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

[Nick Hansen]

Jarome Iginla has the peak but I can't shake the impression that he was no better than Mats Sundin or Mike Modano as a franchise player (and neither made the list, along with a myriad of other centers in the same range).

Very good comparison, that's exactly what I feel with regards to Iginla. I don't doubt that if Modano or Sundin had peaked around the same time Iginla did, that they could've competed for the same awards. Modano doesn't have the same season to show but I do think the Hitchcock system hindered him quite a bit. They were a defensive team. Sundin, though, had 94 pts in 96/97 as a 25-year old neck-deep in the DPE. Transplant that 25-year old Sundin to 01/02, he's gonna be up there I think (also notice how much ice time Iginla got, understandable but that has been whined about with regards to Kovalchuk for example):

1	Mario Lemieux*	31	PIT	C	76	50	72	122	27	65	14.5	32	15	3	7	47	22	3	327	15.3
2	Teemu Selanne*	26	MDA	RW	78	51	58	109	28	34	13.7	39	11	1	8	37	21	0	273	18.7
3	Paul Kariya*	22	MDA	LW	69	44	55	99	36	6	12.6	26	15	3	10	35	19	1	340	12.9
4	Wayne Gretzky*	36	NYR	C	82	25	72	97	12	28	9.5	19	6	0	2	46	25	1	286	8.7
5	John LeClair	27	PHI	LW	82	50	47	97	44	58	13.0	40	10	0	5	41	6	0	324	15.4
6	Jaromir Jagr	24	PIT	RW	63	47	48	95	22	40	12.0	34	11	2	6	33	14	1	234	20.1
7	Mats Sundin*	25	TOR	C	82	41	53	94	6	59	11.0	30	7	4	8	37	13	3	281	14.6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And 01/02:

1	Jarome Iginla*	24	CGY	RW	82	52	44	96	27	77	14.4	35	16	1	7	29	14	1	311	16.7	1834	22:22
2	Markus Naslund	28	VAN	LW	81	40	50	90	22	50	11.9	32	8	0	6	27	23	0	302	13.2	1580	19:31
3	Todd Bertuzzi	26	VAN	RW	72	36	49	85	21	110	11.2	22	14	0	3	33	16	0	203	17.7	1416	19:40
4	Mats Sundin*	30	TOR	C	82	41	39	80	6	94	10.3	29	10	2	9	24	14	1	262	15.6	1585	19:20

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Nick Hansen]

I also think Iginla got some kind of power forward reputation that I never quite understood because he fought from time to time. I found him surprisingly non-physical most of the time I saw him play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bure is up there among the greatest ever YouTube players, but in terms of accomplishments, I'd take Sweeney Schriner, among offense-only wingers.

Bure had 3 Rockets. Iginla had 2 (one was a tie)

Bure was first team all-star once, second team twice. Iginla 3 first team, one second team. Of course, his career is much longer.

Iginla does have an Art Ross trophy.

Iginla had insane goal differentials vs. teammates. But Bure has the insanest, 59 goals for the Panthers and Kozlov was next with 14.

Neither guy wins a Cup.

 

[seventieslord]

Iginla was easily the biggest snub on the list.

Ullman?

 

[bobholly39]

Bure had 3 Rockets. Iginla had 2 (one was a tie)

Bure was first team all-star once, second team twice. Iginla 3 first team, one second team. Of course, his career is much longer.

Iginla does have an Art Ross trophy.

Iginla had insane goal differentials vs. teammates. But Bure has the insanest, 59 goals for the Panthers and Kozlov was next with 14.

Neither guy wins a Cup.

WTH. How is that even possible? I never realized how big the gap was, that's insane....37 points for the next best scorer, and he had 92 points?

Pretty crazy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

WTH. How is that even possible? I never realized how big the gap was, that's insane....37 points for the next best scorer, and he had 92 points?

Pretty crazy.

Talk about your one man team....

 

[quoipourquoi]

It’s a little overstated. Kozlov and Whitney paced for ~60 points each (they each had 70/71 the year before) but only played 51 and 43 games respectively. Of the Panthers 10 best scorers after Bure, 8 played in fewer than 70 games. That doesn’t make for great raw vs. raw goals/points comparisons.

 

[wetcoast]

Indeed. Lundqvist should be too. Something we discussed in the other threads - how it is incredibly unlikely that there hasn’t been a top-100 goaltender since the 1990 draft.

Had either come up for vote in the final rounds (which Pavel Bure actually did), I wouldn’t have been surprised to see either become instant #1s in their round like Ed Belfour was 15 spots earlier.

I understand what you are saying here but this has always rubbed me the wrong way in terms of logic.

When the argument for someone is because we haven't had a player from that position or era for quite some time then maybe it's more about how we are looking at and comparing players and maybe the process needs to be looked at.

I think part of the problem is chronological and once a player is on a list, say from 1945 then to put any similar type of player above him on the list, it has to be an absolute no brainer.

