Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[ImporterExporter]

I had Jagr in the mid 20s. Exactly where he was 10 years ago.

I am not taking anything far outside the consensus.

I am a Pens fan. I watched more of Jagr's time in Pittsburgh than most here I'd wager.

His entire resume revolves around Art Ross trophies and VsX placement. He won a single Hart for a reason. He wasn't as valuable as the stat junkies make him out to be.

If that makes me biased so be it. But thinking Jagr is about the 25th best player ever is neither biased or outlandish IMHO.

 

[bobholly39]

I had Jagr in the mid 20s. Exactly where he was 10 years ago.

I am not taking anything far outside the consensus.

I am a Pens fan. I watched more of Jagr's time in Pittsburgh than most here I'd wager.

His entire resume revolves around Art Ross trophies and VsX placement. He won a single Hart for a reason. He wasn't as valuable as the stat junkies make him out to be.

If that makes me biased so be it. But thinking Jagr is about the 25th best player ever is neither biased or outlandish IMHO.

No - having him mid 20s doesn't make you biased. I'm sure others in here had him this low too, as not everyone values offense as high. I disagree with a lot of people's way of evaluating and ranking players - doesn't mean one person's way is better than anothers.

The problem is you keep making claims that aren't true - and when called out on it you either get super defensive, or change the subject, or claim you're going to stop posting altogether.

There's been enough posts with data shown in past few pages refuting your claim that his "production plunged" in the post season, among other comparable claims.

I'm sure you've watched more Jagr games than most people here - that's the problem. You're being overly critical of him. Maybe "biased" isn't the right terminology.

 

[seventieslord]

You have a lot of subjective commentary here that, like IE's narrative, seems to hold players to different standards. E.G. two players have similar stats in a respective series; one is a dud because more was expected of them and/or their team, one is not because they weren't the man or the other team was playing great.

CYM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was kinda the point. He's saying, "look, if you think this series and that series were duds for Jagr, then what about these series that your playoff legend Sidney Crosby put up?"

IE is not applying standards fairly and I think the point was, it can work both ways.

 

[daver]

CYM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was kinda the point. He's saying, "look, if you think this series and that series were duds for Jagr, then what about these series that your playoff legend Sidney Crosby put up?"

IE is not applying standards fairly and I think the point was, it can work both ways.

Perhaps, I guess I didn't think it was a different tone from anything that CYM has posted before so took it at face value.

 

[Troubadour]

How do you know you're a fanboy? When you find that any criticism of your boy to be "spiteful remarks"

Quoting your own message from "Code of Conduct":

Discuss the history of the sport, not other posters or their motivations

This board exists to discuss the history of the sport in a civil manner. It is NOT the place to discuss other poster.

Some examples of recent behavior over the last few months:

• Accusing posters who don't share your views of the history of the sport of pushing an agenda
• Accusing posters who don't share your views of the history of the sport of deliberately ignoring reality.
• Accusing posters who don't share your views on certain players of being "haters" or "biased."
• Going out of one's way to "call out" other posters by name

Talk about hockey, talk about hockey players. STOP discussing the motivations of other posters.

Any questions, please private message an History Board moderator. Thank you.

I suggest another bullet:

• Labeling other posters as "fanboys".

Like... That's the dumbest thing anyone can say. I could grow a penis and become a fanboy and it still wouldn't change a thing about the fact what you had in mind was as thoughtful as "I'm sick of discussing Jagr but I can't help it."

That is not a criticism of Jagr the player. That is a spiteful remark. Sewer variety. And twisting it by suggesting that whoever dares calling it what it is must be a fanboy unable to cope with "criticism" puts a black cloud not only around you, but this board as a whole. Sorry.

 

[sr edler]

I am a Pens fan. I watched more of Jagr's time in Pittsburgh than most here I'd wager.

If you want to push this narrative, then you need to back it up with some meat on the on-ice details, because it implies you’ve seen things us others hasn’t. What is that, that you have seen? Bring those things up to the surface, because I’m curious to palpate the unknown. It’s kinda a trait of the human psyche.

