Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Sentinel]

No offense but this post screams a whole lot of nothing to me.

Yes playoffs is smaller sample size than reg season and yes to get a lot of playoff games - esp within a single year - you have to actually win playoff rounds. But so what? Are you actually suggesting the value of 1 regular season game is as much as 1 playoff game? Because to me thats ludicrous and ive never heard that before. Whether you value overall playoffs or reg season is certainly worth of consideration since so many more reg season games.

Yes that chart shows Haseks best is better than 2 of 3 roys cup runs. But roy has the best run. And his 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th best ones are better than Haseks 2nd run. Thats why its net advantage Roy

Finally - who cares whether you believe Hasek might have done better in the nhl than roy or not in the 80s? We judge on what happened and hence its an advtantage to Roy. Otherwise its just a hypothetical.

You might want to add Hasek's 98 Olympic run. Better than anything from Roy.

 

[MXD]

You might want to add Hasek's 98 Olympic run. Better than anything from Roy.

Everyone is entitled to it's own beliefs.

 

[Sentinel]

Everyone is entitled to it's own beliefs.

What language is this in?

 

[sr edler]

Une langue Franglais.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Let’s see ...... shall we discuss Hasek vs Roy or Hockey Registration numbers?

 

[Theokritos]

What language is this in?

Come on. We don't mock people (even native speakers, less so non-native speakers) for slight mistakes they make from time to time, do we?

Otherwise I would experience the mocking myself often enough.

 

[Troubadour]

No offense but this post screams a whole lot of nothing to me.

Yes playoffs is smaller sample size than reg season and yes to get a lot of playoff games - esp within a single year - you have to actually win playoff rounds. But so what? Are you actually suggesting the value of 1 regular season game is as much as 1 playoff game? Because to me thats ludicrous and ive never heard that before. Whether you value overall playoffs or reg season is certainly worth of consideration since so many more reg season games.

Yes that chart shows Haseks best is better than 2 of 3 roys cup runs. But roy has the best run. And his 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th best ones are better than Haseks 2nd run. Thats why its net advantage Roy

Finally - who cares whether you believe Hasek might have done better in the nhl than roy or not in the 80s? We judge on what happened and hence its an advtantage to Roy. Otherwise its just a hypothetical.

My complaint was not about small sample of games, but rather a small sample of guys.

Best four-round runs disqualify all but two goalies for every year. You need to actually win playoff rounds to get there, but it's not like you're the only guy on your team and it's not like you score goals. It's a very selective stat, and again, everything you say and claim can be twisted in favor of whoever you pick.

The fact that so many losing goalies display better stats than Roy's winning years definitely puts some doubt over how much a goalie actually contributes to his team success, thus again, a weird stat that favors not necessarily the best goalies, but the goalies on great and hot teams.

If Hasek's best losing four-round run is better than two thirds of Roy's winning ones, where is the huge advantage on Hasek come playoffs? In being on more competitive teams more often?

It's not a peak playoff Roy outperforming peak playoff Hasek. It's much more selective. In the end, it's a four-round cup winning Roy outperforming a four-round cup losing Hasek once. By the way, it was the first and only time Hasek made the cup finals during his peak. And he lost. And still, he left all but one of Roy's final four-round runs behind.

Not buying the Roy fairytale for a second.

EDIT: I realize being one of the most impervious and argument-deaf participants in any Roy-Hasek debate, and I realize it's annoying for anyone who is not too much into this hair splitting and nitpicking, so sorry for driving everyone nuts. Dropping it and writing "never gonna argue Roy-Hasek again" on the blackboard like Bart Simpson. 33+39 times.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We can expand it to three-round goaltenders (of which there will be double the amount of qualifying players) and push it back to 1967 - or even isolate Rounds 2-4 for the original field - but I don’t know that we’re necessarily going to see anything other than a lot of Patrick Roy in a playoff measure. In fact, Roy actually holds three Round 1-3 performances (1986, 1989, 1993) that are statistically superior to Hasek’s best Round 1-3 run (1998 - 61.7%).

