Toggle sidebar

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theokritos said:
Paint me sceptical. What Mike Farkas has said stands to reason: In the third round of the POs you usually face opponents that are more difficult to score on than in the first round. Therefore the comparison is distorted in disfavour of players whose teams had multiple deep PO runs.

An examples:

Sidney Crosby has 185 points in 160 playoff games. 90 of those points (48.6 %) were scored in his 59 first round games, that is: in just 36.8 % of his overall playoff games. In the remaining 101 playoff games (second to fourth round) = 63.2 % of all games, Crosby scored 95 points, that is: 51.4 % of his overall PO production.

In all likeliness, more deeper playoff runs for Ovechkin mean that his GP count (at 121 now) goes up faster than his points count (at 117 now) and thus, his rank among contemporary playoff scorers takes a dive.
Click to expand...

He is 2nd in goals, 4th in points, 1st in GPG (among the top 25 goal scorers), T4 in PPG (among the top 25 scorers). I don't mind context being added to these as long as it is offered in statistical form rather than speculative narrative.

This could be countered with a quality of competition analysis. The Caps did seem to face some tough defensive competition for awhile.

I think moving him out of the Top Ten playoff performers of his era is less reasonable than having him in the Top Ten.

Off the top of my head:

Clearly ahead:

Crosby
Malkin
Toews
Kane
Keith
Zetterberg

Any others than should be clearly rated ahead of him?
 
Midnight Judges said:
Each of these quotes are problematic.


If you assume the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s, then maybe. I find it extremely unlikely that the Canada with a population of 16M puts out more hockey talent than the Canada with a 32M population + Russia + the USA + all the European countries combined. The project is fatally flawed in this regard.
Click to expand...

If this your point of view fine. But why do the results of this totally flawed project bother you so much then. You have been asked where you would rank Ovechkin and Hull and you have been asked to give us your top 20. This would be interesting if nothing else. If you are not willing to do this then your opinion is meaningless.
 
pappyline said:
If this your point of view fine. But why do the results of this project bother you so much then. You have been asked where you would rank Ovechkin and Hull and you have been asked to give us your top 20. This would be interesting if nothing else. If you are not willing to do this then your opinion is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I will submit a top 20. But I'm not going to rush and cobble it together. It will take some time.
 
Theokritos said:
Paint me sceptical. What Mike Farkas has said stands to reason: In the third round of the POs you usually face opponents that are more difficult to score on than in the first round. Therefore the comparison is distorted in disfavour of players whose teams had multiple deep PO runs.

An examples:

Sidney Crosby has 185 points in 160 playoff games. 90 of those points (48.6 %) were scored in his 59 first round games, that is: in just 36.8 % of his overall playoff games. In the remaining 101 playoff games (second to fourth round) = 63.2 % of all games, Crosby scored 95 points, that is: 51.4 % of his overall PO production.

In all likeliness, more deeper playoff runs for Ovechkin mean that his GP count (at 121 now) goes up faster than his points count (at 117 now) and thus, his rank among contemporary playoff scorers takes a dive.
Click to expand...

Sid is a bad baseline in this regard. The point swing is almost certainly not proportionate to league wide scoring per round.

As much as this point is made about later rounds, somebody ought to be compiling the data on team GPG by playoff round. If that data exists, I have not seen it.

Ovechkin has played a disproportionate number of playoff games against Lundqvist - who in those years had a good defense in front of him.
 
Last edited:
quoipourquoi said:
Why does there appear to be a current player vs. current player debate in the History board? Specifically a project thread.

Take it elsewhere; we’ll probably be purging a lot of this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is getting really creepy/uncomfortable/gross now...I can't imagine looking at the game with the eyes of my heart in such an incredibly irresponsible way. Let's move it on. I guess keep some of the posts somewhere because I'm sure there's some stats in there that people worked at, but this can go now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerBruce
Midnight Judges said:
If you assume the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s, then maybe. I find it extremely unlikely that the Canada with a population of 16M puts out more hockey talent than the Canada with a 32M population + Russia + the USA + all the European countries combined. The project is fatally flawed in this regard.
Click to expand...

Yup. It seems that in order to take part in a project like this and not go insane you need to pretend this point you've made isn't valid. They either deny it matters or pretend their "eye test" is good enough to place Hull above Ovechkin. Some actually believe Hull faced "stiffer competition", as if pre-baby boom Canada produced more elite talent than the world can now. Don't waste your time, no matter how many people or times this is pointed out the general consensus in this section is to deny it and keep pretending.

I don't care much for Ovi but I'll have my popcorn out if he continues to accomplish a lot personally and his team wins another Cup. Unfortunately, I think many here will place Hull above him no matter what happens cause that's just what they do.
 
danincanada said:
Yup. It seems that in order to take part in a project like this and not go insane you need to pretend this point you've made isn't valid. They either deny it matters or pretend their "eye test" is good enough to place Hull above Ovechkin. Some actually believe Hull faced "stiffer competition", as if pre-baby boom Canada produced more elite talent than the world can now. Don't waste your time, no matter how many people or times this is pointed out the general consensus in this section is to deny it and keep pretending.

I don't care much for Ovi but I'll have my popcorn out if he continues to accomplish a lot personally and his team wins another Cup. Unfortunately, I think many here will place Hull above him no matter what happens cause that's just what they do.
Click to expand...

What player or players currently ranked in the Top 100 project is, in your opinion, ranked lower than what a performance vs. peers analysis would dictate?
 
daver said:
What player or players currently ranked in the Top 100 project is, in your opinion, ranked lower than what a performance vs. peers analysis would dictate?
Click to expand...

Performance vs. peers or "peer to peer" analysis alone stinks. It's a lazy way to do it but if one chooses to do it that way then at least admit that's all that's being done and adding other context is too much to even consider. To me, having half of the top 10 come from the O6 is similar to old time Soviet fans having half of their top 10 list comprised of the Soviet greats who dominated their domestic league. That would be mocked here for obvious reasons but for some reason it's okay to pretend the O6 was a super league that somehow had more value than the modern NHL even though it often just had domestic Canadian talent and nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel
Robinson fell from 31 to 37. I think he's one of the best, if not the best, post-O6 defensive dman.
 
The Macho Man said:
I think that has something to do with Ovi and Crosby making the list, as well as Jagr rebounding a bit (was he above Jagr in the last project?)
Click to expand...

Crosby/Ovechkin making the list, Nighbor being discovered, Makarov and Fetisov (to a lesser extent, as he was already ranked highly) being reappraised. Not really a fall for Robinson, but rather others claiming their rightful spot on the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander, seventieslord, Hockey Outsider and 1 other person
Dr John Carlson said:
Crosby/Ovechkin making the list, Nighbor being discovered, Makarov and Fetisov (to a lesser extent, as he was already ranked highly) being reappraised. Not really a fall for Robinson, but rather others claiming their rightful spot on the list.
Click to expand...

Cook, Brodeur and Sakic also pasted Robinson.

Chelios was 41st last time & this time as well, so that would really be a marked improvement. Over-emphasis on longevity this time could explain it.
 
Noticed that Mikita is the guy who had the most players with a finished legacy passing him compared to the 2009 list (Kelly, Potvin, Nighbor, Messier, Lafleur) or even the center project (Messier, Nighbor). Is there anything in particular that was "discovered" which makes him look worse?


Alright Lalonde lost quite a bit too, but big movements for lesser known players is expected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom