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

[quoipourquoi]

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

And if Pavel Bure and Steven Stamkos were snubbed, then what about Paul Kariya?

That’s how you end up opening the floodgates - you find players who have similar qualities to another player (in this case, Bure was originally brought up relative to Eric Lindros) and say if him, why not him until eventually the players are tethered together mentally and you end up bypassing better players that you wouldn’t think to compare to that original player.

If Fetisov is here, Makarov should be here too. If Pronger is here, Stevens should be here too. If Fedorov is here, Ullman should be here too.

It’s like fighting gravity, but it’s not enough to say Stamkos is the RC Cola to Bure’s Pepsi to Lindros’ Coca-Cola. Scott Niedermayer is over in the corner serving up Mountain Dew, so we can’t just put the RC Cola in the shopping cart without at least talking about Doing the Dew.

 

[bobholly39]

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

To address Stamkos specifically - I don't think you should be too upset over it, as he's just a casualty of being an active player in his prime - and those are the players who I feel were the absolute hardest to rank for this project. He's an active player and any modern guys who are still in their prime are hard to evaluate in an all-time sense. The only exceptions are guys like Crosby/Ovechkin at the absolute top end of performance, or maybe even Chara/Thornton who are almost done.

I don't know if he should or shouldn't be top 100 - but i know he probably didn't get his fair shake because he's in the midst of his prime. Next list around he'll get a good spot, if warranted.

Patrick Kane is in the same boat, and will be a big riser next time I expect. Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, etc. should could factor in too in the future.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I know and remember that, they were injured - but I still didn't recall off hand how ridiculously low the raw output was. 14 goals to 59? That's absolute insanity. And 37 points to 92?

I think if we made a list one day of most skilled player, or raw hockey talent - Bure would end up very far up. Top 50 for sure, maybe even close to top 20. With his actual career accomplishments i'm fine with him being left off the top 100. I'd have him on the inside myself, but the games played is just so low, and he didn't accomplish as much as he could have, so i won't lose sleep over it.

Still - 14 goals/37 points is ridiculous lol. If Auston Matthews scored 92 points and 59 goals next season while second place on the Leafs scored 37 points and 14 goals - not only would he win the hart unanimously, but the media would hail it as the greatest season of all-time.

 

[The Macho King]

Lightning fan here -

Stamkos is not a top 100 player, and I doubt that changes absent some Smythe-worthy runs. The dude really is Thornton-esque in the playoffs and has always had a premier playmaking winger to play with. Great player, but rarely even the best player on his own line.

 

[rmartin65]

Lightning fan here -

Stamkos is not a top 100 player, and I doubt that changes absent some Smythe-worthy runs. The dude really is Thornton-esque in the playoffs and has always had a premier playmaking winger to play with. Great player, but rarely even the best player on his own line.

I think this is a bit harsh- I can't say that I am a devoted follower of Tampa Bay, but I don't recall a series where I am left thinking "wow, where was Stamkos?". Yeah, he hasn't been as good as he has in the regular season, but it is what it is.

He is likely one of the best goal scorers of all time, despite some unfortunate injuries- top 20 in my book, without putting too much thought into it. He has had the benefit of some great playmakers, but just about every great player has benefited from great teammates/linemates.

I'm not saying he is a top 100 player yet, but he would be on my shortlist. I'd certainly have him ranked before... say... Toews.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Iginla was easily the biggest snub on the list.

Iginla gained considerable ground in the very last Vote, an event I covered in some detail with this post:

The also-rans: Round-by-Round (among those available in all three ballots)-
order is only relative to one another, with fresh nominees excluded from the table...

