Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I don't agree with my fellow Penguins fan...but I enjoyed the conversation because he came up to bat...he didn't just have a pity party for himself and accuse everyone else of bias or cite random nonsense...

"ya know, Jagr liked Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles better than the original...so therefore Ovechkin is better..."

 

[Captain Bowie]

Pfft.

I do most of the rest of this on my cellphone, but I need Excel for that. I’ll update it tomorrow when I’m on an actual computer.

When you do get to it, Eddie Shore was from Fort Qu'Appelle, SASK, not NWT.

 

[MXD]

When you do get to it, Eddie Shore was from Fort Qu'Appelle, SASK, not NWT.

At the time of Shore's birth, Saskatchewan didn't exist yet. Fort Qu'Apelle was located, and someone can correct me should I be wrong, in the District of Assiniboia, which was part of the North-West Territories.

In other words, listing Shore as being born in the North-West Territories is consistent with the reminder of the list (e..g, Ovechkin as being born in the USSR and Hasek in Czechoslovkia)

 

[sr edler]

I think I’ve read somewhere actually that Shore was actually born in-between Fort Qu'Apelle and a neighboring city. I would like to say in a wagon, but that could be made up by myself.

I'm on my phone now so don't ask for sources. My googling skills are truncated at the moment.

 

[Captain Bowie]

At the time of Shore's birth, Saskatchewan didn't exist yet. Fort Qu'Apelle was located, and someone can correct me should I be wrong, in the District of Assiniboia, which was part of the North-West Territories.

In other words, listing Shore as being born in the North-West Territories is consistent with the reminder of the list (e..g, Ovechkin as being born in the USSR and Hasek in Czechoslovkia)

OK, fair enough. I have a friend who lives there, only reason I know where the hell it is.

 

[Killion]

I think I’ve read somewhere actually that Shore was actually born in-between Fort Qu'Apelle and a neighboring city. I would like to say in a wagon, but that could be made up by myself.

I'm on my phone now so don't ask for sources. My googling skills are truncated at the moment.

Not sure about that ehhedler... most bio's list Fort Qu'Apelle in 1902.... however more importantly, he grew up just outside of Cupar SK (northeast of Regina) where he first started playing hockey in-town on a 44' X 100' outdoor rink. His father, T.J. Shore bought a 6 section horse farm in the district in 1907 and financed the construction of the towns first covered/indoor arena in 1911 with as legend has it but one proviso..... his then 9yr old Son Eddie be given keys to the building....

Eddie & his brother playing for the Cupar Canucks (which I believe still exist, playing in the "Highway Hockey League", big rivalries with other small towns like Southey etc), amateur, Junior & Senior through to the 1923/24 season when they played against the Melville Millionaires for the Henderson Cup, Saskatchewans Senior Championships.... Cupar losing however Eddie so impressive recruited to play for Melville the following season.... thereafter he turned pro with the old Regina Capitals of the WCHL, team folding, moved to Alberta & became the Eskimo's (aka Shore sometimes called "The Edmonton Express") with the Boston Bruins then buying his rights and the rest as they say... history.

 

[wetcoast]

Stat junkie is now name calling in 2018 folks.

Why was Jagr a better player than Esposito?

To your 2nd part the case is pretty clear isn't it?

If anyone had Phil ranked above Jagr that would require some explanation, much like Gretzky's vote outside of the top 4 in the first round.

 

[VanIslander]

If anyone had Phil ranked above Jagr that would require some explanation,...

I submitted my initial list with Esposito 12th and Jagr 13th and if Espo ain't finally friggin' inducted this round I will gladly and resoundedly recount the reasons.

Clarke I had easily outside the top 30, and while some arguments have warmed me to him, he still fails my litmus test: if player x went 10 spots higher than now or 10 spots lower than now, which would be the bigger injustice?

I conclude it'd be a bigger fault to rank him first this round than last, easily. That said, he certainly ain't one of the two candidates for last on my radar.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I submitted my initial list with Esposito 12th and Jagr 13th and if Espo ain't finally friggin' inducted this round I will gladly and resoundedly recount the reasons.

I had Espo 17th on my initial list. I had him among my top five the last round, but apparently that wasn't a popular decision.

(...I have to confess that I had Jagr 14th though).

 

[VanIslander]

If God gave me the opportunity to ice 20 players to play a single game, or series, or season, for the immortality of my soul, I may not choose the greatest goalie I've seen in my half century of life (sorry Hasek, I may or may not choose ya, cuz I dunno what part of your career I'd get),... but I'd dang certainly have Esposito among my 18 skaters.