I also believe Mr. Farkas is a Pittsburgh Penguins fan, and he seems to disagree pretty strongly with many of your notions. I don’t think fans of a specific team are necessarily homogenous in all of their thoughts and conclusions regarding different players or whatever. That’s kinda why there is a forum here in the first place, for people to air or even reexamine different point of views. Just arguing from a point of perceived authority is not cool.

Jagr is not an obscure player. We’ve seen him play, most () participants. He’s not unknown territory, a gas planet on the outskirts of a far away galaxy (i.e. he didn’t spend the whole of his career in the desert working pucks back and forth with the coyotes).

 

[sr edler]

@Troubadour

We all have a little fanboy/fangirl in us, it wouldn’t be that fun/meaningful to watch the sport without a bit of that element to it. Sometimes you just need to give it a little choke.

Even I have been accused of said thing here on the board, believe it or not. It hurts a little, even if it’s mostly false and empty accusations, but it’s not a major or continuous burden to carry along. Just shake it off.

 

[Troubadour]

@Troubadour

We all have a little fanboy/fangirl in us, it wouldn’t be that fun/meaningful to watch the sport without a bit of that element to it. Sometimes you just need to give it a little choke.

Even I have been accused of said thing here on the board, believe it or not. It hurts a little, even if it’s mostly false and empty accusations, but it’s not a major or continuous burden to carry along. Just shake it off.

That's the 1967 hippy approach, nothing against that, but at the moment, I'm more 1968. Monday in sight and all

Seriously though, people shouldn't be accused or found guilty of liking hockey or its players. HERE.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I thought IE was beating a strawman because I couldn't believe anyone could have possibly thought Jagr was awesome in the 2001 playoffs, but then I scrolled up...

I mean, that's the year that even the biggest Jagr supporters usually roll out proof of his injuries to excuse his poor play.

I'm sick of discussing Jagr, but I can't seem to help myself.

Yeah, I haven't really weighed in on this pissing match, but I'll say this: 2001 being used as an example of greatness for Jagr does not jive with public sentiment from the time. At all. Jagr's reputation as an unreliable pouter and a problem in the dressing room was bubbling to the surface by this point. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion by mid-season that he was not going to be back in Pittsburgh the next year, and there was definitely a "good riddance" feeling on the part of some people. Was that hyperbole? Of course. But so was him managing to finish 3rd place in Hart Trophy voting that year as well. His character and his value to his teams was being seriously questioned at this point, Art Ross Trophy be damned. 2001 in Pittsburgh was a precursor to the forgettable Washington years that immediately followed.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, I haven't really weighed in on this pissing match, but I'll say this: 2001 being used as an example of greatness for Jagr does not jive with public sentiment from the time. At all. Jagr's reputation as an unreliable pouter and a problem in the dressing room was bubbling to the surface by this point. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion by mid-season that he was not going to be back in Pittsburgh the next year, and there was definitely a "good riddance" feeling on the part of some people. Was that hyperbole? Of course. But so was him managing to finish 3rd place in Hart Trophy voting that year as well. His character and his value to his teams was being seriously questioned at this point, Art Ross Trophy be damned. 2001 in Pittsburgh was a precursor to the forgettable Washington years that immediately followed.

you are absolutely right, this is exactly how I remember 2001 as well, and I'm not sure how that play off in particular can be used to prop up his playoff resume, it's probably not even one of the 12 seasons I would use if I was trying to make a pro-Jagr case in the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Quoting your own message from "Code of Conduct":



I suggest another bullet:

• Labeling other posters as "fanboys".

Like... That's the dumbest thing anyone can say. I could grow a penis and become a fanboy and it still wouldn't change a thing about the fact what you had in mind was as thoughtful as "I'm sick of discussing Jagr but I can't help it."

That is not a criticism of Jagr the player. That is a spiteful remark. Sewer variety. And twisting it by suggesting that whoever dares calling it what it is must be a fanboy unable to cope with "criticism" puts a black cloud not only around you, but this board as a whole. Sorry.

I shouldn't have called you a fanboy. That's personal. However, I am allowed to criticize your statement that equates criticism of Jagr with bitterness as a fanboyish (fangirlish) sounding statement. Because it is.

Ok? You think I'm spiteful because i was tired of discussing Jagr before you were? Not everyone finds him that interesting.

