Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I will say that Hainsworth is probably a pretty good example of someone who lacks adaptability (unlike Lu, Kipper, etc.) and as I recall wasn't nearly as highly regarded as his numbers would suggest...

He's a layup no chancer for me, for those reasons and more...

Of course Hainsworth wasn't as good as his "best ever" numbers would indicate, but I disagree that he "lacks adaptability." Nobody plays at a high level for as long as Hainsworth did across multiple leagues if he "lacks adaptability."

Hainsworth joined the NHL in 1926-27 at the age of 30, after the last Western league folded. Overall, he played 24 years of high-level hockey across the OHA (age 17-27), WCHL/WHL (age 28-30) and NHL (age 31-40). The OHA was the highest level amateur hockey league and clearly had a few NHL-calibre players, though it was weaker than the professional leagues. The WCHL/WHL was a rival league to the NHL, and was likely a bit stronger than the NHL in 1925 and 1926.

Iain Fyffe estimated that Hainsworth "managed 1611 effective games played, which is the equivalent of playing a full 80-game schedule for 20 seasons, plus a bit."

Here's a full bio of Hainsworth that I recently constructed: ATD2020 Bio Thread

And full credit to Iain Fyffe for being the first one (as far as I know) to delve into just how insane Hainsworth's longevity was.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

... Can Steven Stamkos even be kept out of this?

Nope. In fact, he's statistically the best regular season offensive player to not make our original top 100!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would echo that people should be careful about taking the goalie project as gospel, although not so much because of the availability of stats but more because active goalies were massively underrated in that project. As informed historians who have a commitment to fairly comparing across eras, please do not just repeat the mistaken idea that any good starter from the '60s and '70s was better than everyone who played after 2000 because of awards/team success which are exponentially more difficult to achieve in an expanded league. It is in fact perfectly justifiable to rank Roberto Luongo ahead of the likes of Johnny Bower and Tony Esposito (I'd go so far as to argue that it is actually correct to do so).



Just going to say that Kiprusoff might not make my top 220, and I'm very high on modern goalies relative to consensus here. I don't quite get the hype either, in my estimation a guy like Carey Price is easily better, and I don't see what clearly separates Kipper from contemporaries like Miller or Rinne.



Given your very strong opinions on other goalies who only ever had success for one coach, I think you at the very least need to seriously grapple with the fact that Kiprusoff was never really that dominant other than when he was playing for Darryl Sutter and Sutter had the last change:

Home w/Sutter: 1.56 GAA, .939 save % (.907 exp)
Home w/o Sutter: 2.42 GAA, .913 save % (.912 exp)
Road w/Sutter: 2.54 GAA, .908 save % (.903 exp)
Road w/o Sutter: 2.85 GAA, .905 save % (.908 exp)

(That expected save percentage at the end is league average with an adjustment for goalies typically being a bit better at home than on the road)

That said, I do think Kiprusoff was a talented goalie, and it didn't help him that his team kept starting him 70+ games a year even on the wrong side of 30. I've said it before, but I think that when you take into account his workload and team context he was definitely not as good as he looked in his two-year peak on a team that knew how to shut up shop on home ice, but was also probably better than he looked in some of those down years when he was playing tired with weaker defensive support.

I think you're probably right on all counts here, though I would argue that when we originally did the goalies project, it was still a little early to know for sure that you were right...

But it's now been 10 years since Martin Brodeur's last good season (and 12 years since his last great one - god does that make me feel old), and it sure looks like it has become much more difficult for goalies to repeat on the seasonal leaderboards.

_____

I do think the goalies project holds up very well when it comes to pre-2000 goalies, however, with the notable exception of Hugh Lehman being a little too low.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Of course Hainsworth wasn't as good as his "best ever" numbers would indicate, but I disagree that he "lacks adaptability." Nobody plays at a high level for as long as Hainsworth did across multiple leagues if he "lacks adaptability."