Conn Smythe said if he had to go to war again (WWI & WWII legend - seriously, hockey should pimp him more) he would take lacrosse players. This helps explain why he once said that Newsy Lalonde was what hockey should be (Newsy being one of the most recognized greats of lacrosse). GRIT, Conn Smythe said, is the mind refusing to die. THAT is what Phil had.

I can count on my hands the number of players I have witnessed that resilient commitment. Two fingers go to inducted Gretzky and Bourque (I could write a 1000-word essay on how Messier mailed it in in Vancouver - ugh). One finger we certainly won't induct is Kasparaitis; another is Claude Lemieux. (Everybody and their dog knows that Stevie Y is one of my digits, but details will be trumped out in time).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Clarke was a better player, and it's pretty clearly so in my opinion. Clarke is a better skater, so much better defensively, a better passer, better in transition and, truth be told, he had better hands than Espo too...Espo is a better goal scorer, no doubt...better shot...but to justify Espo over Clarke, you'd have to really love Richard and Ovechkin, among some others, really highly...like, really really highly...

What was IE using, "stat junkie"...? That may well apply here, otherwise, I can't see the justification...

Hard to believe Esposito beats Clarke at "grit" too...

 

[wetcoast]

I submitted my initial list with Esposito 12th and Jagr 13th and if Espo ain't finally friggin' inducted this round I will gladly and resoundedly recount the reasons.

Clarke I had easily outside the top 30, and while some arguments have warmed me to him, he still fails my litmus test: if player x went 10 spots higher than now or 10 spots lower than now, which would be the bigger injustice?

I conclude it'd be a bigger fault to rank him first this round than last, easily. That said, he certainly ain't one of the two candidates for last on my radar.

I don't have time right now but I'm pretty sure this section doesn't agree with that view on Phil and Jagr, considering Phil is still up for voting.

Also I think that Jagr has very good arguments to be ranked higher but maybe just recently retired there hasn't been enough perspective on his legacy.

 

[VanIslander]

I just voted.

Without revealing my vote (we really shouldn't):

• the Soviet duo was a binary star of revolving considerations, placed aptly side by side on my list;
• I changed my mind about Sakic. Twice.
• Sawchuk is NOT last on my list this time.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin has more Hart's than Hull because Sidney Crosby lost 2 years of his prime. Fact.

You think it is a fact that Crosby was going to be better than Ovechkin's 65 goal/112 point season had he not missed 30 games despite the fact that Crosby was scoring at the same PPG and way fewer goals per game than Ovechkin?

What is the rational basis for pretending Crosby didn't miss games in 2008 and 2013 but not giving Ovechkin that same benefit in 2010 and 2009?

 

[ImporterExporter]

You think it is a fact that Crosby was going to be better than Ovechkin's 65 goal/112 point season had he not missed 30 games despite the fact that Crosby was scoring at the same PPG and way fewer goals per game than Ovechkin?

What is the rational basis for pretending Crosby didn't miss games in 2008 and 2013 but not giving Ovechkin that same benefit in 2010 and 2009?

I was talking about 2012-13 when Sid was so far out in front of everyone in the scoring race it took the field almost a month to catch and pass him in the last week of the season. He got hit in the face with a slap shot by his own dude. Lost an easy Hart, but still won the Lindsay.

Also, 2011 Crosby was going to put up the best season since Mario/Jagr had he not been ran by a slug who shall not be named. 41 games, he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points. Another easy Hart lost because some bum decided to skate through his cranium with an elbow.

But you're the most pro Ovi, anti Crosby poster around so there is zero point in discussing anything with you on objective terms.

And you're not involved in this project.

So:

 

[MXD]

...Did Ovechkin actually won the Hart in 2009?

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, in 2008-09 Ovechkin was the best, we all agree there. Crosby may have been right there with him but didn't play a full season. It's the 2011, 12 and 13 sessions that really hurt him. If he was healthy those seasons them what does Bobby Hull have on him? Crosby now has to take the scenic route to top 5 all-time, if that's even possible. All because of 112 missed games: 10% of his potential career up till now. It's sad and a little unfair but it is what it is.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I was talking about 2012-13 when Sid was so far out in front of everyone in the scoring race it took the field almost a month to catch and pass him in the last week of the season. He got hit in the face with a slap shot by his own dude. Lost an easy Hart, but still won the Lindsay.

Also, 2011 Crosby was going to put up the best season since Mario/Jagr had he not been ran by a slug who shall not be named. 41 games, he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points. Another easy Hart lost because some bum decided to skate through his cranium with an elbow.

But you're the most pro Ovi, anti Crosby poster around so there is zero point in discussing anything with you on objective terms.

And you're not involved in this project.

