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

[ted2019]

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.

This section is a bit more conservative in it's approach. That's why I rarely go to the other sections because it's mostly a "younger crowd" then it is in here.

 

[ted2019]

Starshinov?

...

Are you guys giving dynasty captain George Armstrong any consideration?

Armstrong has a seat at my table, but doesn't have an exact location where yet.

 

[VanIslander]

Armstrong has a seat at my table, but doesn't have an exact location where yet.

Fair.

Conn Smythe would approve.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Armstrong has a seat at my table, but doesn't have an exact location where yet.

Was he really any better than Dean Prentice?

 

[Professor What]

In the case of Armstrong, I'm guessing it's leadership qualities that bring him into this? I'm not really sure that I see it otherwise.

 

[VanIslander]

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..."

34,000+ posts here indeed.

I discovered the pleasures of gin this summer (man, my mom knew what she was doing when my dad had had only beer and she'd gone gin). One late summer vacation day at the beach i smartphoned something i have no memory of but resulted in a modded 3-month restriction (i cannot start a thread, cannot "like", etc). I - still on gin - had changed my username. When i'd sobered up and returned to work i found out HfBoards usernames could only be changed ONCE a year. ... Ouch. K.

C'est la vie.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In the case of Armstrong, I'm guessing it's leadership qualities that bring him into this? I'm not really sure that I see it otherwise.

Agreed.

Just not sure how much weight should be given to an unmeasurable trait.

 

[VanIslander]

In the case of Armstrong, I'm guessing it's leadership qualities that bring him into this? I'm not really sure that I see it otherwise.

Seriously?

He was a top-line player on a dynasty team, leading the NHL in playoff even-strength goals his first cup, leading the league in plus-minus the 2nd and 3rd cups. The captain was 9 times playoff player of the game by CBC broadcasters who interviewed him. He was inducted into the HHOF in his first year of eligibility and the Leafs retired his jersey number.

On TSN's top-100 list, Armstrong is listed 12th, ahead of Gilmour, Clancy, Day, Clark. (Pulford ain't top 25.)

...

Moreover, what do you think "leadership" means on the ice? It means hard work, a great example of how to backcheck, forecheck, hustle, pass, do what the coaches preach and teammates look up to.

I think leadership is being put into some fanny pack of skills instead of being seen as the crux of the matter! (Stat junkies look for reductionistic numbers for rankings, that is true).

 

[VanIslander]

What dynasty captain does NOT deserve top-200 ranking?

 

[Professor What]

Agreed.

Just not sure how much weight should be given to an unmeasurable trait.

Not only that, but it's unlikely that any two randomly selected individuals will define it the same. Thus, there's not only the question of how do you measure it, but what are you measuring. Pardon me for what many would consider beating a dead horse, but ask Rangers and Canucks fans what they think about Messier's leadership. The polarization there says a lot to me about how abstract the concept is.

 

[Professor What]

With the discussion of Armstrong, I feel like Jonathan Toews should be brought up here. He has that controversial inclusion in the NHL's top 100 players list a few years ago, and his case is ultimately nearly identical to Armstrong's in my view.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For me, my recollection was that Armstrong's talent jumped off the page...but he was restricted by the defensive confines of those Leafs teams (maybe a la Modano or even Elias)...I'll go back for another look, but I can't imagine having him at 120 because of leadership, I never met the guy haha

 

[VanIslander]

Not only that, but it's unlikely that any two randomly selected individuals will define it the same. Thus, there's not only the question of how do you measure it, but what are you measuring. Pardon me for what many would consider beating a dead horse, but ask Rangers and Canucks fans what they think about Messier's leadership. The polarization there says a lot to me about how abstract the concept is.

Lol.

Leadership is NOT abstract, it is palpably concrete. But it isn't quantifiable. It ain't a number.

But it is a real influence.

I was in my last year of elementary school when Messier had his first 1st team NHL all-star selection (1982). But i quickly realized he was the TRUE leader of the Oilers. Messier and Lowe yapped to teammates endlessly. Gretzky was pretty quiet in comparison.

When Gretzky went to L.A. I was impressed how Kurri & Tikkanen spoke up AND stepped up! But Messier most of all.

In NY the team leader was Messier clearly. His swagger is legendary. He delivered.

BUT... in going to Vancouver... the naysayers spoke up quickly and accurately. He had 16 better scoring seasons than his years as a Canuck, including the year just before and just after his tenure in Van City. I booed the heck out of him and was far from alone. A few years later the Caps booed Jagr equally for the same reasons. Ugh.

There is nothing abstract about it. Local, tangible but relative to place and time, certainly.

 

[Professor What]

For me, my recollection was that Armstrong's talent jumped off the page...but he was restricted by the defensive confines of those Leafs teams (maybe a la Modano or even Elias)...I'll go back for another look, but I can't imagine having him at 120 because of leadership, I never met the guy haha

I generally look at most of the Leafs players of that era through the prism of the team's defensive mindset. Keon and Kennedy didn't put up gigantic numbers, but there's no denying their greatness, for example. I still just don't see it with Armstrong, even given that perspective. I'm not saying I can't be sold by a good enough case, but for the moment, I'm definitely not there.

 

[VanIslander]

I generally look at most of the Leafs players of that era through the prism of the team's defensive mindset. Keon and Kennedy didn't put up gigantic numbers, but there's no denying their greatness, for example.

Huh? Kennedy was 1943-1957.

Keon was a rookie in 1961.

Two TOTALLY different dynasties. Separated by two dynasties inbetween.

The entire player, coaching, management and even to some degree ownership structure of the Leafs changed between Kennedy's dynasty and Keon's dynasty.

 

[ted2019]

What dynasty captain does NOT deserve top-200 ranking?

Maybe Jon Toews ?

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Toews will make my list, as will contemporaries Bergeron & Kopitar...

 

[DN28]

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...

Have you watched the Challenge Cup '79? It was probably Vasiliev's finest hour..

I'd be curious to know what you thought of him from watching that particular series.. Also that series was exciting to watch with plenty of great players besides Vasiliev anyway..

 

[seventieslord]

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...

Three things...

1) From 1960-1968, Ullman's prime as a point producer with Detroit, during which they also had Delvecchio and Howe, Detroit scored 1107 PP points, and defensemen scored 108 of them (9.8%).
Other teams:
Chicago: 178/1140 (15.6%)
Montreal: 204/1288 (15.8%)
New York: 216/1061 (20.3%)
Toronto: 178/959 (18.6%)
Boston: 141/876 (16.1%)

So, just to start with, the statistical record does bear out what you're saying; however, it's important to see the actual numbers so that it's understood just how much this could have possibly affected a player like Ullman.

Detroit definitely relied on forwards more on the PP than the rest of the league over this time, so let's start by suggesting what it would have looked like if they didn't: The average PP point participation by defensemen over the rest of the league is 17.2%, which is 76.5% more than Detroit's strategy. If Detroit used defensemen on their PP more in line with how the rest of the league did, they would have seen them score 76.5% more than they did, which is 82 more points.

side note: I'm ignoring the fact that a PP that had a lot more of Marcel Pronovost, Doug Barkley and Pete Goegan, and a lot less Norm Ullman and Alex Delvecchio, would have also scored less.

second side note: I'm also ignoring the fact that if Detroit had used 3 forwards up front and 2 defensemen at the points, Ullman would have almost certainly been one of the three forwards and may have even scored more, but work with me here...

So anyway, Detroit's forwards had 82 more points that should have been scored by defensemen, over the course of 9 seasons. If the worst-case hypothesis is true, and Ullman was the beneficiary of half of these, then he had about 4-5 points per season that were purely the result of opportunity. If you readjust his point totals over those years, his ten-year VsX goes down by 3 points, which by that metric would still put him in the top-10 of all offensive players not yet added the list. But again, this makes the assumption that instead of all that time playing the point for Detroit's PP, he instead sat on the bench, which wouldn't make a heck of a lot of sense considering he was their 2nd best forward the entire time. The point breakdown seems to strongly support this, as well. If you look at all the players who scored any reasonable sample of PP points in this time for Detroit and look at what percentage of them were 2nd assists (a point's a point, but if we're talking about forwards getting to play "easy" minutes manning the point on the PP then I suppose I can get on board with their 2nd assists obtained in these circumstances being a little "cheap"), we have the following:

- Howe 14.9%
- Ullman 23.4%
- MacDonald 31.5%
- Henderson 32.3%
- Macgregor 32.3%
- Smith 36.2%
- Delvecchio 39.6%

If we're trying to establish who was a catalyst to the Detroit powerplay and who was secondary, and we end up with a list that shows Gordie Howe far and away at the top, we should probably trust that these numbers say something - and what they say is that Ullman was not frequently picking up cheap, easy points on the powerplay.