Top Round 1-3 Performances, 1968-2017
1. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 (39.6% on 496 shots)
2. John Davidson, 1979 (46.0% on 374 shots)
3. Rogie Vachon, 1969 (46.8% on 257 shots)
4. Richard Brodeur, 1982 (54.0% on 463 shots)
5. Patrick Roy, 1993 (54.3% on 492 shots)
6. Ilya Bryzgalov, 2006 (54.5% on 285 shots)
7. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (55.4% on 527 shots)
8. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (55.6% on 616 shots)
9. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (56.5% on 319 shots)
10. Patrick Roy, 1986 (56.8% on 379 shots)


Top Round 2-4 Performances, 1980-2017
1. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (52.1% on 558 shots)
2. Patrick Roy, 2001 (55.7% on 534 shots)
3. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (56.0% on 527 shots)
4. Patrick Roy, 1996 (57.2% on 493 shots)
5. Tim Thomas, 2011 (57.6% on 620 shots)
6. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (57.9% on 394 shots)
7. Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 (58.2% on 385 shots)
8. Patrick Roy, 1993 (60.1% on 444 shots)
9. Patrick Roy, 1986 (61.3% on 426 shots)
10. Kirk McLean, 1994 (62.1% on 598 shots)

 

[bobholly39]

You might want to add Hasek's 98 Olympic run. Better than anything from Roy.

Of course i took it into acct i discussed it in length when he came up. I even think me and you exchanged about hasek vs Crosby internationally.

Longevity goes to Roy because elite nhl season > elite player at the non-nhl level to answer your earlier comment.

I really feel as though you're spending way too much time being bothered with specific 1vs1 player comparisons. Roy vs Hasek. Ovi vs hull. Sakic vs yzerman or lidstrom vs bourque

Looking no further than the first 2. You said you had roy at 7 and hasek at 5 (and roy went up for most ppl in this project because a lot of very valuable info on him got posted so id assume your opinion of him may have risen some too and certainly probably not fallen) and you are also agreeing with Hull over OV (BOTH for nhl and non-nhl stuff).

5 vs 7 is super close. Hull *is* slotted above Ov. I think like someone else said it would make for more interesting conversations if you were arguing some of the other 7 players vs Hasek (your#5 to his actual #13) who passed him. Roy vs Hasek and Roy actually has a pretty strong case and certainly easy one to see.
Same for Ov vs Hull. You dont seem upset by Hull at 5 you sound upset Ov is so low. Same idea - who else in between should Ov definitely be ahead of? Would make for a better discussion.

My complaint was not about small sample of games, but rather a small sample of guys.

Best four-round runs disqualify all but two goalies for every year. You need to actually win playoff rounds to get there, but it's not like you're the only guy on your team and it's not like you score goals. It's a very selective stat, and again, everything you say and claim can be twisted in favor of whoever you pick.

The fact that so many losing goalies display better stats than Roy's winning years definitely puts some doubt over how much a goalie actually contributes to his team success, thus again, a weird stat that favors not necessarily the best goalies, but the goalies on great and hot teams.

If Hasek's best losing four-round run is better than two thirds of Roy's winning ones, where is the huge advantage on Hasek come playoffs? In being on more competitive teams more often?

It's not a peak playoff Roy outperforming peak playoff Hasek. It's much more selective. In the end, it's a four-round cup winning Roy outperforming a four-round cup losing Hasek once. By the way, it was the first and only time Hasek made the cup finals during his peak. And he lost. And still, he left all but one of Roy's final four-round runs behind.

Not buying the Roy fairytale for a second.

EDIT: I realize being one of the most impervious and argument-deaf participants in any Roy-Hasek debate, and I realize it's annoying for anyone who is not too much into this hair splitting and nitpicking, so sorry for driving everyone nuts. Dropping it and writing "never gonna argue Roy-Hasek again" on the blackboard like Bart Simpson. 33+39 times.

GAMES PLAYED in my opinion is a huge component of a playoff record - especially for a goalie (but not only). Maybe for Plante or Dryden games played is a bit less impactful than Roy due to strength of dynasties - but for Roy games played is insane.