Hainsworth joined the NHL in 1926-27 at the age of 30, after the last Western league folded. Overall, he played 24 years of high-level hockey across the OHA (age 17-27), WCHL/WHL (age 28-30) and NHL (age 31-40). The OHA was the highest level amateur hockey league and clearly had a few NHL-calibre players, though it was weaker than the professional leagues. The WCHL/WHL was a rival league to the NHL, and was likely a bit stronger than the NHL in 1925 and 1926.

Iain Fyffe estimated that Hainsworth "managed 1611 effective games played, which is the equivalent of playing a full 80-game schedule for 20 seasons, plus a bit."

Here's a full bio of Hainsworth that I recently constructed: ATD2020 Bio Thread

And full credit to Iain Fyffe for being the first one (as far as I know) to delve into just how insane Hainsworth's longevity was.

Fair enough, I was talking about his NHL career. Even in the best numbers days, he was oft-voted behind others. Then he seemed more negatively affected by the forward passing liberalization than his peers...

1927-28 & 1928-29 Wins:
Hainsworth 48
Ross Roach 39
Chabot 39
Benedict 38
Worters 35

1927-28 & 1928-29 GAA:
Hainsworth 0.99
Thompson 1.15
Connell 1.33
Dolson 1.37
Worters 1.43

##

1929-30 & 1930-31 Wins:
Thompson 66
Hainsworth 46
Gardiner 45
Chabot 37
Ross Roach 36

1929-30 & 1930-31 GAA:
Gardiner 2.08
Thompson 2.09
Hainsworth 2.18
Chabot 2.33
Kerr 2.33

You can see he immediately slips in with the rest...

Three years on either side (27, 28, 29 vs 30, 31, 32):

Player	Before	After	Diff	% Diff
Ross Roach	1.81	2.4	-0.59	32.6
Worters	1.76	2.57	-0.81	46.0
Chabot	1.59	2.33	-0.74	46.5
Connell	1.38	2.52	-1.14	82.6
Hainsworth	1.15	2.19	-1.04	90.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, surely there can be some other factors in play...but as I recall from our research way back when...it's Worters, Ross Roach, and Chabot that were hailed as better goalies...no one really had time for Connell despite being the GAA for his career, similarly, there wasn't a lot of love for NHL Hainsworth...the latter two did not seem to adapt the offensive rule changes very well. The guys that were heralded as being more talented did...or so it seems...

Naturally, all this open to interpretation, but this was mine...

 

[ted2019]

Considering most of us think that center is historically the strongest position in NHL history (ESPECIALLY since we included rovers on our "centers" list), it is useful to look at the centers who came closest to making our top 60 list.

The 60th spot, was ultimately won by Neil Colville in a tiebreak vote. These were the candidates to make the runoff for the last spot:

Neil Colville
Frank Foyston
Pat Lafontaine
Joe Primeau
Jeremy Roenick
Henrik Sedin

Foyston/Lafontaine/Primeau/Roenick/Sedin should be unofficially considered this forum's 61st-65th best centers (as of 2014 of course), in no particular order.

Round 2, Vote 16 (HOH Top Centers)

Note that as this was a tiebreak round, all the above centers placed in the top 6 in the last week of Round 2 voting, so these were their rankings after the more detailed discussion phase.

(Unfortunately, the full results of the tiebreak vote were destroyed in the forum migration)

Out of the above names, I have 3 or 4 of them under consideration.

 

[edinson]

Nope. In fact, he's statistically the best regular season offensive player to not make our original top 100!

Is it really that clear cut? Schriner has a better 7Y VsX for example.

Anyway, I'd have at least five non-top 100 centers with overlapping careers ahead of him (Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Toews, Bergeron, Kopitar). He may still make it but not inside the top 160 or so for me.

 

[ted2019]

I think it's about time to discuss the elephant in the room, Connor McDavid. Here are the some of his accolades.