2) These numbers don't affect the fact that Ullman is, by a comfortable margin, the most prolific even strength scorer not yet added to the list. This is a table showing Ullman's ESVsX compared to the other forwards who were up for voting in the last round of the 2018 list:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7yr	10yr
Norm Ullman	128	110	98	96	95	92	88	86	86	83	101	96.2
Jarome Iginla	110	108	95	90	90	84	82	80	75	73	94.1	88.7
Peter Stastny	110	107	98	95	83	82	74	64	62	58	92.7	83.3
Pavel Bure	122	100	93	84	84	75	60	60	60	46	88.3	78.4
Doug Gilmour	96	88	85	85	84	81	76	76	72	63	85	80.6
Ron Francis	93	92	85	84	81	80	78	75	73	71	84.7	81.2
Toe Blake	100	100	92	82	82	78	76	72	67	61	81	81

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I can't say for certain that Ullman's edge over Iginla (which is significant) is maintained to the same degree over some other not-yet-discussed high scorers like Stamkos, Schriner, Oates and Ratelle, without running all their numbers, but suffice it to say he's almost certainly at the top of this list and quite likely by a noticeable margin.

Ullman's not particularly unique in this regard compared to other players in the next "class", but it's worth mentioning that he had a relatively poor slate of linemates over this time - he rarely got to play with Howe at even strength, and his most frequent linemates appear to have been Floyd Smith and Paul Henderson, but The Trail Vol. 3 says he also spent time centering Bruce MacGregor, Val Fonteyne, Larry Jeffrey and Parker MacDonald - no one even remotely close to his skill level.

Still, during the nine-season period I'm describing, he outscored his teammate Gordie Howe at even strength, 0.70-0.69 per game, and Gordie at least had Alex Delvecchio the other wing. In case anyone's wondering, GF-GA stats suggest that Ullman and Howe had the same ES time over this period, as Ullman was on the ice for 1.87 non-PP GA per game, and Howe 1.84, a gap that very neatly matches the gap in their ES production.

Of course, 54% of the goals Gordie was on the ice for were goals for, compared to 48% for Ullman, but that's kinda to be expected, isnt it? Best forward on the team, with the next best winger on the team, both of whom are very good defensively, is always going to outperform the 2nd line, whatever Ullman is personally capable of. Ullman had to do a ton of heavy lifting on that 2nd line, though - he had a point on 77% of the non-PP goals that were scored while he was on the ice, compared to 70% for Howe over those nine seasons.

3) It wouldn't be right to judge any player just by the number of points that he scored, but that's not a point against Ullman either, as all primary sources from Ullman's career seem to agree unanimously that he was very good on the other side of the puck. I've collected all of these quotes in an ATD bio in the past. While I admit that the statistical record (goals against, +/-) don't perfectly match that reputation during his time with Detroit in the 1960s, and that's worth exploring, he seemed to pass the eye test for an awful lot of first-hand observers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's a good post seventies...and I don't refute any of it, it seems well reasoned and researched. Minus the PP stuff, I guess it's on me for not being clearer in a parenthetical remark, but I didn't mean that they always ran a five-forward PP, I mean, you'd run out of forwards. I just mean that they frequently had 4 and even 5 forward sets - which it looks like your numbers confirm.

I'm not here to pied piper people away from Ullman...I had Ullman really high in my top 100 list initially, until I watched him...that's really all there is to it. I see the numbers and the big time praise in the bios...I got it. He's just not for me. He also belongs somewhere in this list...just not 101.

He's just not a gamebreaker, he was a complimentary piece from what I could tell...was he better talent than Toews or Francis? Meh...tough call.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Unrelated to Normie, I just buzzed through the 1978 World Championship Final (USSR vs Czechoslavkia). Some random thoughts...

Balderis - Really terrific hands and speed and deception to his game. He really uses some nice shoulder and head fakes - stuff that you see a lot now, not so much back then. Watch him at 28:27 on YT of '78 WC Final. I look at a lot of this stuff I'm doing now as if I was making a draft list. Let's say we're in the war room and we're debating what our list looks like (and not accounting for age), I'd think we might have a plurality - I'm not sure we'd get a full majority - but I suspect that Balderis would have the most support for #1 overall. He was the most technically skilled player in the game for me, he can do it at speed, he was the most explosive. There are guys that are close, but I could support this guy at 1 and sleep like a baby.

Fetisov - Mistake eraser. Great hockey sense. Young Fetisov, you can already see shades of Doug Harvey. Does a nice job controlling the tempo. Might be the smartest player out there already. He's just 20 or so for this game which is crazy. Wasn't exactly paired with a world beater either in Tsygankov.