Yes he played on many decent to strong teams (caveat is he was the best player on most/all of those and often a huge reason why they were good) - but i dont care. Not all things are created equal in playoffs (lemieux didn't make playoffs for so many years and Gretzky had a dynasty - too bad for Lemieux and net positive for Gretzky).

So while youre trying to argue "its not apples to apples looking at cup runs for Hasek vs Roy" im saying i agree and thats a huge reason why Roy is so far ahead.

 

[Sentinel]

You dont seem upset by Hull at 5 you sound upset Ov is so low. Same idea - who else in between should Ov definitely be ahead of? Would make for a better discussion.

Yes, I think when similar players are close in their greatness, it should be reflected in their placement. When Hasek / Roy and Ovechkin / Hull are as close as they are in real life, they should not be so far apart.

To me, there is no question that Ovechkin should be higher than Kelly, Potvin, Plante, Nighbor, Morenz, and Messier. Messier literally has nothing on him, except Cups. Not Harts, not Art Rosses, forget Richards. His two-way play is not enough to negate a huge difference in goals. Even their physical play is comparable. Kelly, Potvin, and Nighbor are just flavors of the month. Ovechkin's insane consistency as a goal scorer (the most important attribute in hockey, if you ask me) seems to be understated here. And Plante... let's just say that having FOUR 50s Habs before the FIRST 70s Habs feels patently wrong. I already talked about Morenz: his numbers simply don't back up his legend.

 

[Midnight Judges]

My HoH Top 50 Players Of All Time!

I did a pretty in depth HoH top 50 last year. I wanted to go back and see how it stacked up with this go and I'm pretty happy to say a lot of it is pretty close to what we have so far, minus Morenz, Jagr, Brodeur and Ovechkin (list was obviously done a year prior to their Cup win). Mikita was a bit lower in this and something I actually agree with given an even bigger look.

Nailed the too 10, top 5 in correct order with the 6-10 varying slightly.

Basically I flipped Messier for Jagr's position.

Had Marty B a bit higher than the top 100 here. Same with Cyclone Taylor and Larry Robinson. Soviets weren't included on my initial top 50 but the plan was to always retroactively place them once I got done with my own top 100, which never came to pass for various reasons.

More or less nailed the glut of C's in the late 20's/early 30's. Got Glenn Hall exactly right. Sawchuk and Dryden I think will end up right next to one another, although a bit lower than I originally had them.

Glad to see Park getting downgraded a bit by some here. I think there are multiple Dmen that need to go in over him (Clancy, Pilote for sure). Same with Coffey, obviously.

I do think I was probably a bit bullish on Bathgate and maybe Mahovlich in retrospect but we'll see.

That list is just as illogical as when you claimed knowing the size of the hockey talent pool was irrelevant to comparing players across eras.

This project is utterly tainted by bias.

 

[wetcoast]

That list is just as illogical as when you claimed knowing the size of the hockey talent pool was irrelevant to comparing players across eras.

This project is utterly tainted by bias.

How is this list illogical?

What bias is this project tainted by?

Where is your list and reasons behind it?

My list would be different but it should be right with 50 players he listed his rational behind it.

Simply taking pot shots with zero reference to his list helps us how exactly?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hull and Ovechkin aren't that close, unless you weed out everything but goal scoring and then count goal scoring titles...which no one should be doing because it's the wrong thing to do...

Hull was a far superior player.

 

[Midnight Judges]

How is this list illogical?

Ovechkin at 36 is particularly illogical, even for a pens fan, even if the list was created prior to the Smythe and Cup.

What's even more interesting is how the goal posts have moved for some of these posters. Now that Ovechkin has climbed that mountain, they are now claiming he needs to do it twice.

What bias is this project tainted by?

The project is tainted by an over-representation of Canadian Crosby fans and Penguins fans - some of whom have demonstrated a willingness to outright lie about things (like Mike Farkas claiming Ovechkin was bad in game 6 of the TB series).

