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

[Perennial]

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Hull, Beliveau, Harvey, Crosby, Hasek, Lidstrom, Jagr, Fetisov...?

I would disagree on at least half of them...

 

[Veritas]

I would disagree on at least half of them...

Which ones?

 

[Perennial]

Which ones?

Lidstrom, Harvey, Hull, Beliveau, Fetisov...

 

[Toronto Maple Beast]

Yeah, that's an untenable position...

If there's that big of an emphasis on pure skill and none on career value, that's a different list entirely...

That would be a fascinating list to see players ranked based only on their absolute peak (best few seasons). Is McDavid top 10 in that case? I'm still not sure that he is

 

[Svane]

That would be a fascinating list to see players ranked based only on their absolute peak (best few seasons). Is McDavid top 10 in that case? I'm still not sure that he is

His 16-20 is likely in contention for top 10 four-year consecutive regular season stretches, if we limit it to one per player (otherwise its just filled by Gretzky and co).

That its McDavids only four year stretch is also a feather in his cap, but simultaneously the reason he's obviously not in top 10 all time discussion.

 

[ted2019]

Lidstrom, Harvey, Hull, Beliveau, Fetisov...

Wow, just wow.

 

[Perennial]

Wow, just wow.

Save the "Wow, just wow" for when you watch McDavid play...

 

[The Panther]

Just seeing this list now. I mean, it's a good list, as usual (love the photo collage!), and I concur with much of it. But, like everyone, I have some sharp disagreements:

-- Patrick Roy is just way, way too high. I know this forum loves him, and of course he's somewhere on my list, too. But 7th...? Not seeing it. If Patrick had maintained his 1987-88 to 1991-92 regular season form for 15 years or something, then maybe. But for 10 years in a row, in his latter prime years, he was not considered a 1st or 2nd-team All Star (twice he was 3rd, but generally around 6th or 7th). For ten years! The fact that he got hot a few times in the spring and back-stopped teams to Stanley Cups is impressive, yes, but it's a tiny sample size from a long career. (What this tells me is that a of voters are ranking playoff performance disproportionately... in my view.)

-- I hate to say it, but I think Joe Sakic is a bit too high. I don't think I would have him ahead of players like Bossy and Robinson. But anyway, love Joe, so I don't really mind...

-- Marcel Dionne is way too low. Okay, he never won anything big in the pros... and, whose fault is that? Because it wasn't his. When you have a huge peak only rivaled by young Gretzky, and then you retire as the 2nd-leading scorer in NHL history after 70 years of that history, you are higher than 63rd on this list.

-- Opposite to Roy, I know almost everyone on here hates him, but Eric Lindros is way, way, too low. 96th place? Is that a joke? Like, what did Lindros not do, individually, that Newsy Lalonde did to be ranked almost 60 places higher? Lindros was probably the most dominant individual performer in the hockey world from 1993 to 2000, which would normally mean he's automatically in the top-25 players. In his case, you can reasonably argue that injuries and lack of deep playoff runs lower his ranking a bit, but it's unconscionable to have him outside the top-50. I mean, it's absurd.


It's pleasing to see names like Bill Cowley and Aurele Joliat not being forgotten. I was surprised by how high Ted Lindsay came out, but I love terrible Ted so it's all good.

 

[tarheelhockey]

-- Opposite to Roy, I know almost everyone on here hates him, but Eric Lindros is way, way, too low. 96th place? Is that a joke? Like, what did Lindros not do, individually, that Newsy Lalonde did to be ranked almost 60 places higher? Lindros was probably the most dominant individual performer in the hockey world from 1993 to 2000, which would normally mean he's automatically in the top-25 players. In his case, you can reasonably argue that injuries and lack of deep playoff runs lower his ranking a bit, but it's unconscionable to have him outside the top-50. I mean, it's absurd.

I could maybe buy a little of what you're selling here, but the line about him being the most dominant performer 93-00...

1) There is absolutely no chance you're going to convince me Eric Lindros was more dominant than Dominik Hasek during that time period.

2) If we even go down that path in the Forwards category, we have to preface the whole thing with "Because Mario Lemieux had cancer..."