If you're looking for a defensive guy, Pervukhin is very smart and plays with his means as opposed to Vasiliev. I'd look there. No idea what his career accolades look like. But again if I'm treating this like it's a draft, and if I was trying to draft a defensive d-man for some reason, I'd be leaning towards Pervukhin over VV, even if I feel like the skill upside slightly favors VV, it's not enough to offset some of his blunders.

Maltsev - Is a hell of a talent, he can get out of tight spots. Good timing for the game. He can really operate in the half boards area, kind of a late Gretzky turn scenario. I could see a couple of guys saying he's got a case for #1...I can't get there. But I could see how someone might.

Kharlamov - Obviously a monster. I can't find a game where he isn't one of the best players. He'd be a guy that I'd think would have some support for first overall.

Young Makarov doesn't play much, but you can see he's following in the footsteps of Kharlamov. Doesn't quite have the wheels or the skill of Kharlamov right now, doesn't quite get it yet. But there's a foundation that's strong.

Martinec - Terrific talent, can make multi-line carries with terrific speed. Can operate at top speed too (unlike Kapustin on the USSR side, he also has terrific hands, but his feet have to stop moving too much for him to execute his skill plays). His combo with Novak keeps the Czechs alive without Pospisil and Suchy, I still don't know how they're still so competitive without those d-men. This is the other guy I'm thinking would have wooed scouts enough to claim he's #1. He also has much less help than Balderis and Kharlamov...particularly in terms of outlet passing. I saw him out there with Augusta at times as his third wheel...like I said, it's a wonder he kept them as competitive as he did...

Hlinka - It's a shame he's not a better skater. He's smart and pretty skilled - nice shot. But his square wheels hold him back for me.

Young Stastny left me wanting a bit more...he started to impress a little bit more as the game moved on. But when I heard his name, I expected better. Still just a pup though.

##

The jump from the '69 Soviet Team and the '76 Canada Cup nonsense that they put out is striking here. You can really see it starting to come together. Holecek scares the hell out of me, just a wild card...I think I'll take Dzurilla. Novy didn't play in the first half of the game, heard him referred to as the "Czech Bobby Clarke" during CC '76...

Sorry to include some top 100 players, I just take note when someone stands out. I think I can confirm that Balderis belongs on this list, so does Martinec...Maltsev got hurt, so I'd want more there...but he probably was good enough too...

 

[Professor What]

That's a good post seventies...and I don't refute any of it, it seems well reasoned and researched. Minus the PP stuff, I guess it's on me for not being clearer in a parenthetical remark, but I didn't mean that they always ran a five-forward PP, I mean, you'd run out of forwards. I just mean that they frequently had 4 and even 5 forward sets - which it looks like your numbers confirm.

I'm not here to pied piper people away from Ullman...I had Ullman really high in my top 100 list initially, until I watched him...that's really all there is to it. I see the numbers and the big time praise in the bios...I got it. He's just not for me. He also belongs somewhere in this list...just not 101.

He's just not a gamebreaker, he was a complimentary piece from what I could tell...was he better talent than Toews or Francis? Meh...tough call.

Gut instinct says yes, better than Toews, no, not better than Francis.

But, truth be told, I'm not really sure what to do with Ullman personally.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For me, my recollection was that Armstrong's talent jumped off the page...but he was restricted by the defensive confines of those Leafs teams (maybe a la Modano or even Elias)...I'll go back for another look, but I can't imagine having him at 120 because of leadership, I never met the guy haha

But he was never an all-star, never a top 10 scorer, never a top 10 goal scorer. Was he considered a premier defensive player? I don't recall that, but maybe he was. Seems like leadership was his biggest talking point.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But he was never an all-star, never a top 10 scorer, never a top 10 goal scorer. Was he considered a premier defensive player? I don't recall that, but maybe he was. Seems like leadership was his biggest talking point.

I want to acknowledge this, but not answer it empty-handed...after I wrap up my kick of "up to 1979 international play", I'll go back to those Leafs teams next and report back. I don't want to just double down on "I must have had him there for a reason" garbage and expect it to be taken at face value...I want new, fresher garbage to get rejected haha

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to make this the Norm Ullman show, because such things should be saved for round 2 of voting. But it should be noted that Ullman probably wins the 1964-65 Hart Trophy easily under anything close to a modern voting system. (Under the voting system at the time, Bobby Hull racked up enough first half votes to carry him to the win. Hull was injured in the second half, when Ullman got most of the votes).