Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[BackToTheBasics]

If you had actually seen Bobby Hull play perhaps you would understand.

I doubt most people voting in this project have seen more than a few of his games off of youtube/on tape if such video still exists. So if having watched them play was the standard to rank players, most people on planet earth wouldn't be qualified to participate.

Even if one were to watch a few games, would it then be fair to make a judgement based off of having watched a small sample size of a players' career? I think not.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I doubt most people voting in this project have seen more than a few of his games off of youtube/on tape if such video still exists. So if having watched them play was the standard to rank players, most people on planet earth wouldn't be qualified to participate.

Even if one were to watch a few games, would it then be fair to make a judgement based off of having watched a small sample size of a players' career? I think not.

Doesn't really matter who did see him play. And no one said anything about it being a standard to rank players.

Just telling you my opinion as one of those that did see him play. Do with that what you please.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If it takes you dozens of games to understand a player's skill set and tendencies, you're probably not qualified to opine either...

I scout. If I see a player play more than four times, it's probably an over-scout situation...

 

[Canadiens1958]

If it takes you dozens of games to understand a player's skill set and tendencies, you're probably not qualified to opine either...

I scout. If I see a player play more than four times, it's probably an over-scout situation...

Difference between scouting for talent and advance scouting which is team and strategy oriented.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

That wasn't my point. I've already mentioned previously that watching historic games is valuable in understanding and identifying a player's style of play. If we're comparing players from completely different eras, one whose games are easily accessible, and the other who has a select few that are accessible... is that really a great tool to use to compare those players?

Perhaps it is a useful tool when comparing players who played prior to expansion against one another. In this case however, it's a flawed way of looking at things with players who played in different eras.

For example, one could watch footage of a few of Hull's better games and assume that he always played at that level. Most of what's out there are likely classic games anyways. With Ovechkin, we get the good, the bad, and the ugly.

This obviously only applies to those who didn't have the pleasure of watching Hull's career unfold.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Hull had a decade long rip as arguably the best player in the game (best non-Orr player at the end of it I guess). And that's arguably the best in a decade where the likes of Howe (#2), and Beliveau (#6) figured prominently. Ovechkin had a three, maybe four year length of time where he could say the same thing.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Agreed but part of that scenic route might be through the playoffs, where he is ahead of Hull already and still adding.

I also happen to think that Hull was pretty good in the playoff years and give him some credit for his WHA years as well.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

And that's before the fact that Ovechkin missed that time due to suspension, something he easily could have avoided which is worlds apart form injuries.

 

[daver]

Agreed but part of that scenic route might be through the playoffs, where he is ahead of Hull already and still adding.

I also happen to think that Hull was pretty good in the playoff years and give him some credit for his WHA years as well.

How are you judging OV to be ahead of Hull in the playoffs?

Over a 12 year period, Hull was the dominant playoff performer:

NHL.com - Stats

#1 in points
#1 in PPG among the Top 15 scorers
#1 in goals by 19%
#1 in GPG among among Top 15 goalscorers by 24%
3rd highest point total for an individual run

Over an 11 year period for OV:

NHL.com - Stats

#4 in points
#T5 in PPG among the Top 15 scorers
#3rd in goals
#1 in GPG among among Top 15 goalscorers by 4%
T9th highest point total for an individual run

You seem to be putting a large emphasis on OV winning the Smythe despite Hull being better in the 71 playoffs and arguably just as good when the Hawks won the Cup in 60/61. In the four trips that Hull made it the finals, he lead or tied his team in scoring in the SCF. OV was 4th on his team in his only SCF and T2 in his only ECF.

I would say Hull has a similar edge in his playoff resume over OV as he does with his regular season resume.

 

[BadgerBruce]

If it takes you dozens of games to understand a player's skill set and tendencies, you're probably not qualified to opine either...

I scout. If I see a player play more than four times, it's probably an over-scout situation...

You’re correct, of course, but with the caveat that the majority of individual player scouting that takes place today is “projection scouting,” which is predictive in nature and the staple of amateur-level player evaluation. Pro-level player scouting, however, is usually different for a host of reasons, which is why some scouts (like me) are reasonably good at projecting where a 16-18 year old player will end up but not so good (again, like me) at evaluating more or less finished products. Different purposes.

 

[wetcoast]

How are you judging OV to be ahead of Hull in the playoffs?