 

[The Panther]

I could maybe buy a little of what you're selling here, but the line about him being the most dominant performer 93-00...

1) There is absolutely no chance you're going to convince me Eric Lindros was more dominant than Dominik Hasek during that time period.

Come to think of it, you're probably right about that. Okay, Lindros was the tied-for-2nd (with Jagr) most dominant player of this era...
(I generally don't think about goaltenders when 'rating' skaters.... it's just so different. But yes, you're right.)

2) If we even go down that path in the Forwards category, we have to preface the whole thing with "Because Mario Lemieux had cancer..."

Whatever the cause, from summer 1993 (before Lindros's second season) to summer 2000, Mario played 2 full seasons in 7 years. Lindros's contribution was far greater. (I mean, taking this to an extreme, I could probably argue that Mike Ricci's was greater.) Lemieux was not a regular player in this period, and retired three years before its end.

So, I maintain that Lindros and Jagr were the two most dominant skaters of the seven years from 1993 to 2000. Had Lindros not missed games, I would argue for him above Jagr for this period (their PPG is about identical and Lindros brought a physical element and had crazy good ES dominance), but as it is I think it's about even.

So, my question would be: Is there another player in NHL history who was the best or co-best skater for a 7-year period who is ranked outside the top-95 players?

 

[MXD]

There's no such player in the first place.

 

[bobholly39]

Come to think of it, you're probably right about that. Okay, Lindros was the tied-for-2nd (with Jagr) most dominant player of this era...
(I generally don't think about goaltenders when 'rating' skaters.... it's just so different. But yes, you're right.)
Whatever the cause, from summer 1993 (before Lindros's second season) to summer 2000, Mario played 2 full seasons in 7 years. Lindros's contribution was far greater. (I mean, taking this to an extreme, I could probably argue that Mike Ricci's was greater.) Lemieux was not a regular player in this period, and retired three years before its end.

So, I maintain that Lindros and Jagr were the two most dominant skaters of the seven years from 1993 to 2000. Had Lindros not missed games, I would argue for him above Jagr for this period (their PPG is about identical and Lindros brought a physical element and had crazy good ES dominance), but as it is I think it's about even.

So, my question would be: Is there another player in NHL history who was the best or co-best skater for a 7-year period who is ranked outside the top-95 players?

Lol Mike Ricci is better than Lemieux in the 90s. Good one.

As for Lindros - all of Lemieux, Jagr and Hasek are better than him in the 90s. And so yes - im sure we can find other players who were top 4 for ~5years ranked outside the top 95.

 

[The Panther]

Lol Mike Ricci is better than Lemieux in the 90s. Good one.

As for Lindros - all of Lemieux, Jagr and Hasek are better than him in the 90s. And so yes - im sure we can find other players who were top 4 for ~5years ranked outside the top 95.

First, I didn't say Ricci (or Lindros) was "better" than Lemieux -- let's keep the discussion in reality. I said, Lindros contributed more in Lindros's 7-best years (1993-94 to 1999-00) than Lemieux did. As did Jagr. I mean, this isn't up for discussion. Wayne Gretzky isn't the best performer from 1974 to 1981. You aren't the best guy for seven years if you played two seasons.

So, Lemieux is out. And I specified skaters, which means Hasek is out.

So, my question remains: Is there another player in NHL history who was the best or co-best skater for a 7-year period who is ranked outside the top-95 players?

 

[bobholly39]

First, I didn't say Ricci (or Lindros) was "better" than Lemieux -- let's keep the discussion in reality. I said, Lindros contributed more in Lindros's 7-best years (1993-94 to 1999-00) than Lemieux did. As did Jagr. I mean, this isn't up for discussion. Wayne Gretzky isn't the best performer from 1974 to 1981. You aren't the best guy for seven years if you played two seasons.

So, Lemieux is out. And I specified skaters, which means Hasek is out.

So, my question remains: Is there another player in NHL history who was the best or co-best skater for a 7-year period who is ranked outside the top-95 players?