Post Season AS: 1,1,1,3
2x Art Ross ( Runner up 2x)
2x Pearson winner
Hart Voting: 1,3,5,5
Calder Voting: 3

Since coming into the league in 2015-16, he leads all players in points:
1. Connor McDavid 469 in 351 GP
2. Patrick Kane 465 in 397 GP
3. Nikita Kucherov 464 in 381 GP
4. Brad Marchand 418 in 374 GP
5. Artemi Panarin 415 in 391 GP

He's 8th in Goals with 162, but only 22 goals behind the 2nd place Patrick Kane
He's 1st in Assists with 307, 25 ahead of 2nd place Blake Wheeler (who has played 47 more games then McDavid)
He's 4th in EVG with 128, 19 behind 1st place Alex Ovechkin.
He's 2nd place in EVP with 324, 6 behind 1st place Patrick Kane ( who has played 46 more games)
He's tied in 4th in PPP ( with Claude Giroux) with 137, 29 behind 1st place Nikita Kucherov ( who's played 30 more games)

Obviously he will be in the top 200 somewhere, but where? Doesn't have playoff success yet, but he has done his share there with 18PTS. in 17GP, nor he doesn't have longevity like 99% of the others players that will be on this list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Who has four amazing years and almost nothing else...? I guess exclude goalies because that's gonna be a lot probably...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Who has four amazing years and almost nothing else...? I guess exclude goalies because that's gonna be a lot probably...

Bullet Joe Simpson

 

[BenchBrawl]

McDavid's resume looks good but two things:

1) He has proven nothing in the playoffs yet.

2) He was bested by a teammate.

IMO McDavid shouldn't make the list yet. Too much is lacking in his story for his ranking to have any meaning. See you in 10 years for the next edition of the Top 100, Connor.

 

[wetcoast]

I think it's about time to discuss the elephant in the room, Connor McDavid. Here are the some of his accolades.

Post Season AS: 1,1,1,3
2x Art Ross ( Runner up 2x)
2x Pearson winner
Hart Voting: 1,3,5,5
Calder Voting: 3

Since coming into the league in 2015-16, he leads all players in points:
1. Connor McDavid 469 in 351 GP
2. Patrick Kane 465 in 397 GP
3. Nikita Kucherov 464 in 381 GP
4. Brad Marchand 418 in 374 GP
5. Artemi Panarin 415 in 391 GP

He's 8th in Goals with 162, but only 22 goals behind the 2nd place Patrick Kane
He's 1st in Assists with 307, 25 ahead of 2nd place Blake Wheeler (who has played 47 more games then McDavid)
He's 4th in EVG with 128, 19 behind 1st place Alex Ovechkin.
He's 2nd place in EVP with 324, 6 behind 1st place Patrick Kane ( who has played 46 more games)
He's tied in 4th in PPP ( with Claude Giroux) with 137, 29 behind 1st place Nikita Kucherov ( who's played 30 more games)

Obviously he will be in the top 200 somewhere, but where? Doesn't have playoff success yet, but he has done his share there with 18PTS. in 17GP, nor he doesn't have longevity like 99% of the others players that will be on this list.

Connor has the icing on the cake to be in the top 150 right now.

Every year going forward the cake gets baked and the progression continues.

 

[seventieslord]

It was cool to find out that 11 was old Firsov, who is like 37 or 38 in this game

I haven't read through yet to see if anyone else caught this, but Firsov was just 28 at the time of this game.

 

[wetcoast]

McDavid's resume looks good but two things:

1) He has proven nothing in the playoffs yet.

2) He was bested by a teammate.

IMO McDavid shouldn't make the list yet. Too much is lacking in his story for his ranking to have any meaning. See you in 10 years for the next edition of the Top 100, Connor.

I.think you will need to make this arguement again very early in the project as no one else is going to have a 4 year peak like that and the fact is that his peak is already better than alot of guys in the top 100 already.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I haven't read through yet to see if anyone else caught this, but Firsov was just 28 at the time of this game.

