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

[Professor What]

Feels like the effect of hitting the ketchup bottle one more time and having it all come out at once. On my 2009 list, I didn’t have Crosby or Ovechkin, to my recollection. If I made a list in 2010, they likely would be on it.

HOH does tend to be more conservative in its approach. Let’s say something happens to McDavid and this really is it. He’ll almost certainly do better in 2030 than he’ll do in 2020. But even though he only had a 4-game playoff, I’m pretty sure this was the ketchup moment for me.

By the same token, I suspect that Crosby and Ovechkin might fare better in 2030 than they do now. Putting things in the rear view mirror by a few years does wonders. There's a reason hindsight is 20/20. Any currently active player presents their own challenges.

 

[BM67]

In 2009, Crosby and Ovechkin were on 4 of 32 lists. (One list seems to be a revised list, so 3 really.)
Ovechkin 98, 107, 115(2)
Crosby 100, 103, 112(2)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Good comparison.

Unfortunately, the project was aborted prematurely after the top 70 was posted, and nobody ever saw the aggregate list, so we don't know if anyone had Crosby on their lists.

I know I didn't have him, and I think there was a general sense of dismissal towards him in the preliminary thread. Though there is the caveat that this forum was much more conservative when it came to considering active players back then.

Consider that McDavid (age 23) has led the league in scoring twice and come in 2nd twice.

Same as Crosby (age 33).

Players with multiple Art Ross trophies not in the top 100? Connor McDavid

 

[Phenomenaut]

Hmm, that's an interesting one...why didn't Naslund balloon up in scoring so much on the other side of the big sleep...? Was he just not that affected by having more power play time I guess...? More of rush offense creator maybe...

Naslund missed his age 31 season, and 05-06 was his age 32 season.

So he was an award contender from 02-04, ages 28-30. On the wrong side of thirty he declines a bit. First half of 05-06 he's pacing top ten in points and goals, as his wrist has recovered. Then he hurts his groin, and he's just not the same ever. Seems like he lost a bit to age(dropping from the Art Ross favourite before his wrist injury wrecked his shot for the rest of '04 to a top ten kind of guy), then an injury put him to bed.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Helmut Balderis anyone? Just kind of zipping through that iffy USSR team from Canada Cup '76...he's really good. Really, really good even...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't know what I'm gonna do yet in terms of participation because I don't know exactly what's gonna happen with junior hockey yet...but I almost feel like I'd be a better contributor if I could evaluate talent and make some videos for others to evaluate talent than making a list and going through that process...it's a real sofa's choice...

 

[edinson]

Helmut Balderis anyone? Just kind of zipping through that iffy USSR team from Canada Cup '76...he's really good. Really, really good even...

That's a tough one but he's in contention. His domestic scoring is Krutov level (without the playing with the Green Unit benefit) but in international tournaments he's not close to that level. Not sure what to make of that. Would love to see you elaborate on what your scouting eye saw in that game though!

 

[wetcoast]

What was discussed in the 2009 Top 70 players thing for Crosby...? Was he considered? He had four seasons of being the best player in the world, three if you're not charitable towards his 100 point season as an 18 year old...

This is a fair question but 4 or 5 years (even with an impressive playoff and international resume) for the top 70 is a much higher bar than top 200 (and the 5 years McDavid has).

If people are being honest with the actual project yes McDavid certainly is a top 200 player of all time at this point right?

 

[wetcoast]

Sometimes the eye test is very revealing.

I saw this post on my phone and then later thought of Kent Nilsson but when the eye test is backed up with actual stats and production then it matters a hell of alot more.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is a fair question but 4 or 5 years (even with an impressive playoff and international resume) for the top 70 is a much higher bar than top 200 (and the 5 years McDavid has).

It was supposed to be a top 100, so everyone submitted top 120 lists. But yes, top 220 is different than top 120.

If people are being honest with the actual project yes McDavid certainly is a top 200 player of all time at this point right?

I really hope that this isn't going to be a project where posters ascribe dishonest intentions to people who disagree with them.

 

[wetcoast]

It was supposed to be a top 100, so everyone submitted top 120 lists. But yes, top 220 is different than top 120.



I really hope that this isn't going to be a project where posters ascribe dishonest intentions to people who disagree with them.

I don't see why it would be.

This was just a general comment, I could see why some might be inclined to keep him off (not comfortable ranking current players or 5 years is too short ect.) but disagreement doesn't make anything personal.

That being said the project is the top 200 players of all time.

If hockey ceased to exist right now and we did this list people would be right to question why a player of McDavid's peak wasn't considered a top 200 player of all time.

I'm less concerned about anyone's list and more concerned about constructive discussion.

But my example of Dickie Moore still stands as he received very little support for Hart voting and has exactly 2 types of seasons that compare with McDavid's 3rd and 4th best seasons.

Moore's 4,5 and 6th best seasons just aren't anything to write home about either.

Maybe we can ask Bonvie who is a peak guy?

 

[tarheelhockey]

By the same token, I suspect that Crosby and Ovechkin might fare better in 2030 than they do now. Putting things in the rear view mirror by a few years does wonders. There's a reason hindsight is 20/20. Any currently active player presents their own challenges.