From 1994 to 2000 Eric Lindros won 1 hart trophy and 1 pearson trophy. He finished top 3 in hart 1 extra time.
From 1994 to 2000, Jagr also won only 1 hart trophy. But he also has 5 art rosses, 2 pearsons, and 4 top 3 hart finishes (3 of them runner-ups).

Is Eric Lindros deemed "co-best" just because you say so?

Also - why are goalies excluded? This top 100 list clearly includes goalies. Defensemen too. Excluding goalies is really strange.

Finally - from 1994 to 2000, Lindros probably has a case for being the 2nd best skater (eliminating Lemieux, if not he's down to 3rd) - but so do Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne and Kariya. So it's nowhere near as clear a gap as you imply. And that's without taking any defensemen into account. Pronger won a hart in that stretch, Bourque was still playing, Lidstrom had started. Roy/Brodeur/Hasek for goalies.

If you want good modern day comparable of players who had stretches of ~5-7 years where they can be argued among top 2-4 forwards for their best ~5-7 years, look no further than Thornton , St Louis or Kane. All ranked in the same vicinity as Lindros.

 

[The Macho King]

Other than your authoritative assertion, what evidence is there of Lindros being the best (or co-best) skater for an 8 year period? One Hart. One Hart finalist. Two total AS selections. No "playoff bump".

How is he separated from Bure or Sakic so clearly over this time? Or shit, even Fedorov?

 

[ted2019]

Save the "Wow, just wow" for when you watch McDavid play...

I have, and he's not a top 100 player yet. He will be, but he's not there yet. Give him another 3 years before including on such a prestigious list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Where should we have put Bryan Fogarty...?

 

[The Panther]

From 1994 to 2000 Eric Lindros won 1 hart trophy and 1 pearson trophy. He finished top 3 in hart 1 extra time.
From 1994 to 2000, Jagr also won only 1 hart trophy. But he also has 5 art rosses, 2 pearsons, and 4 top 3 hart finishes (3 of them runner-ups).

That's right, and Jagr should of course be ranked quite a bit higher overall than Lindros. But for the seasons in question (1993-94 to 1999-00), this is how their stats compare:
PPG
1.49 Jagr
1.37 Lindros
ES PPG
0.99 Jagr
0.92 Lindros
+/- per 82 games
+25 Jagr
+31 Lindros
Overall goal-differential per 82 games
+73 Jagr
+74 Lindros

Lindros's per-game stats here are way above everybody (incl. Sakic, Forsberg, Kariya) in this period... except Jagr's. (His face-off wins are nearly 60%, higher than anybody else who's a top scorer.) Now, bear in mind we're comparing Lindros to the peak years of maybe the 4th-best forward in the history of the game here. (And Lindros didn't have 2+ seasons of PP time with Mario Lemieux and the 362-goals-a-year Penguins to boost his numbers.)

Also - why are goalies excluded? This top 100 list clearly includes goalies. Defensemen too. Excluding goalies is really strange.

Okay. But my point remains. Can you find a skater who was as overall dominant as Lindros for a seven-year period who isn't in the top-50 players? It seems you can't.

If you want good modern day comparable of players who had stretches of ~5-7 years where they can be argued among top 2-4 forwards for their best ~5-7 years, look no further than Thornton , St Louis or Kane. All ranked in the same vicinity as Lindros.

When were Thornton, St.Louis, or Kane in the conversation as the world's best, or co-best, player? I've never heard that. Thornton was maybe close for one season.


I think a lot of this comes down to (besides anti-Lindros bias, which is rampant) my valuing sustained peak level over team accomplishments or longevity. Lindros certainly "deserves" to be knocked down the rankings' lists considerably in that (a) he often missed games, and (b) he didn't have as long a career as we'd like. But he doesn't deserve to be knocked down to 96th! That's insane.

 

[The Macho King]

Then participate in the project and quit whining.