Vote 19	Vote 20	Vote 21
Gerard	Gerard⁴	Iginla
T. Esposito¹	S. Savard⁵	Gerard
S. Savard	Ullman	Ullman
Iginla	T. Esposito	Karlsson
Karlsson	Karlsson	S. Savard
T. Blake²	Iginla⁶	T. Esposito
Vasiliev³	T. Blake	T. Blake
Ullman	Vasiliev	Št'astný
Št'astný	Št'astný	Vasiliev

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1=This would be Tony Esposito's high-water-mark.
2=Toe Blake made an appearance, generated little negativity- but virtually no buzz, either.
3=Vasiliev generated next-to-no-buzz, plus negativity. We probably could have had two more votes and his station wouldn't have improved.
4=It was here where I inferred that the final spot was going to be a two-horse race between Abel & Gerard... and to that end, I had one more say on that matter before I wrapped things up.
5=Savard looked like a possible dark-horse candidate for the last spot here... but I felt he had too many NRs to be a serious threat. Surprised by the dip in that last Vote, though.
6=At this point, I surmised that it wasn't going to happen for Iginla- and decided to use my final posts for something more personally satisfying, e.g.: serving at the vanguard of the anti-defamation project re: Bernie Parent. Not that I thought he had any hope in Hell of making the list-- but I had some fun with it, all-the-same.

The final Vote served up one more surprise- I would have never believed that Iginla would go around Karlsson/Esposito/Ullman/Savard/Gerard with the last balloting- and finish in "Room 101." Would it have a difference if I'd done a deep-dive into the Iginla regular-season statistics and present my findings? I don't think so- the gap between Abel and the pack was considerable. Absolutely no shame in being pipped by Sid Abel.

The TLDR version of what I've quoted above is that Iginla's support spiked in the final Vote and he wound up being this Project's "Bubble-Boy."

Ullman?

I was never fully on-board the Ullman train- but I'm not saying anything new by asserting that I think his inclusion would have been a better look than the inclusion of Joe Thornton.

One final thing about the HoH top-100 list snubs- we ought to reflect on how other lists have fared. the most prominent one is the NHL-specific one released by NHL dot com about three years back. They, too, passed on Iginla & Ullman, but also overlooked Malkin [your fandom can be pretty casual and that omission would induce a double-take], as well as Earl Seibert, Frank Brimsek and Pierre Pilote. And of course, the NHL network list of top-100 players in NHL history ignored every player pre-WWII, except for Morenz, Shore, Clancy and... Hainsworth(?). (So that tally left off Nighbor, Cook, Lalonde, C. Conacher. Vezina, Benedict, Gardiner...)

 

[Perennial]

To address Stamkos specifically - I don't think you should be too upset over it, as he's just a casualty of being an active player in his prime - and those are the players who I feel were the absolute hardest to rank for this project. He's an active player and any modern guys who are still in their prime are hard to evaluate in an all-time sense. The only exceptions are guys like Crosby/Ovechkin at the absolute top end of performance, or maybe even Chara/Thornton who are almost done.

I don't know if he should or shouldn't be top 100 - but i know he probably didn't get his fair shake because he's in the midst of his prime. Next list around he'll get a good spot, if warranted.

Patrick Kane is in the same boat, and will be a big riser next time I expect. Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, etc. should could factor in too in the future.

I'd argue the biggest snub among active players was McDavid

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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?

He was not a better player than Keon.

Better offensively, yes. But Keon was a great defensive center who impacted the game more than Ullman.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I suspect Iginla gaining ground in the final vote was primarily caused by the people who didn’t like him for #95-99 still being softer on him in the final vote than those who didn’t want Savard and Karlsson and Esposito for #95-99 and still left them unranked the next round.

Iginla and Ullman (who at that point had that very obvious comparison point with St. Louis and Fedorov) had their number of unranked ballots slashed in half. Whether it was because people wanted #100 to be a correction of a potential injustice is certainly up for interpretation.

I think Karlsson had a little bit of that with Keith and Leetch too, but polarizing players like offensive defensemen tend to hover at a certain rank each round until their detractors give up the filibuster. If I recall, Sawchuk, Coffey, and Mahovlich got it the worst.

It’s certainly not a perfect system; 4 or 5 people disliking a player for a spot has much more power than 4 or 5 people liking them for it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Doesn't it say anything about Bure that he was able to put up 59 goals in a season with those 3 players missing so much time? Only Sakic (54) and Jagr (52) scored more than 45 goals that season. With the league leader in goals, Florida was 24th in scoring.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd argue the biggest snub among active players was McDavid

Not really a snub.