What if one started their top 100 list from this past season and then looked backwards, I bet the list would end up looking quite different and the thought process would be worth it.

Specifically to goalies it's become much harder to dominate year in year out in a larger league and then with a salary cap more recently. Call it the "lack of dynasty complex" if you will.

But to be honest I have a very hard team evaluating goalies compared to potion players where individual talent and accomplishments are easier to distinguish.

Put another way it's easier to see the difference between a great player on a bad team than a great goalie on a bad or average team.

 

[Veritas]

If this project is revisited within the next decade, is there any chance that Erik Karlsson sneaks his way onto this list? Assuming his career follows its current trajectory, would that be enough to keep him away from it? How will his career will compare with say, Chara or Leetch?

 

[quoipourquoi]

If this project is revisited within the next decade, is there any chance that Erik Karlsson sneaks his way onto this list? Assuming his career follows its current trajectory, would that be enough to keep him away from it? How will his career will compare with say, Chara or Leetch?

I think it’s incredibly likely. He was eligible in the final vote, finishing 105th (already ahead of the previously mentioned Bower, Bure, Esposito, and Francis, but behind Iginla and Ullman).

For me, I thought he deserved 4 Norris Trophies and voted accordingly. It’s possible that as we get further from 2016 and 2017, people lose sight of how well regarded he was. In terms of Norris runner-ups, those were probably the best ones the league has seen since at least 1994 and 1996 (and even that may be underrating those seasons).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ullman?

Ugh, I temporarily forgot Ullman didn't make this list... somehow.

But yes, Ullman and Iginla are the two biggest snubs.

You can argue someone like Martinec or Maltsev (indeed, I believe I had Martinec #1 on my final ballot), but non-NHLers are so much harder to rank. Plus those guys wouldn't have made it, based on the positional lists.

Iginla and Ullman were (IMO wrongly) passed by other players at their same positions who (IMO correctly) finished behind them on the positional lists.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ugh, I temporarily forgot Ullman didn't make this list... somehow.

But yes, Ullman and Iginla are the two biggest snubs.

You can argue someone like Martinec or Maltsev (indeed, I believe I had Martinec #1 on my final ballot), but non-NHLers are so much harder to rank. Plus those guys wouldn't have made it, based on the positional lists.

Iginla and Ullman were (IMO wrongly) passed by other players at their same positions who (IMO correctly) finished behind them on the positional lists.

i don't know that much about ullman but he was demonstrably better than abel and keon, or just in a grey area with them?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Iginla had insane goal differentials vs. teammates. But Bure has the insanest, 59 goals for the Panthers and Kozlov was next with 14.

.

That's not what I meant by goal differential. I meant the difference in the number of goals his team scores vs the number it allows when he's on the ice.

Based on overpass's new spreadsheet, Iginla's team's ratio of goals scored vs goals against when he was on the ice (R-on) was 1.08 vs a ratio of 0.91 when he was off the ice (R-off). But if you look at just his peak seasons, the difference was quite a bit higher (this was shown in the tables that got destroyed in the migration). Bure's career R-on was 1.05 vs 0.96 career R-off, but his career was all peak.

 

[buffalowing88]

Sakic may have aged better, but Yzerman started stronger...

Sakic scored 100 points when he was 37, Yzerman scored 155 points when he was only 23!

It all evens out, IMO

And Sakic may have been a marginally better playoff performer, but I don't think the difference - if there is one - warrants the disparity in their ranking

What makes Cylcone Taylor, Bill Cook, and Newsy Lalonde worse than Sakic, but better than Yzerman? I just don't see the logic to it...

I think at this point you're on the wrong side of history if you don't see the slight, but very important areas where Sakic separates himself from Yzerman. There were plenty of guys who peaked offensively in the mid/late 80s, Yzerman included. Sakic managed to peak multiple times after this, when scoring wasn't as prolific. In addition to this, you could always count on Sakic to be a strong playoff performer from Day One. I love both of these guys and they're the reason I wore number 19 as a kid, but Sakic is better than Yzerman and I don't see a great argument otherwise.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i don't know that much about ullman but he was demonstrably better than abel and keon, or just in a grey area with them?

His own coach Punch Imlach ranked him above Keon and said he was the best player he ever coached.

Ullman also scored a very large percentage of his points at even strength, while only playing on Howe's line for two years, so that would put him over Abel (and Fedorov) for me.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, we are talking 2 guys who should probably be in the 81-100 range, so it's not like they are enormous snubs or anything. I just don't like how their positions dropped from the wingers project without particularly good reason... in my own opinion of course.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It’s a little overstated. Kozlov and Whitney paced for ~60 points each (they each had 70/71 the year before) but only played 51 and 43 games respectively. Of the Panthers 10 best scorers after Bure, 8 played in fewer than 70 games. That doesn’t make for great raw vs. raw goals/points comparisons.

well there were three players on that roster capable of sniffing 20 goals or 50 points and they all played between 1/2 (whitney) to 2/3 (sillinger) of the season. so it's still fair to say he was extremely lacking in the help department.

if you prorated all three guys' goals totals to 82 games and added them up, you would get 60 goals, one more than bure scored all by himself. as it stands, they combined for 37 real goals, one more than third place scorer marcus nilson had points (over a full season).

 

[buffalowing88]

His own coach Punch Imlach ranked him above Keon and said he was the best player he ever coached.

Ullman also scored a very large percentage of his points at even strength, while only playing on Howe's line for two years, so that would put him over Abel (and Fedorov) for me.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, we are talking 2 guys who should probably be in the 81-100 range, so it's not like they are enormous snubs or anything. I just don't like how their positions dropped from the wingers project without particularly good reason... in my own opinion of course.

I'm of the much maligned opinion that Keon is overrated to begin with so I'm here for this haha.

 

[buffalowing88]

well there were three players on that roster capable of sniffing 20 goals or 50 points and they all played between 1/2 (whitney) to 2/3 (sillinger) of the season. so it's still fair to say he was extremely lacking in the help department.

if you prorated all three guys' goals totals to 82 games and added them up, you would get 60 goals, one more than bure scored all by himself. as it stands, they combined for 37 real goals, one more than third place scorer marcus nilson had points (over a full season).

Not really sure what the point being made here is. I will say that Kozlov could have absolutely been a perennial 30 goal scorer had things worked out differently, but what we have is what we have.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Not really sure what the point being made here is. I will say that Kozlov could have absolutely been a perennial 30 goal scorer had things worked out differently, but what we have is what we have.

just that "but the good players were hurt" doesn't really make sense as an argument to diminish bure having no help that year because, well, they weren't really there to help him that much were they?

 

[Perennial]

I think at this point you're on the wrong side of history if you don't see the slight, but very important areas where Sakic separates himself from Yzerman. There were plenty of guys who peaked offensively in the mid/late 80s, Yzerman included. Sakic managed to peak multiple times after this, when scoring wasn't as prolific. In addition to this, you could always count on Sakic to be a strong playoff performer from Day One. I love both of these guys and they're the reason I wore number 19 as a kid, but Sakic is better than Yzerman and I don't see a great argument otherwise.

From '88 - '94, Yzerman had 814 points in 524 games before injuries began slowing him down...

I won't argue if you want to say Sakic had the better career, but to say he was the better player? I don't remember it that way...

 

[buffalowing88]

just that "but the good players were hurt" doesn't really make sense as an argument to diminish bure having no help that year because, well, they weren't really there to help him that much were they?

No, you're right. I wasn't trying to diminish an argument on Bure, for example, I'm merely saying that Kozlov was very talented. Much moreso than players who had greater careers than him. But his talent alone means something to me.

 

[buffalowing88]

From '88 - '94, Yzerman had 814 points in 524 games before injuries began slowing him down...

I won't argue if you want to say Sakic had the better career, but to say he was the better player? I don't remember it that way...

That's fair. Maybe I was a bit dramatic in saying that Sakic was bonafide better than Yzerman. I just know what I saw (a weak reason, admittedly). I thought Sakic was the better player but I'm fine with admitting that this is open to interpretation.

I will not, however, bend on my opinion that Fedorov>Forsberg. So we all have our own hills to die on. Yzerman vs. Sakic is difficult to fully consider. I just know that I was always certain a Sakic-led team would be a hair better than an Yzerman-led team if not for the two year cup run Detroit had, in which they were superior in terms of support on offensive depth and defense.

 

[quoipourquoi]

just that "but the good players were hurt" doesn't really make sense as an argument to diminish bure having no help that year because, well, they weren't really there to help him that much were they?

But does measuring a player versus his next closest teammate (who plays 31 fewer games) actually capture what we’re looking for better than, say, a percentage-based evaluation versus the team?

Scoring 59 of 200 goals (and having points on 46%) is very good. We can say that without making it about the 59-to-14 thing that is missing some pretty serious context.

Those 31 games Kozlov missed, and 21 games Sillinger missed, and 38 games Whitney missed, doesn’t mean there’s no one taking their places and contributing to those 70% of non-Bure goals.

So I think 59-to-14 is more like interesting trivia than a reason to think any better of Bure as a player. 59-of-200 and 92-of-200 are the one that have actual value.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I will not, however, bend on my opinion that Fedorov>Forsberg. So we all have our own hills to die on.

I can see you’ve been in a coma since 1996. I have some bad news about Princess Diana.

 

[Perennial]

Here's a name that hasn't been mentioned yet, but future generations will likely look back curiously at his omission from the list: Stamkos

He's played 800 career games - 100 more than Bure - and I'd be willing to bet that if adjusted for era, he's among the top 10 all-time in GPG

If Bure was snubbed, I think there's an argument to be made that Stamkos was too