 

[bobholly39]

That's right, and Jagr should of course be ranked quite a bit higher overall than Lindros. But for the seasons in question (1993-94 to 1999-00), this is how their stats compare:
PPG
1.49 Jagr
1.37 Lindros
ES PPG
0.99 Jagr
0.92 Lindros
+/- per 82 games
+25 Jagr
+31 Lindros
Overall goal-differential per 82 games
+73 Jagr
+74 Lindros

Lindros's per-game stats here are way above everybody (incl. Sakic, Forsberg, Kariya) in this period... except Jagr's. (His face-off wins are nearly 60%, higher than anybody else who's a top scorer.) Now, bear in mind we're comparing Lindros to the peak years of maybe the 4th-best forward in the history of the game here. (And Lindros didn't have 2+ seasons of PP time with Mario Lemieux and the 362-goals-a-year Penguins to boost his numbers.)

Okay. But my point remains. Can you find a skater who was as overall dominant as Lindros for a seven-year period who isn't in the top-50 players? It seems you can't.

When were Thornton, St.Louis, or Kane in the conversation as the world's best, or co-best, player? I've never heard that. Thornton was maybe close for one season.


I think a lot of this comes down to (besides anti-Lindros bias, which is rampant) my valuing sustained peak level over team accomplishments or longevity. Lindros certainly "deserves" to be knocked down the rankings' lists considerably in that (a) he often missed games, and (b) he didn't have as long a career as we'd like. But he doesn't deserve to be knocked down to 96th! That's insane.

lol - did you really just use +/- over 82 games to show Lindros as a better player than Jagr, and an argument for best in the world? I guess this means that since 2017 - Connor McDavid isn't the best player in the world, but rather only 41st best....

From 1995 to 2001:

Lemieux 1.90
Jagr 1.54
Lindros 1.35
Sakic 1.30
Forsberg 1.24

Lindros was never "co-best" player in the world. Jagr was always a clear step above. Both Hasek and Lemieux are also better in that stretch. After that - Sakic/Forsberg very close. Sakic has 2 extremely dominant playoff runs in that stretch, Forsberg has great playoffs as well, and both have about 100 extra rgeular season games played than Lindros.

So once again - to your bolded question - when was Lindros the world's "best or co-best player"? The answer is, never. He was probably somewhere from 2nd to 5th best. All Kane/Thornton and even St Louis have had similar stretches of being 2nd to 5th best. Was Lindros's best 7 years better than Kane/Thornton? Probably - but that's why Lindros is ranked near where they are despite having nothing else to show in his career, whereas Thornton has excellent overall longevity, and Kane is building on that too along with excellent playoffs.

Also - Lindros's 7 year stretch is really not all that special. In the past 25 years alone, i'd have the following players as having had better 7 year stretches than him:

Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin
Hasek
Lemieux
Forsberg
Sakic
McDavid (soon to be, if not yet)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just seeing this list now. I mean, it's a good list, as usual (love the photo collage!), and I concur with much of it. But, like everyone, I have some sharp disagreements:

-- Patrick Roy is just way, way too high. I know this forum loves him, and of course he's somewhere on my list, too. But 7th...? Not seeing it. If Patrick had maintained his 1987-88 to 1991-92 regular season form for 15 years or something, then maybe. But for 10 years in a row, in his latter prime years, he was not considered a 1st or 2nd-team All Star (twice he was 3rd, but generally around 6th or 7th). For ten years! The fact that he got hot a few times in the spring and back-stopped teams to Stanley Cups is impressive, yes, but it's a tiny sample size from a long career. (What this tells me is that a of voters are ranking playoff performance disproportionately... in my view.)

-- I hate to say it, but I think Joe Sakic is a bit too high. I don't think I would have him ahead of players like Bossy and Robinson. But anyway, love Joe, so I don't really mind...

-- Marcel Dionne is way too low. Okay, he never won anything big in the pros... and, whose fault is that? Because it wasn't his. When you have a huge peak only rivaled by young Gretzky, and then you retire as the 2nd-leading scorer in NHL history after 70 years of that history, you are higher than 63rd on this list.

-- Opposite to Roy, I know almost everyone on here hates him, but Eric Lindros is way, way, too low. 96th place? Is that a joke? Like, what did Lindros not do, individually, that Newsy Lalonde did to be ranked almost 60 places higher? Lindros was probably the most dominant individual performer in the hockey world from 1993 to 2000, which would normally mean he's automatically in the top-25 players. In his case, you can reasonably argue that injuries and lack of deep playoff runs lower his ranking a bit, but it's unconscionable to have him outside the top-50. I mean, it's absurd.


