov, Getzlaf and LeClair get pushed out by Vasilevskiy, Matthews, Draisaitl and MacKinnon. Anyone disagree?

 

[Staniowski]

Not saying much there. They're all much better than Malkin & Forsberg also.

Not at those ages....Howe was 12 years older than Mikita. Forsberg and Malkin at their best were better than mid-to-late 30s Howe. Howe was still excellent through most of the '60s, but he had declined considerably too. He wasn't the Howe of the '50s.

 

[Staniowski]

If Mikita had a playoff resume comparable to his regular season resume he would be placed above Beliveau for #3 centres.

He is a consensus top ten centre of all time as it is.

He's certainly not one of the 10 best centres ever....there are quite a few centres in the NHL right now who are (or have been) better, but these guys are not going to win 4 scoring titles because the competition is substantially greater.

In terms of playoff performance, sure. If Mikita had a playoff resume that was commensurate with his regular season, he'd be ~10 spots higher on the list (if I had to guess).

What does that mean....are you saying Mikita didn't play well in the playoffs?

 

[Neutrinos]

Not saying much there. They're all much better than Malkin & Forsberg also.

No player from half a century ago was better than Forsberg and Malkin

 

[Staniowski]

No player from half a century ago was better than Forsberg and Malkin

I wouldn't go that far...Bobby Orr was at his best 50 years ago, and some of the Summit Series guys were excellent.

But you need to look at the players in question. Some eras have a lot more quality players than other eras, that is true...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not at those ages....Howe was 12 years older than Mikita. Forsberg and Malkin at their best were better than mid-to-late 30s Howe. Howe was still excellent through most of the '60s, but he had declined considerably too. He wasn't the Howe of the '50s.

Don't see how age comes into this.

Howe won the scoring title and the Hart trophy in 1963 when he was 34 years old. The same year 22-year-old Mikita was 2nd for the Hart, first team all-star at center and 3rd in scoring.

Howe was also first team all-star 3 seasons in a row when he was 39-41 years old. Into the 70's.

Both Malkin and Forsberg were first team all-stars 3 times. Mikita 6 times.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No player from half a century ago was better than Forsberg and Malkin

That's a very naive statement.

 

[JackSlater]

No player from half a century ago was better than Forsberg and Malkin

Ah yes, quite a statement coming from the guy who claimed, in seriousness, that if he went back to the Original Six NHL with his skates and stick from today, he would be a competent NHLer and a threat on the powerplay due to the vision he shows in beer league.

 

[Neutrinos]

I wouldn't go that far...Bobby Orr was at his best 50 years ago, and some of the Summit Series guys were excellent.

But you need to look at the players in question. Some eras have a lot more quality players than other eras, that is true...

That's a very naive statement.

Orr was a tremendous talent, and is likely the most dominant player in hockey history, however, he played in an era when the league was comprised almost entirely of Canadians at a time when Canada's population was approx. 1/3 of what it is today

Simply put, Orr was the big fish in a small talent pool, and I'd wager the majority of his competition wouldn't have been good enough to play in the modern era

So, as impressive as he was during his career, Orr wasn't doing anything that Forsberg and Malkin weren't able to do at a much faster pace against much better defenders and goaltenders:

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Orr was a tremendous talent, and is likely the most dominant player in hockey history, however, he played in an era when the league was comprised almost entirely of Canadians at a time when Canada's population was approx. 1/3 of what it is today

Simply put, Orr was the big fish in a small talent pool, and I'd wager the majority of his competition wouldn't have been good enough to play in the modern era

So, as impressive as he was during his career, Orr wasn't doing anything that Forsberg and Malkin weren't able to do at a much faster pace against much better defenders and goaltenders:

This is all old news here.

Believe what you want to.

 

[Neutrinos]

This is all old news here.

Believe what you want to.

It's not a matter of believing what I want, it's about accepting reality

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Where have you seen this?

Some people think that Makar at his peak is better than EK at his peak (I sue 3 consecutive years for this metric) but I haven't seen many people claiming Makar career wise over EK (or others at this point).

Makar is definitely trending like a young Brian Leetch though with a little more consistency at the same time in their careers.

 

[wetcoast]

In terms of playoff performance, sure. If Mikita had a playoff resume that was commensurate with his regular season, he'd be ~10 spots higher on the list (if I had to guess).

Weird thing to say as Mikita had a pretty good individual playoff resume.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Weird thing to say as Mikita had a pretty good individual playoff resume.

Mikita's had achieved greater regular-season success than Beliveau and Hull, but he underachieved relative to that standard in the playoffs.

After adjusting their playoff points per game by normalizing their opponents to 200 GA per 82 GP (quoipourquoi's method):

Age​	Mikita​	Beliveau​	Hull​
19​	0.32​	​	​
20​	0.77​	​	0.36​
21​	1.75​	​	0.32​
22​	0.73​	1.01​	0.99​
23​	1.08​	1.23​	1.15​
24​	0.69​	1.91​	1.76​
25​	0.44​	0.99​	0.84​
26​	0.54​	1.02​	1.17​
27​	1.10​	1.37​	0.59​
28​	-​	0.79​	0.81​
29​	1.14​	0.79​	0.93​
30​	0.92​	0.46​	-​
31​	0.46​	0.57​	1.26​
32​	1.19​	0.40​	1.29​
33​	0.85​	1.20​	0.83​
34​	0.71​	0.90​	-​
35​	0.00​	0.94​	-​
36​	0.51​	0.90​	-​
37​	0.67​	1.05​	-​
38​	​	-​	-​
39​	​	1.00​	-​
40​	​	​	-​
41​	​	​	0.00​

Detailed year-by-year breakdowns are listed below:

Spoiler: Mikita

Season​

Age​

Tm​

GP​

G​

A​

P​

+/-​

Adj. G​

Adj. A​

Adj. P​

Adj. G/GP​

Adj. P/GP​

Career​

-​

-​

155​

59​

91​

150​

-8​

53.8​

82.7​

136.5​

0.35​

0.88​

1960​

19​

CBH​

3​

0​

1​

1​

-2​

0.0​

1.0​

1.0​

0.00​

0.32​

1961​

20​

CBH​

12​

6​

5​

11​

5​

5.1​

4.1​

9.2​

0.43​

0.77​

1962​

21​

CBH​

12​

6​

15​

21​

9​

5.9​

15.0​

21.0​

0.49​

1.75​

1963​

22​

CBH​

6​

3​

2​

5​

0​

2.6​

1.8​

4.4​

0.44​

0.73​

1964​

23​

CBH​

7​

3​

6​

9​

-1​

2.5​

5.0​

7.5​

0.36​

1.08​

1965​

24​

CBH​

14​

3​

7​

10​

3​

2.9​

6.7​

9.6​

0.21​

0.69​

1966​

25​

CBH​

6​

1​

2​

3​

-5​

0.9​

1.8​

2.6​

0.15​

0.44​

1967​

26​

CBH​

6​

2​

2​

4​

-1​

1.6​

1.6​

3.2​

0.27​

0.54​

1968​

27​

CBH​

11​

5​

7​

12​

-2​

5.1​

7.0​

12.1​

0.47​

1.10​

1969​

28​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1970​

29​

CBH​

8​

4​

6​

10​

-2​

3.7​

5.4​

9.1​

0.46​

1.14​

1971​

30​

CBH​

18​

5​

13​

18​

7​

4.7​

11.8​

16.5​

0.26​

0.92​

1972​

31​

CBH​

8​

3​

1​

4​

-7​

2.7​

1.0​

3.7​

0.34​

0.46​

1973​

32​

CBH​

15​

7​

13​

20​

-3​

6.6​

11.2​

17.8​

0.44​

1.19​

1974​

33​

CBH​

11​

5​

6​

11​

1​

4.2​

5.1​

9.4​

0.38​

0.85​

1975​

34​

CBH​

8​

3​

4​

7​

-1​

2.4​

3.2​

5.6​

0.30​

0.71​

1976​

35​

CBH​

4​

0​

0​

0​

-2​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.00​

0.00​

1977​

36​

CBH​

2​

0​

1​

1​

-2​

0.0​

1.0​

1.0​

0.00​

0.51​

1978​

37​

CBH​

4​

3​

0​

3​

-5​

2.7​

0.0​

2.7​

0.67​

0.67​

Spoiler: Beliveau

Season​

Age​

Tm​

GP​

G​

A​

P​

+/-​

Adj. G​

Adj. A​

Adj. P​

Adj. G/GP​

Adj. P/GP​

Career​

-​

-​

162​

79​

97​

176​

27​

73.0​

91.6​

164.6​

0.45​

1.02​

1954​

22​

MTL​

10​

2​

8​

10​

0​

1.9​

8.2​

10.1​

0.19​

1.01​

1955​

23​

MTL​

12​

6​

7​

13​

0​

6.5​

8.2​

14.7​

0.55​

1.23​

1956​

24​

MTL​

10​

12​

7​

19​

0​

12.3​

6.8​

19.1​

1.23​

1.91​

1957​

25​

MTL​

10​

6​

6​

12​

0​

5.0​

5.0​

9.9​

0.50​

0.99​

1958​

26​

MTL​

10​

4​

8​

12​

0​

3.4​

6.8​

10.2​

0.34​

1.02​

1959​

27​

MTL​

3​

1​

4​

5​

0​

0.8​

3.3​

4.1​

0.27​

1.37​

1960​

28​

MTL​

8​

5​

2​

7​

7​

4.5​

1.9​

6.3​

0.56​

0.79​

1961​

29​

MTL​

6​

0​

5​

5​

2​

0.0​

4.7​

4.7​

0.00​

0.79​

1962​

30​

MTL​

6​

2​

1​

3​

-3​

1.8​

0.9​

2.8​

0.31​

0.46​

1963​

31​

MTL​

5​

2​

1​