The project is also tainted by a denialism about the size of the hockey talent pool. Some deny the size has expanded, some deny it even matters, most simply refuse to touch on the subject as if it is deeply unpleasant or taboo. I don't see how an evaluation could be equitable to today's players without it.

Many participants apparently believe in a Canadian master race from 70 years ago where their athletic superiority far exceeds the much larger and diverse populations of today to such an extent that the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s (depending on if you count Bobby Orr). Some go well beyond that.

Seems unlikely to me, to put it mildly.

Simply taking pot shots with zero reference to his list helps us how exactly?​

It is merely a dissenting opinion.

 

[Michael Farkas]

like Mike Farkas claiming Ovechkin was bad in game 6 of the TB series).

Some people like the sizzle, some people like the steak. I'm a fan of the latter...it's easy to be duped, because of how much panache he had in that game and how high event it appeared to be and how hard he worked...those remarkably uncalculated, backyard hockey games are precisely what got him and his teams eliminated in the past...

That was an "I'm Ovechkin, I can do it!" game...but he's just not and never has been good enough to do it. When he could settle in to being the third best player on this run and play with in a structure, that's when he and his team finally got somewhere...

So, call me a liar all you'd like, but that comes at the cost of having a loose and superficial grasp of the game...hey, maybe Ovechkin will appear in a MasterCard commercial to really put him over the top of Crosby...

 

[wetcoast]

Ovechkin at 36 is particularly illogical, even for a pens fan, even if the list was created prior to the Smythe and Cup.

What's even more interesting is how the goal posts have moved for some of these posters. Now that Ovechkin has climbed that mountain, they are now claiming he needs to do it twice.



The project is tainted by an over-representation of Canadian Crosby fans and Penguins fans - some of whom have demonstrated a willingness to outright lie about things (like Mike Farkas claiming Ovechkin was bad in game 6 of the TB series).

The project is also tainted by a denialism about the size of the hockey talent pool. Some deny the size has expanded, some deny it even matters, most simply refuse to touch on the subject as if it is deeply unpleasant or taboo. I don't see how an evaluation could be equitable to today's players without it.

Many participants apparently believe in a Canadian master race from 70 years ago where their athletic superiority far exceeds the much larger and diverse populations of today to such an extent that the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s (depending on if you count Bobby Orr). Some go well beyond that.

Seems unlikely to me, to put it mildly.



It is merely a dissenting opinion.

So to sum it up, you disagree with the Ovechkin ranking?

 

[Midnight Judges]

So to sum it up, you disagree with the Ovechkin ranking?

That absolutely does not sum it all up.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Some people like the sizzle, some people like the steak. I'm a fan of the latter...it's easy to be duped, because of how much panache he had in that game and how high event it appeared to be and how hard he worked...those remarkably uncalculated, backyard hockey games are precisely what got him and his teams eliminated in the past...

That was an "I'm Ovechkin, I can do it!" game...but he's just not and never has been good enough to do it. When he could settle in to being the third best player on this run and play with in a structure, that's when he and his team finally got somewhere...

So, call me a liar all you'd like, but that comes at the cost of having a loose and superficial grasp of the game...hey, maybe Ovechkin will appear in a MasterCard commercial to really put him over the top of Crosby...

You like to claim Ovechkin is one dimensional (which has always been nonsense). Ovechkin didn't score a goal or get an assist in game 6. He played well. It didn't fit your desired narrative - that Ovechkin is only good for goal scoring - so you made up some story about it being his worst game since the Columbus series.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is this the time where I call you biased and pretend I won...? If so, I'd like to play that card now.

Look, I get it...you like big shots and big hits because it's flashy and fun...I'm a details guy...I think it's attention to detail that wins games and series...it's meaningful adjustments and advanced scouting your opponent...

Big shots and big hits have their place, they do...but to say that it makes you a multi-dimensional player in this context is rather disingenuous...I guess Kevin Hatcher was multi-dimensional too...but I'll take Calle Johansson, thanks...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Ovechkin at 36 is particularly illogical, even for a pens fan, even if the list was created prior to the Smythe and Cup.