Hmph...well...I, uh...*clears throat*...I was clearly using adjusted age. Many of the Soviet players kind of fell apart around 30 or 32, so 28 is basically...is that my phone? I gotta take this...

 

[BenchBrawl]

I.think you will need to make this arguement again very early in the project as no one else is going to have a 4 year peak like that and the fact is that his peak is already better than alot of guys in the top 100 already.

True, but I don't see any point in ranking McDavid the "147th greatest player of all-time" in 2020. At best it's an indication to future readers that we acknowledged the start of his career. Not persuaded by the meaningfulness of this.

 

[wetcoast]

True, but I don't see any point in ranking McDavid the "147th greatest player of all-time" in 2020. At best it's an indication to future readers that we acknowledged the start of his career. Not persuaded by the meaningfulness of this.

Fair point as I understand 5 years (including a shortened rookie season) can be hard to place but I think the absolute eliteness of his last 4 years would make the project incomplete if it wasn't evaluated and ranked.

Dickie Moore easily made the top 100 list with an only slightly longer prime.

The list of players with four top 2 Art Ross placements along with 3 times all star at center is an extremely small one.

I think the project should evaluate that level of greatness even if it will look different in the years to come.

 

[Professor What]

Re: McDavid I have no problem with the rule that says we do our work based only on what's been accomplished already and no assumptions about the future. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with it.
But at the same time, it leaves me feeling a bit handcuffed here. Yeah, I agree that ranking him 147 seems pointless, but if he ended up 101, that seems equally pointless, just as leaving him unranked right now could be semi-understandable even if it would still be dead wrong.

I was one of the ones that expressed the most concern about him before we decided up take on this particular project, but I've changed my tune and relaxed a bit on it. I'm still going to struggle to decide where to put him, but at the heart of it, we simply can't get him right at this point of his career, and that's no one's fault. We just happened to fall into this when one of the most elite talents ever is just hitting his stride. I suspect that we could be talking top 10 with him one day, but he could suffer a freak career-ending injury tomorrow, for all I know. I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't do their best at placing him, but I've decided to do my best not to let him be the elephant in the room.

 

[BenchBrawl]

However high McDavid's peak may be, his career is not worth more than say Modano's. There is no emotional content yet in McDavid's story. No narrative. No demonstration of fighting demons and prevailing. It's just short-lived video game dominance for now.

This is not a knock on him, to be clear. He still has a lot of time to do all that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not disagreeing, but is there any other player that has been a top 3 player in the league for four straight years that isn't gonna land in here...?

We're talking about Modano, Sundin, Gartner, so I know the answer is yes...so it really just comes down to your value of peak/prime. He has that case for sure...he's the best player in tbe world and has been that for at least two years now for me...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Does McDavid even sufficiently distance himself from Kucherov? Consider the past 4 years: McDavid has 421 points in 306 games, while Kucherov has 398 in 304.

So that’s 5 extra points per 82 versus someone who has had 4 deep playoff runs (17, 19, 22, and 34-point runs). Kucherov has a lot more filler - an extra 211 games outside of this sample when he was nothing special.

Unless we’re leaning extra hard into the prediction that McDavid will be better, I don’t know that his career necessarily has been better. That said, I think they’re probably both already in that 90-110 range for me.

But after this last playoff run? I think I might have Kucherov higher right now, and I think that’s going to keep my instinct to rate McDavid (who I expect to be a top-10 player of all-time) in check.

1968-2020 - Leading Playoff Scorers Adjusted to Opponent GA

 

[ted2019]

Does McDavid even sufficiently distance himself from Kucherov? Consider the past 4 years: McDavid has 421 points in 306 games, while Kucherov has 398 in 304.

So that’s 5 extra points per 82 versus someone who has had 4 deep playoff runs (17, 19, 22, and 34-point runs). Kucherov has a lot more filler - an extra 211 games outside of this sample when he was nothing special.