If established patterns repeat themselves, they’ll go through a farewell tour and post-retirement nostalgia phase, leading to being lionized and overrated due to the inertia of media hype, then receive a bit of blowback before finally settling comfortably into their final ranking.

 

[Professor What]

Helmut Balderis anyone? Just kind of zipping through that iffy USSR team from Canada Cup '76...he's really good. Really, really good even...

He's interesting to me because he was more of his "own" player than most of the Soviets were. He wasn't all system, but his personality as a player was always more evident. I think there's something to be said for a player like that in a system like that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If established patterns repeat themselves, they’ll go through a farewell tour and post-retirement nostalgia phase, leading to being lionized and overrated due to the inertia of media hype, then receive a bit of blowback before finally settling comfortably into their final ranking.

I think that effect is less noticeable here than media lists, right? Seems like recent retired players have actually been consistently ascending into their final ranking (Messier, Sakic, Jagr, Brodeur, Lidstrom, Forsberg, Lindros, Selanne, Pronger, St. Louis to name a few from the last project).

The only players I recall noticeably receding were goaltenders like Jacques Plante and Terry Sawchuk and Bill Durnan (seemingly to make room for the ascension of other goaltenders) and Stan Mikita, Newsy Lalonde, and Eddie Shore.

I don’t think it’s been too often we’ve displayed buyer’s remorse on a recent retiree. We’ll have to see with Iginla relative to his positioning on the Wingers project.

 

[wetcoast]

He's interesting to me because he was more of his "own" player than most of the Soviets were. He wasn't all system, but his personality as a player was always more evident. I think there's something to be said for a player like that in a system like that.

He is definitely someone to consider but the problem is that there are probably 400 guys to consider and only 120 (if the list is 1-220) more spots.

It's like a pyramid, at the top it's easier but the further one goes down the base widens and more people are vying for those positions.

 

[DN28]

To close off my overview with the top 19 Eastern Bloc players, I'll move to 2 of the most prominent Spartak Moscow players.

Alexander Yakushev was something of a Russian version of Václav Nedomanský as you can deduct from a great profile written by @Theokritos. Big, technically skilled, shoot-first forward with subpar defensive effort (or abilities). Both Yakushev and Nedomanský are in my opinion underrated in their "Best Players" voting results in their respective countries through their individualistic styles. Both took some time to overcome some of these issues but when they did, they belonged firmly in the group of top Euros outside NHL for a good number of years. Peak? Yakushev has a case for the best Euro player of the 1974-1976 timeframe. WHC All-star in 1974 and 1975 (with the most votes out of everyone in 75) + Best Forward award in 1975 too. Plus 3rd in 1974 Soviet league scoring and 2nd in 1976.

We've mentioned the lack of parity in the Soviet league before. Well, even with that there are reasons why you want to pay attention to that league's results. Despite a total CSKA dominance, Spartak Moscow managed to steal three titles to themselves in 1967, 1969 and 1976, everytime through a significant effort by Yakushev. 20 y/o Yak was 4th in '67 scoring, 1st in '69 scoring and as mentioned, 2nd in '76. Yakushev has no jaw-dropping league stats but I personally appreciate this correlation of "whenever Yakushev scored plenty domestically = Spartak upsets the army team and wins it all". Dynamo Moscow, on contrast, with their Maltsev, Vasiliev or even Pervukhin or Bylialetdinov and with their top coaching (Chernyshev, later Yurzinov IIRC) never won a single league title in 1960-1989 timeframe.

Under close inspection, Yakushev has also decent longevity as an effective player. Played his first international game in mid-60s, first WHC in 1967, missed a subsequent OG 1968 due to injury. Although Yak missed the '78 WHC, he was still a decent member of Soviet team at '79 WHC when he was 32 y/o. A top 170-190 player.

Viacheslav Starshinov. As more information got uncovered over the last years, it has become clear (to me at least) that Starshinov was the 2nd best 1960s Soviet player. He has stats, accolades... but maybe more importantly, Starshinov would be a safe pick for the most versatile 60s Soviet player (him or Loktev?). Physical, two-way leader and equally great at passing and goal-scoring (Theo's profile with many quotes here). For his on- and off-the-ice manners lauded frequently by Soviet, Czechoslovak and Canadian observers. For example, David Bauer and Jackie McLeod thought back in 1968 that Firsov and Starshinov are the two best Soviets who could play for any NHL team.

Soviet coaches and other officials named Starshinov all-star (i.e. 1 of 3 top Soviet forwards) for 8 years straight (1963-1970), which is even a better record than Firsov btw. Starshinov is arguably also the best Soviet forward when it comes to domestic (goal)scoring. For 9 seasons straight (1962-1970), Starshinov always ended up in the top 5 scoring chart while winning the (goal)scoring title in 1967 and 1968 (and coming 2nd in 1969). As said above, Spartak defeated CSKA and others for the ultimate Soviet team trophy few times. During Starshinov era, it happened in 1962, 1967 and 1969 - a historically rare feat and with Starhinov as their hands down best player. A top 190-200 player.
_______________________

I called these 19 non-NHL players a "must-haves" on any list (Makarov, Fetisov, Tretiak, Kharlamov, Maltsev, Martinec, Firsov, Krutov, Mikhailov, Vasiliev, Suchý, Nedomanský, Holeček, Larionov, Petrov, Kasatonov, Pospíšil, Yakushev, Starshinov) primarily because they don't have any glaring holes in their resumé compared to other remaining Euro players. They all to some degree have elite stats, wide award collections, great quotes... (other than Vasiliev, but he was defensively oriented d-man so points are not too much of his issue).