What's even more interesting is how the goal posts have moved for some of these posters. Now that Ovechkin has climbed that mountain, they are now claiming he needs to do it twice.



The project is tainted by an over-representation of Canadian Crosby fans and Penguins fans - some of whom have demonstrated a willingness to outright lie about things (like Mike Farkas claiming Ovechkin was bad in game 6 of the TB series).

The project is also tainted by a denialism about the size of the hockey talent pool. Some deny the size has expanded, some deny it even matters, most simply refuse to touch on the subject as if it is deeply unpleasant or taboo. I don't see how an evaluation could be equitable to today's players without it.

Many participants apparently believe in a Canadian master race from 70 years ago where their athletic superiority far exceeds the much larger and diverse populations of today to such an extent that the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s (depending on if you count Bobby Orr). Some go well beyond that.

Seems unlikely to me, to put it mildly.



It is merely a dissenting opinion.

Lol.

"Canadian-Crosby fans"

You do realize that some of us aren't Canadian and some Crosby fans are completely willing to evaluate his career and analyze it in a logical manner.

I don't think there is a single diehard Pens fan in this beyond me. It makes your assertion utterly ridiculous.

I always said until his 2nd Cup he needed to do more in the postseason. Period. Crosby's postseason career was not in the greatest spot in 2015. Then, they finally dumped Bylsma and the Johnston experiment ended quickly and the rest is history.

As a Pens fan I can absolutely admit he had a few down years between 2010 and 2015. I can admit his first Smythe was rather weak. I can admit, that he hasn't done enough to be firmly in the too 10 all time yet.

That's not bias. That's fair and logical IMHO.

So, nobody is moving the goal posts on Ovechkin and him having to climb the mountain twice. Most people who aren't children said the same thing about Sid years ago....and he responded. A 2nd and 3rd time.

Ovi's postseason career is bleak beyond last year. That's not bias or fiction. He was an uneven player at best, on very strong Caps teams over the years. Was it 3-4 President trophy teams out in the 1st or 2nd round?

His record for team Russia is putrid relative to other great players of this era. Or any other era.

The bulk of 8's resume to this point is regular season based. If he wants to continue to move up the rankings, which is very possible, he needs to add to his postseason credentials.

And lastly, you contributed nothing to this project. Didn't work up a list, didn't engage in meaningful discussion throughout, etc. You show up, bitch and moan, and then disappear.

Not a good look sir.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Not much of a Christmas spirit in here...

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lol.

"Canadian-Crosby fans"

You do realize that some of us aren't Canadian and some Crosby fans are completely willing to evaluate his career and analyze it in a logical manner.

I look forward to meeting those people.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So, nobody is moving the goal posts on Ovechkin and him having to climb the mountain twice. Most people who aren't children said the same thing about Sid years ago....and he responded. A 2nd and 3rd time.

I don't recall any of you saying that about Sid. I do recall tons of Pens fans scoffing at "intangibles."

And lol at counting 19 points and 6 goals in 24 games as a minus player as some sort of response. That's well below what you just described as "bleak" for Ovechkin. Double standard much?

Ovi's postseason career is bleak beyond last year. That's not bias or fiction.

Yes, it absolutely is. Pure nonsense.

Dude was top 3 in GPG and top 10 in PPG as a plus player from 2005 through the 2017 playoffs (out of everyone who had more than 40 games played).

 

[wetcoast]

I don't recall any of you saying that about Sid. I do recall tons of Pens fans scoffing at "intangibles."

And lol at counting 19 points and 6 goals in 24 games as a minus player as some sort of response. That's well below what you just described as "bleak" for Ovechkin. Double standard much?



Yes, it absolutely is. Pure nonsense.

Dude was top 3 in GPG and top 10 in PPG as a plus player from 2005 through the 2017 playoffs (out of everyone who had more than 40 games played).

Funny but I ironically recall you on another thread downplaying Crosby's PPG in the regualr season.

Why the difference?

It's not like the games get easier the deeper one goes in the playoffs.

 

[ted2019]

I look forward to meeting those people.

Maybe next time there's a list, you should participate and not just complain about things?