At least you didn't call me a hater.

 

[Sentinel]

Voted.

 

[Canadiens1958]

CYM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was kinda the point. He's saying, "look, if you think this series and that series were duds for Jagr, then what about these series that your playoff legend Sidney Crosby put up?"

IE is not applying standards fairly and I think the point was, it can work both ways.

Yes and no.

The healing time required for typical hockey injuries muscle pulls, separations, dislocations, fractures is known and there is a variety of protective equipment and procedures available for common injuries.

Concussions are another matter. Seems less if known every day.

Yet Crosby's concussion history gets blended with non-concussion injuries.

The line has to be drawn

 

[Troubadour]

I shouldn't have called you a fanboy. That's personal. However, I am allowed to criticize your statement that equates criticism of Jagr with bitterness as a fanboyish (fangirlish) sounding statement. Because it is.

Ok? You think I'm spiteful because i was tired of discussing Jagr before you were? Not everyone finds him that interesting.

At least you didn't call me a hater.

I did not call you anything. It makes no sense to label people. I just mentioned your remarks as an example of obsolete as compared with what a fan like Czech Your Math brought to the table. Because I found your remarks neither critical nor insightful. But I haven't been following the thread all along, so I have no clue what had been said previously. I just stumbled in the worst possible moment I guess

No grudge, no worries.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I did not call you anything. It makes no sense to label people. I just mentioned your remarks as an example of obsolete as compared with what a fan like Czech Your Math brought to the table. Because I found your remarks neither critical nor insightful. But I haven't been following the thread all along, so I have no clue what had been said previously. I just stumbled in the worst possible moment I guess

No grudge, no worries.

You probably didn't know, but my pet peeve on the history board are megafans of certain players bashing anyone who doesn't love their guy as a "hater" or equivalent. And it's pretty freeing to be just a poster here, no longer a representative of the forum, so I don't always have to be so civil.

Anyway, no grudge here, either.

 

[sr edler]

Now when you're not a mod you can post uncivil stuff like this →

 

[Killion]

You probably didn't know, but my pet peeve on the history board are megafans of certain players bashing anyone who doesn't love their guy as a "hater" or equivalent. And it's pretty freeing to be just a poster here, no longer a representative of the forum, so I don't always have to be so civil.

Anyway, no grudge here, either.

You werent always civil when you were Moderating TDMM.... will also say... you were one of the best, services missed. Furthermore, very few Members with your depths of knowledge of the history of the game & its players, Coaches etc. Your Player Profiles for example amongst the very best Ive ever seen in any publication, on any website or resource center... while your oversite of the ATD's setting the bar high. Standard of excellence.... [MOD]

 

[tony d]

Christmas break was brought up. I'll be gone from Dec.20 to Jan.2 and won't have my laptop with me so I wouldn't be able to vote. Don't hold things up because of me but just wanted to let everyone know I won't be around.

 

[bobholly39]

Ill be online but travelling Christmas break - so less access than usual.

We'll definitely get some lower participation/vote count than usual that week. It might be worth extending it to 2 weeks.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Ill be online but travelling Christmas break - so less access than usual.

We'll definitely get some lower participation/vote count than usual that week. It might be worth extending it to 2 weeks.

For the record - same with me.

 

[MXD]

QPQ, can you start a Vote Cycle on Sunday Dec. 23rd/Monday 24th?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Personally, my schedule is relatively unaffected, so I’m up for whatever. If everyone is comfortable with it, can you post the days when you’re all definitely not available? We can try to fit something around no one being shutout from participation in any given round.

And we’ll be pretty loose with the voting days if someone needs to submit a ballot on a different day.

 

[MXD]

No issue here, though I suggest a 2-week Vote Cycle, from Dec 23rd to Jan 6th.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Through the holidays, the only 2 days that I likely won't be able to read through the thread and keep up with the discussions is the 25th and 26th. Other than that I should be able to keep up as normal. So I'm easy with whatever works for those with busier schedules.

 

[Sentinel]

With Bobby Hull at #5 and Ovechkin not even ranked, this list will look soooo bad after Ovy passes Hull in the number of Richards... (and that's pretty much all Hull has).