So:

If you are only talking about 2013, how could Ovechkin have benefitted from Crosby missing time twice?

What does 2011 have to do with Ovechkin's 3 Harts?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yeah, in 2008-09 Ovechkin was the best, we all agree there. Crosby may have been right there with him but didn't play a full season. It's the 2011, 12 and 13 sessions that really hurt him. If he was healthy those seasons them what does Bobby Hull have on him? Crosby now has to take the scenic route to top 5 all-time, if that's even possible. All because of 112 missed games: 10% of his potential career up till now. It's sad and a little unfair but it is what it is.

Precisely.

IMO, had Sid not missed any of those games he's already locked in at 5th. He'd have at least 4 Hart's, 4 Art Ross's to go with his playoff and international acclaim.

But, as big of a fan as I am of his, it's not fair or correct to project those numbers in an exercise like this. That's why I still have him outside the top 10, you know, like a sensible, objective person should.

But I still think Sid could get to 5th but he needs to do some serious damage in the postseason (winning Art Ross's and Hart's is a young man's game). That will be his calling card. He's already a top 15 or so player there for me, so if the Pens could win another 2 Cups and he were to have another Smythe like 2016-17, you'd be hard pressed to keep him out of the top 10 for sure, and there might be an argument for something as high as 5th. I think based on what I've seen this year and his raw/advanced data he's going to be getting serious Selke votes. Don't think he should win mind you, but top 5 is quite possible. And it wouldn't surprise me to see him adapt more into that type of role as he ages further, ala Yzerman. 70-80 point player but somebody who is great in the dot and is used more in the neutral and defensive zones. Selke voting is the one thing that he can still do well in as far as regular season accolades go.

As to @Midnight Judges the original comment was about Ovechkin having more Hart's than Bobby Hull. 2012-13 Ovi won the Hart in a season Sid was so much better than anyone until an errant slap shot found his jaw with a month of the season left to go. Using Hart's to push Ovechkin over Hull (or Rocket Richard's) is a fool's errand IMO.

I think Ovi was placed just right in this thing. Just outside the top 20 with obvious room to move up further.

 

[Midnight Judges]

As to @Midnight Judges the original comment was about Ovechkin having more Hart's than Bobby Hull. 2012-13 Ovi won the Hart in a season Sid was so much better than anyone until an errant slap shot found his jaw with a month of the season left to go.

I'll say it again then:

What is the rational basis for pretending Crosby didn't miss games in 2008 and 2013 but not giving Ovechkin that same benefit in 2010 and 2009?

 

[MXD]

I'll say it again then:

You know...
If I sincerely believed that 12% is the same thing as 25%, I wouldn't exactly brag about it, because that's just not a good position to take in any rational discussion.

12 % being, of course, the time missed by Ovechkin in 2010.
25% being, of course, the time missed by Crosby in 2013.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You know...
If I sincerely believed that 12% is the same thing as 25%, I wouldn't exactly brag about it, because that's just not a good position to take in any rational discussion.

12 % being, of course, the time missed by Ovechkin in 2010.
25% being, of course, the time missed by Crosby in 2013.

I implied absolutely nothing of the sort.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'll say it again then:

Well, I think the clear answer is Crosby missed sizable chunks of games which obviously altered his scoring finishes greatly.

Ovi missed all of 3 games in 2009 and 10 games in 2010 and while I certainly think he probably wins the Ross (2010) had he had those 10 games, I don't know if that makes a concrete difference. We're not talking an astronomical difference. In 2010 Crosby was the leading scorer on Pitt by 32 points over 2nd and 59 over 3rd. (Malkin missed about 15 games that year i think it was).

Also didn't 8 lose some time in there because of suspension? I know he missed multiple games at some point due to suspension, just can't remember what years it was.

Crosby lost that time because of A, intentional goonish BS and B, freak play where he gets hit by a 90 mph shot from his own dude. This isn't a case of he pulled a muscle or was out of shape. And again, his missed time is much greater than Ovi's which means his scoring/awards finishes were impacted much more.

But one of the most impressive thing about 8's career IMO is his durability. He played a very hard style (at least in the offensive zone), especially the first 5-6 years of his career and remained healthy and has done so more or less the entire time. Lots of credit to Ovi there.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You know...
If I sincerely believed that 12% is the same thing as 25%, I wouldn't exactly brag about it, because that's just not a good position to take in any rational discussion.

12 % being, of course, the time missed by Ovechkin in 2010.
25% being, of course, the time missed by Crosby in 2013.

 

[MXD]

I implied absolutely nothing of the sort.

Then you should probably edit your questions accordingly, because that's the answer right there.