It's pleasing to see names like Bill Cowley and Aurele Joliat not being forgotten. I was surprised by how high Ted Lindsay came out, but I love terrible Ted so it's all good.

Great post!

Only guy I disagree with is Crowley. I didn't even put him on my list.

Not only do I agree that Robinson and Bossy were better than Sakic, I had Lindros ahead of him too.

People giving you crap about Lindros must not have seen him play.

Its a shame Dionne is so overlooked.

 

[bobholly39]

Great post!

Only guy I disagree with is Crowley. I didn't even put him on my list.

Not only do I agree that Robinson and Bossy were better than Sakic, I had Lindros ahead of him too.

People giving you crap about Lindros must not have seen him play.

Its a shame Dionne is so overlooked.

Well, no. But you're just answering a different question. Who was "better" vs who had the "greater career". Sakic had the greater career, easily so, and that's how I rank. If you rank based on who "was better" - it's a different list altogether.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

lol - did you really just use +/- over 82 games to show Lindros as a better player than Jagr, and an argument for best in the world? I guess this means that since 2017 - Connor McDavid isn't the best player in the world, but rather only 41st best....

From 1995 to 2001:

Lemieux 1.90
Jagr 1.54
Lindros 1.35
Sakic 1.30
Forsberg 1.24

Lindros was never "co-best" player in the world. Jagr was always a clear step above. Both Hasek and Lemieux are also better in that stretch. After that - Sakic/Forsberg very close. Sakic has 2 extremely dominant playoff runs in that stretch, Forsberg has great playoffs as well, and both have about 100 extra rgeular season games played than Lindros.

So once again - to your bolded question - when was Lindros the world's "best or co-best player"? The answer is, never. He was probably somewhere from 2nd to 5th best. All Kane/Thornton and even St Louis have had similar stretches of being 2nd to 5th best. Was Lindros's best 7 years better than Kane/Thornton? Probably - but that's why Lindros is ranked near where they are despite having nothing else to show in his career, whereas Thornton has excellent overall longevity, and Kane is building on that too along with excellent playoffs.

Also - Lindros's 7 year stretch is really not all that special. In the past 25 years alone, i'd have the following players as having had better 7 year stretches than him:

Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin
Hasek
Lemieux
Forsberg
Sakic
McDavid (soon to be, if not yet)

I get a kick out of posts that laugh at Plus/Minus but go strictly by points to determine the better player.

Comparing Joe Thornton to Eric Lindros? Now that's a joke.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just seeing this list now. I mean, it's a good list, as usual (love the photo collage!), and I concur with much of it. But, like everyone, I have some sharp disagreements

Thanks!

The photos themselves were super fun for me. It became this weird combination of finding iconic poses but also balancing out jersey colors and variations to keep the image from looking boring. Man, was I excited when we got Mark Howe.

Note my Pittsburgh Penguins: Lemieux, Crosby, Jagr, Coffey, and Malkin all have different styles of jersey.

It also gave me an opportunity to put my own little flourishes on some players, in addition to the Stevens and Thornton ones I mentioned earlier.

While the Stanley Cup appeared in all 40 photos of the playoff performer collage, both it and the Olympic Gold Medal appeared just once each, and with the two captains I most tried to emulate.

Only two players appear outside of a hockey jersey, and both are players who remind me of playing street hockey with my brother (I would have had to come up with something if Arturs Irbe made it too).

My two favorite goals are both depicted, as is the side view of my second favorite goalie helmet (next time, CuJo!).

Just as Scott Niedermayer was snuck just into frame of a photo in the playoff collage, I threw a nod to a pretty excellent player in the final row of this one.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, no. But you're just answering a different question. Who was "better" vs who had the "greater career". Sakic had the greater career, easily so, and that's how I rank. If you rank based on who "was better" - it's a different list altogether.

The list is the top 100 players of all-time.

Says nothing about best career. If its implicit to you, fine. But instructions for voting did not specify based on career. It is not by definition the best careers.

It is not a different list.