I think including 19 non-NHLers is good enough, but let me know if you disagree with me on some player belonging or not belonging on the Top-200 list - I will make a better, more thorough case.

I'll take a look at a couple of "maybes" which some might put at the bottom of the list (incl. myself) in the next day or so.

 

[VanIslander]

Starshinov?

...

Are you guys giving dynasty captain George Armstrong any consideration?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ooh, I was gonna quote you from the other thread, Dirt. Glad you posted it here. Going back and watching games, I am a big proponent of that Leafs dynasty...as a group, we're missing out on that team a bit because of their defensive nature. I believe I was the lone person from the top 100 project that slotted Armstrong...

 

[Michael Farkas]

(other than Vasiliev, but he was defensively oriented d-man so points are not too much of his issue).

Thanks for the names and these write-ups, DN...I know I definitely appreciate them and I'm sure this heavily North American group does as well...it has really started me on a kick of watching a ton of international games...

I'll just keep leaving some notes for others as well because I think that's ultimately my value-add...

I figured out a little bit more about why I don't care for Vasiliev that much...he thought he was better than he was...he actually has some skill, especially for his style of player, but he looked like he put a lot of pressure on himself to be one of those Globetrotter types and he just wasn't...so he ended up compounding problems (I think it was him in CC '76 that got unexpectedly flushed out by the typically ferocious Czechoslovak forecheck and thought he ought to be good enough to get out of trouble to get a controlled breakout...well long story short, he carries the puck through his own crease and nearly loses it into his own net, with Tretiak there, in a tight game...) ...he didn't suck, he took good angles to things, he gapped up well, and he wasn't unskilled...but I'd have a hard time putting him ahead of Kevin Lowe right now because Lowe knew his limitations and made the right play instead of making a dog's breakfast of it...

 

[VanIslander]

Armstrong.
Keon.
Pronovost.
Bower.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Good names...I really recall liking Horton and Pulford a lot, especially versus Pronovost...I recall coming away from old Red Wings games thinking that Pronovost was a touch overrated, but he also got gipped a bit on points because Detroit often had a five forward power play with Delvecchio and Ullman (a player that got overrated by point totals) on the point...

 

[VanIslander]

Good names...I really recall liking Horton and Pulford a lot, especially versus Pronovost...

1. I didn't mention Horton because he is already top 100 and Pulford is OVERrated; or, certainly not underappreciated.
(Pronovost > Pulford in my universe.)

2. Pronovost is a litmus test for whether a top-200 list should be thrown out or not. The 3-time Norris trophy finalist, 5-time Stanley Cup champion, the 11-time NHL all-star game participant was the first opponent the Montreal Canadiens ever honored with a night of tribute: "Marcel Pronovost Night" March 5th 1960, in which wiki says "he received gifts and was cheered by the opposing Montreal crowd".

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's funny, that it just now hit me that this was VanIslander...

I was like, "who is this new guy making all these definitive statements, I've seen this writing style before" - then I saw the post count and was like, "wait a minute..."

All right...along with the names that DN28 keeps adding and the Leafs dynasty years, I have some hockey to watch...

 

[ted2019]

Yes, it's a per-season metric, not a per-game metric. I don't think anyone thinks that VsX should be the only thing we look at, even when just talking about regular season offense.

The assumptions behind 7-year and 10-year VsX scores are that the average length of a pre-expansion player and a post-expansion player's primes are estimated at about 7 and 10 years, respectively. So the 7 and 10 year metrics intentionally "punish" players with less than average durability/longevity.

Re: Kucherov and McDavid, its only use is to show that the length of Kucherov's prime is approaching the bare minimum for a historical norm, while McDavid's isn't yet. How every voter chooses to use that information is up to them.

Agreed, but I use the VsX as part of the formula that I use.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't see why it would be.

This was just a general comment, I could see why some might be inclined to keep him off (not comfortable ranking current players or 5 years is too short ect.) but disagreement doesn't make anything personal.

That being said the project is the top 200 players of all time.

If hockey ceased to exist right now and we did this list people would be right to question why a player of McDavid's peak wasn't considered a top 200 player of all time.

I'm less concerned about anyone's list and more concerned about constructive discussion.

But my example of Dickie Moore still stands as he received very little support for Hart voting and has exactly 2 types of seasons that compare with McDavid's 3rd and 4th best seasons.

Moore's 4,5 and 6th best seasons just aren't anything to write home about either.

Maybe we can ask Bonvie who is a peak guy?

I had McDavid 84th and Moore 94th on my list last time.

As one might expect, Canadiens1958 led the Dickie Moore campaign. He had Moore in his top 50.