At the time of the voting McDavid only had three full seasons in. Many voters would not vote for anyone with that little time in the league no matter what they had accomplished.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Oh....never mind.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Doesn't it say anything about Bure that he was able to put up 59 goals in a season with those 3 players missing so much time? Only Sakic (54) and Jagr (52) scored more than 45 goals that season. With the league leader in goals, Florida was 24th in scoring.

I guess my question would be, if those players were healthy, what changes for Bure’s season? I would guess his percentage of the team output decreases and 59-to-14 becomes 59-to-30... but I would still expect him to be a 59-goal player. Just one that is on a better team.

A very good season though, but even with the goal scoring, 24 of 62 voters (39%) still didn’t have him as a top-2 RW alongside Jagr.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Stamkos had not played 800 games when the list was made.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Perhaps Imlach's ranking was based on the fact that he made an unpopular trade for Ullman. And that he didn't get along with Keon (or anyone reallly).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I guess my question would be, if those players were healthy, what changes for Bure’s season? I would guess his percentage of the team output decreases and 59-to-14 becomes 59-to-30... but I would still expect him to be a 59-goal player. Just one that is on a better team.

A very good season though, but even with the goal scoring, 24 of 62 voters (39%) still didn’t have him as a top-2 RW alongside Jagr.

Gee, 24 voters didn't vote for the Russian Rocket?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Gee, 24 voters didn't vote for the Russian Rocket?

In fairness, Alexei Kovalev had a great year.

 

[The Macho King]

I think this is a bit harsh- I can't say that I am a devoted follower of Tampa Bay, but I don't recall a series where I am left thinking "wow, where was Stamkos?". Yeah, he hasn't been as good as he has in the regular season, but it is what it is.

He is likely one of the best goal scorers of all time, despite some unfortunate injuries- top 20 in my book, without putting too much thought into it. He has had the benefit of some great playmakers, but just about every great player has benefited from great teammates/linemates.

I'm not saying he is a top 100 player yet, but he would be on my shortlist. I'd certainly have him ranked before... say... Toews.

Oof - I can think of many.

Detroit in the first round of 2015 is the first that comes to mind, but the list is exhaustive. I cant think of a game (forget series) where I walked away thinking he was the difference, and I've watched literally every Lightning playoff game for the past 20 years.

 

[Perennial]

Nobody commented on my earlier post about Keith, so here it is again...

Keith's inclusion in the top 100 seems out of place considering he never finished higher than 15th in Hart voting...

Duncan Keith
2x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 2x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner

Scott Niedermayer
3x Norris finalist, 1x Norris winner, 3x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner, 2x top 10 in Hart voting

Erik Karlsson
4x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 4x 1st Team All-Star, 4x top 10 in Hart voting

 

[buffalowing88]

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

So long as Hootie and the Blowfish are still the top band in the world, I'm sure things haven't changed THAT much.

Seriously though, Forsberg has the better stats post-1996, I don't disagree. I don't think he was as impactful as Fedorov, however. Fedorov dominated every inch of the ice in a way that I can't remember seeing before or after. Of course, he didn't do it consistently enough, but when he was on, I think he was the better overall player. That's not to take away from Forsberg, who is certainly in my top 100 comfortably.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Nobody commented on my earlier post about Keith, so here it is again...

Keith's inclusion in the top 100 seems out of place considering he never finished higher than 15th in Hart voting...

Duncan Keith
2x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 2x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner

Scott Niedermayer
3x Norris finalist, 1x Norris winner, 3x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner, 2x top 10 in Hart voting

Erik Karlsson
4x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 4x 1st Team All-Star, 4x top 10 in Hart voting

Ever since 1954 (when the Norris trophy was first introduced), defensemen have received very little support for the Hart trophy. I think the number is something like 3% of Hart votes have gone to defensemen - clearly a disproportionately low number. (EDIT - for transparency, I think 3% is the right number after backing out Bobby Orr). So, if a defenseman receives little Hart support, but their resume is otherwise strong, nobody should that against them.