Unless we’re leaning extra hard into the prediction that McDavid will be better, I don’t know that his career necessarily has been better. That said, I think they’re probably both already in that 90-110 range for me.

But after this last playoff run? I think I might have Kucherov higher right now, and I think that’s going to keep my instinct to rate McDavid (who I expect to be a top-10 player of all-time) in check.

1968-2020 - Leading Playoff Scorers Adjusted to Opponent GA

I have thought about putting Kucherov on my list. It's starting to get interesting.

 

[buffalowing88]

Unrelated to your larger point here, but is the temperature of the room that Roberto Luongo is only a borderline HOFer?

Like, I get that he came a single game short of joining the Triple Gold Club and the media kinda flipped out about that a decade ago, but... two Pearson nominations, ten top-10 placements in save percentage (something only five players have done since 1967 expansion), third-most Wins in history. I can’t see them even making him wait; he’s a different class of player than those guys.

Sorry for delayed responses, but I have Luongo in. We talked about Tim Thomas already and if we are going to talk about Thomas, we need to recognize that besides from one playoff series, Luongo was head and shoulders above him. I have Luongo right around 180 and I can make room for a jump, to be honest.

The Triple Gold Club, while having some merit, does nothing for me unless it is a Toews-esque player. Luongo was a revolutionary goalie and he did it with some very good teams. He's making my list.

 

[buffalowing88]

Does McDavid even sufficiently distance himself from Kucherov? Consider the past 4 years: McDavid has 421 points in 306 games, while Kucherov has 398 in 304.

So that’s 5 extra points per 82 versus someone who has had 4 deep playoff runs (17, 19, 22, and 34-point runs). Kucherov has a lot more filler - an extra 211 games outside of this sample when he was nothing special.

Unless we’re leaning extra hard into the prediction that McDavid will be better, I don’t know that his career necessarily has been better. That said, I think they’re probably both already in that 90-110 range for me.

But after this last playoff run? I think I might have Kucherov higher right now, and I think that’s going to keep my instinct to rate McDavid (who I expect to be a top-10 player of all-time) in check.

1968-2020 - Leading Playoff Scorers Adjusted to Opponent GA

Man...that's a hard argument and one I didn't think I needed to have with myself. But with that being said, I mean I originally had McDavid at the top of the list and Kucherov closer to the 140s. I wonder if that's not a matter of perspective, though. Maybe Kucherov needs more attention. He's in my list regardless, but I have some issues with him. Not enough to make him anything but a lock, just enough to think he doesn't quite hit that tier for me. His defense is something I'd love to delve into, maybe it would make me appreciate him more.

 

[buffalowing88]

I have thought about putting Kucherov on my list. It's starting to get interesting.

I think he has to, at this point. He belongs. If he wasn't a playoff performer I would quickly scratch him off, but he shows up and in big moments. He's earned it.

 

[buffalowing88]

Kiprusoff was awesome...I don't know what this two-season stuff is, he had a pretty meaty peak that also showed adaptability from the pre-lockout days to the post...where an emphasis was put on things like lateral movement like it never was before...look at the goalies who did really well on both sides: Brodeur, Kipper, Luongo...there's your podium candidates when you're talking about talent...

qpq: Did I read you right that you have Luongo ranked ahead of Lundqvist? In the sense that you find Lundqvist to be worse? That's an interesting one for me...I don't think it's insane, mind you, just a little unexpected I think...

Love hearing about Kipper. He's also a guy I'm pretty locked in on (albeit in the 180-range). There was a time for about 5 years in which I thought he was as good as any goalie in the league. And then he would have a good playoff or two and that would be it. But still, he was a stud. Everything in my bones wants to toss Ryan Miller in there, but I know he's not at that point. His 2010 season was so dominant, though, on an international and NHL-caliber, that if I see Richter before him I get pissed.

But yes, Kipper, at his best, was VERY good, and he deserves some conversation.