3​

-1​

1.9​

0.9​

2.8​

0.38​

0.57​

1964​

32​

MTL​

5​

2​

0​

2​

-2​

2.0​

0.0​

2.0​

0.40​

0.40​

1965​

33​

MTL​

13​

8​

8​

16​

-1​

7.8​

7.8​

15.6​

0.60​

1.20​

1966​

34​

MTL​

10​

5​

5​

10​

4​

4.5​

4.5​

9.0​

0.45​

0.90​

1967​

35​

MTL​

10​

6​

5​

11​

2​

5.0​

4.3​

9.4​

0.50​

0.94​

1968​

36​

MTL​

10​

7​

4​

11​

4​

5.7​

3.3​

9.0​

0.57​

0.90​

1969​

37​

MTL​

14​

5​

10​

15​

2​

4.4​

10.3​

14.7​

0.31​

1.05​

1970​

38​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1971​

39​

MTL​

20​

6​

16​

22​

13​

5.4​

14.6​

20.0​

0.27​

1.00​

Spoiler: Hull

Season​

Age​

Tm​

GP​

G​

A​

P​

+/-​

Adj. G​

Adj. A​

Adj. P​

Adj. G/GP​

Adj. P/GP​

Career​

-​

-​

119​

62​

67​

129​

16​

56.7​

61.8​

118.5​

0.48​

1.00​

1959​

20​

CBH​

6​

1​

1​

2​

0​

1.1​

1.1​

2.2​

0.18​

0.36​

1960​

21​

CBH​

3​

1​

0​

1​

-1​

1.0​

0.0​

1.0​

0.32​

0.32​

1961​

22​

CBH​

12​

4​

10​

14​

10​

3.4​

8.5​

11.9​

0.28​

0.99​

1962​

23​

CBH​

12​

8​

6​

14​

-3​

7.9​

5.9​

13.8​

0.66​

1.15​

1963​

24​

CBH​

5​

8​

2​

10​

-2​

7.0​

1.8​

8.8​

1.41​

1.76​

1964​

25​

CBH​

7​

2​

5​

7​

0​

1.7​

4.2​

5.9​

0.24​

0.84​

1965​

26​

CBH​

14​

10​

7​

17​

4​

9.7​

6.7​

16.4​

0.69​

1.17​

1966​

27​

CBH​

6​

2​

2​

4​

-3​

1.8​

1.8​

3.5​

0.29​

0.59​

1967​

28​

CBH​

6​

4​

2​

6​

1​

3.2​

1.6​

4.9​

0.54​

0.81​

1968​

29​

CBH​

11​

4​

6​

10​

2​

4.1​

6.1​

10.2​

0.38​

0.93​

1969​

30​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1970​

31​

CBH​

8​

3​

8​

11​

2​

2.8​

7.3​

10.1​

0.35​

1.26​

1971​

32​

CBH​

18​

11​

14​

25​

9​

9.9​

13.4​

23.3​

0.55​

1.29​

1972​

33​

CBH​

8​

4​

4​

8​

2​

3.2​

3.5​

6.7​

0.40​

0.83​

1973​

34​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1974​

35​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1975​

36​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1976​

37​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1977​

38​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1978​

39​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1979​

40​

-​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

-​

-​

1980​

41​

HAR​

3​

0​

0​

0​

-5​

0.0​

0.0​

0.0​

0.00​

0.00​

Another comparison would also to look at Mikita against Hull and Beliveau directly, which penalizes Beliveau for being in his 30's. After Mikita's impressive 21 points in 12 games in 1961-62, here is all three fared in 1962-63 through 1971-72 (Hull's last season in the NHL until he returned nearly a decade later):

Player​	GP​	G​	A​	P​	+/-​	P/GP​	EVG​	EVP​
Bobby Hull​	83​	48​	50​	98​	15​	1.18​	28​	58​
Jean Beliveau​	87​	41​	49​	90​	21​	1.03​	25​	50​
Stan Mikita​	84​	29​	46​	75​	-8​	0.89​	18​	48​

That's basically the difference between a couple of top-10 players and the guy ranked #24 on the current list, or at least how I interpret it. Hull and Beliveau were also better goalscorers, which likely further added to the separation between them and Mikita.