Also Hart votes beyond the top five or six spots generally have little informational value. Karlsson's 9th place finish in 2015 was a result of him appearing on just 12 of 157 ballots. His 8th place finish in 2012 was from 22/149. His 9th place finish in 2016 was from 18/150. (His 5th place finish in 2017 was impressive, though).

Finally, there's the question of "best" versus "most valuable". Karlsson was clearly more valuable than Keith most years in the sense that he was, without question, Ottawa's best player when healthy. Keith played on one of the strongest teams of his era and there were many years when Kane and/or Toews were better. That makes Karlsson more deserving of the Hart under the definition of the award, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Karlsson is objectively a better player (just more valuable due to team circumstances).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Nobody commented on my earlier post about Keith, so here it is again...

Keith's inclusion in the top 100 seems out of place considering he never finished higher than 15th in Hart voting...

Duncan Keith
2x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 2x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner

Scott Niedermayer
3x Norris finalist, 1x Norris winner, 3x 1st Team All-Star, 1x 2nd Team All-Star, Smythe winner, 2x top 10 in Hart voting

Erik Karlsson
4x Norris finalist, 2x Norris winner, 4x 1st Team All-Star, 4x top 10 in Hart voting

Keith has more meat to his resume - he actually led all players in total minutes played between the lockouts, and he did it for a very good team. Clearcut #1 defenseman for the large majority of his career, something Niedermayer was not.

As for Karlsson, his problem is injuries and lack of games played. Compared unfavorably to Leetch in that regards.

On top of that, Keith was the best playoff performer for the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty since the 1980s. That has to count for something, otherwise guys like Keon and Fedorov wouldn't have sniffed our list.

_____

You know, you can read the threads where we discussed the players before voting if you want more details. The first few threads are overly long and really hard to wade through, but the final 2/3 or so of the project has a lot less fat to cut around and the threads are worth skimming if you have questions about specifics.

 

[Perennial]

Ever since 1954 (when the Norris trophy was first introduced), defensemen have received very little support for the Hart trophy. I think the number is something like 3% of Hart votes have gone to defensemen - clearly a disproportionately low number. (EDIT - for transparency, I think 3% is the right number after backing out Bobby Orr). So, if a defenseman receives little Hart support, but their resume is otherwise strong, nobody should that against them.

Also Hart votes beyond the top five or six spots generally have little informational value. Karlsson's 9th place finish in 2015 was a result of him appearing on just 12 of 157 ballots. His 8th place finish in 2012 was from 22/149. His 9th place finish in 2016 was from 18/150. (His 5th place finish in 2017 was impressive, though).

Finally, there's the question of "best" versus "most valuable". Karlsson was clearly more valuable than Keith most years in the sense that he was, without question, Ottawa's best player when healthy. Keith played on one of the strongest teams of his era and there were many years when Kane and/or Toews were better. That makes Karlsson more deserving of the Hart under the definition of the award, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Karlsson is objectively a better player (just more valuable due to team circumstances).

Okay, but what makes Keith more deserving of being in the top 100 over Niedermayer?

 

[Perennial]

Keith has more meat to his resume - he actually led all players in total minutes played between the lockouts, and he did it for a very good team. Clearcut #1 defenseman for the large majority of his career, something Niedermayer was not.

As for Karlsson, his problem is injuries and lack of games played. Compared unfavorably to Leetch in that regards.

On top of that, Keith was the best playoff performer for the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty since the 1980s. That has to count for something, otherwise guys like Keon and Fedorov wouldn't have sniffed our list.

So why was he only a 2x Norris finalist? And he only ever finished in the top 5 in voting 3 times...

Seems kinda light for a top 100 player of all-time...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So why was he only a 2x Norris finalist? And he only ever finished in the top 5 in voting 3 times...

Seems kinda light for a top 100 player of all-time...

Early in his career, he barely played the PP, despite racking up points at even strength. This is because he was stuck behind Brian Campbell, who Chicago had just given a very lucrative contract. Probably should have been a Norris finalist in 2008-09; definitely should have been a 2nd Team All-Star at least over Dan Boyle. 2009-10 was the first year when Keith saw regular 1st unit PP time.

But anyway, he doesn't make the list without the playoffs and his importance to the almost-dynasty.