Over a 12 year period, Hull was the dominant playoff performer:

NHL.com - Stats

#1 in points
#1 in PPG among the Top 15 scorers
#1 in goals by 19%
#1 in GPG among among Top 15 goalscorers by 24%
3rd highest point total for an individual run

Over an 11 year period for OV:

NHL.com - Stats

#4 in points
#T5 in PPG among the Top 15 scorers
#3rd in goals
#1 in GPG among among Top 15 goalscorers by 4%
T9th highest point total for an individual run

You seem to be putting a large emphasis on OV winning the Smythe despite Hull being better in the 71 playoffs and arguably just as good when the Hawks won the Cup in 60/61. In the four trips that Hull made it the finals, he lead or tied his team in scoring in the SCF. OV was 4th on his team in his only SCF and T2 in his only ECF.

I would say Hull has a similar edge in his playoff resume over OV as he does with his regular season resume.

You wasted alot of time here as I was referring to Crosby potentially taking the scenic route to top 5 of all time in place of a guy like Hull.

 

[daver]

You wasted alot of time here as I was referring to Crosby potentially taking the scenic route to top 5 of all time in place of a guy like Hull.

My bad. But I have wasted more quality time than this, believe me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You’re correct, of course, but with the caveat that the majority of individual player scouting that takes place today is “projection scouting,” which is predictive in nature and the staple of amateur-level player evaluation. Pro-level player scouting, however, is usually different for a host of reasons, which is why some scouts (like me) are reasonably good at projecting where a 16-18 year old player will end up but not so good (again, like me) at evaluating more or less finished products. Different purposes.

Of course. My purpose is to determine the level of skill a player has to see who's driving the plane...that's not as hard, and it's much faster. I won't have the nuance of "growing up" with that player, I never will...that's just because of my DOB...but to not use every resource available to you in a project like this is a major faux pas in my opinion...

At even a passing glance, it's clear to see who drives the plane in Boston vs. who drives it in Philadelphia in the 1970's...at a steadier stare, you can glean that Clarke was, overall, a more impactful and better piece than Phil Esposito...

As a personal aside, my first major project that really put me on the radar was a pro scouting project in a situation where mostly finished products were available...I feel pretty comfortable in the pro scouting scenario to be honest (which doesn't mean I'm always right, that's impossible, of course)...it's scouting for junior programs that I don't have a lot of experience with...bantam/midget drafts...I'm not your man haha

 

[wetcoast]

My bad. But I have wasted more quality time than this, believe me.

I think most people on this board are guilty of this, especially if they venture over outside of this section.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Of course. My purpose is to determine the level of skill a player has to see who's driving the plane...that's not as hard, and it's much faster. I won't have the nuance of "growing up" with that player, I never will...that's just because of my DOB...but to not use every resource available to you in a project like this is a major faux pas in my opinion...

At even a passing glance, it's clear to see who drives the plane in Boston vs. who drives it in Philadelphia in the 1970's...at a steadier stare, you can glean that Clarke was, overall, a more impactful and better piece than Phil Esposito...

As a personal aside, my first major project that really put me on the radar was a pro scouting project in a situation where mostly finished products were available...I feel pretty comfortable in the pro scouting scenario to be honest (which doesn't mean I'm always right, that's impossible, of course)...it's scouting for junior programs that I don't have a lot of experience with...bantam/midget drafts...I'm not your man haha

Got it.

Now, here’s a real world example dealing with both Hull and Mikita from their St. Catharines junior days in the late 50s. This is more fun than anything else.

Hull was initially a centre and St. Catharines kingpin Rudy Pilous projected him to be a centre at the NHL level. Makes sense, right?

Mikita was initially a winger and Pilous projected him to be a winger at the minor pro/fringe NHL level, a fiesty, in your face grinder type who was likely a bit undersized for NHL-level board play. Doesn’t make sense, right?

Believe it or not, Mikita and Hull played together on the same line for about a season in St. Catharines. First half, Hull at centre and Mikita on the wing, second half with the roles reversed. The outcome?

Pilous quickly learned that Mikita was damn near elite with the puck on his stick and possessed a level of vision, the pre-condition for elite playmaking, that had been largely hidden with him on the wing. Fiesty fringe NHLer? Hardly. Projection changed.

With Hull, Pilous saw the move from centre to wing as beneficial to the junior Teepees at that particular time, a short-term deal, and firmly believed that Hull’s NHL future was as a pivot. Projection wrong.

Doesn’t change the fact that Hull ultimately drove the Chicago bus, but he didn’t drive it the way Pilous envisioned.

 

[pappyline]

Got it.

Now, here’s a real world example dealing with both Hull and Mikita from their St. Catharines junior days in the late 50s. This is more fun than anything else.

Hull was initially a centre and St. Catharines kingpin Rudy Pilous projected him to be a centre at the NHL level. Makes sense, right?

Mikita was initially a winger and Pilous projected him to be a winger at the minor pro/fringe NHL level, a fiesty, in your face grinder type who was likely a bit undersized for NHL-level board play. Doesn’t make sense, right?

Believe it or not, Mikita and Hull played together on the same line for about a season in St. Catharines. First half, Hull at centre and Mikita on the wing, second half with the roles reversed. The outcome?

Pilous quickly learned that Mikita was damn near elite with the puck on his stick and possessed a level of vision, the pre-condition for elite playmaking, that had been largely hidden with him on the wing. Fiesty fringe NHLer? Hardly. Projection changed.

With Hull, Pilous saw the move from centre to wing as beneficial to the junior Teepees at that particular time, a short-term deal, and firmly believed that Hull’s NHL future was as a pivot. Projection wrong.

Doesn’t change the fact that Hull ultimately drove the Chicago bus, but he didn’t drive it the way Pilous envisioned.

I knew that Hull was a center and Mikita was a winger for the Teepees but didn't know that Pilous switched them around. I wonder who the other winger on their line was? It is also interesting to note that they weren't the first line. That was 3 final year juniors-Mat Ravlich/Ed Hoekstra/Pie McKenize.

Both Hull & Mukita entered the NHL as centres but Hull was switched to LW in his 3rd season and won the AR. Hull was often used at centre later in his career and even as a LW often played like a centre. He was definitely not a stay in your lane type of player.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Does this picture offer any help...? I have no knowledge of 50's junior hockey...

 

[pappyline]

Does this picture offer any help...? I have no knowledge of 50's junior hockey...

thanks. I don't know who that third player is. Maybe Don Cosburn who put up good numbers in 1956-57

 

[sr edler]

Guy in the middle is apparently Pat Adair.

 

[pappyline]

Guy in the middle is apparently Pat Adair.

I think you are right. Interesting that Adair is in this picture as he certainly wasn't their regular linemate, He only played a total of 8 games for the TeePees all in 56-57 and scored 0-0-0.

 

[Killion]

Guy in the middle is apparently Pat Adair.

Interesting. Adair appears to have moved on to St. Mikes the following year, pursuing his hockey career in Europe thereafter for quite some time before returning to Canada & playing/Coaching Senior.

 

[BadgerBruce]

I can find out who the third player on the line was in a few days.

A quick online search also reveals a few quotes here and there about Hull and Mikita switching the centre/winger roles while together on the Teepees (Hull says, “Stan was too smart to be a right wing and I was too dumb to be a center,” (Stories You Should Know: Stan Mikita) , and I vaguely recall a lengthy interview with Hull and Mikita — perhaps when the statue announcement got some coverage? — where they both talked openly about the switch. Also, I’ve got a copy of Garden City Hockey Heroes at work, and the writer, John Hewitt, fully covers the Mikita/Hull years, and there’s a lot of interesting comments from former teammates. I’ll take a look early in the week and update, for those interested.

 

[pappyline]

I can find out who the third player on the line was in a few days.

A quick online search also reveals a few quotes here and there about Hull and Mikita switching the centre/winger roles while together on the Teepees (Hull says, “Stan was too smart to be a right wing and I was too dumb to be a center,” (Stories You Should Know: Stan Mikita) , and I vaguely recall a lengthy interview with Hull and Mikita — perhaps when the statue announcement got some coverage? — where they both talked openly about the switch. Also, I’ve got a copy of Garden City Hockey Heroes at work, and the writer, John Hewitt, fully covers the Mikita/Hull years, and there’s a lot of interesting comments from former teammates. I’ll take a look early in the week and update, for those interested.

Definitely interested.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Back to Eddie Shore and pre-icing defencemen in the NHL.

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Varying degrees employed by all teams. Function of game situations and on ice skill set.

 

[Killion]

Back to Eddie Shore and pre-icing defencemen in the NHL.

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Varying degrees employed by all teams. Function of game situations and on ice skill set.

You referring to the controversy over Art Ross's deployment of "Kitty Bar the Door" tactics C58?