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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

He was a good defensive player and corner man, but I don't think he was "premier" at either. Strictly defensively, I think he'd be behind Keon, Kelly, and Pulford among his teammate forwards.

The biggest things in Armstrong's favor are that he was both captain AND leading playoff scorer of the Leafs team that won three straight Cups. IMO, it's enough to consider him for the bottom end of the list, though I'm not sure if he'll make mine in the end.

I do remember wishing he had been an option in the final round of the wingers project. I'm not entirely sure that Bert Olmstead was a better player than Armstrong, at least once you include playoff stats.

 

[ted2019]

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.

Is the ESVsX from Overpass adjusted stats worksheet?

 

[ted2019]

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...

From TDMM ATD Bio:
Two-way defenseman

Vasili Pervukhin, D

Pervukhin was paired with Zinetula Bilyaletdinov on the second Soviet pairing in the 1980s. His time on the national team stretched from 1976 to 1989, basically when the USSR at its peak.

Most North Americans seem to prefer Bilyaletdinov, perhaps because he played a hard hitting physical "North American" game. But his Pervukhin actually has superior awards recognition

1977: 5th in Soviet MVP voting, first among defensemen.

Vasiliev and Lutchenko were the Soviet league all stars, though

1979: First Team Soviet league All Star.

No MVP voting available beyond the winner.

1985: 5th in Soviet MVP voting, 2nd among defensemen behind Fetisov.

Fetisov and Kasatonov were the All Star defensemen.
-------

Finishing top 5 in Soviet MVP voting was not common for a defenseman.

Fetisov: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th
Vasiliev: 3rd, 5th, 5th
Pervukhin: 5th, 5th
Ragulin: 5th
Kasatonov: 5th

That's it until after 1989

(keep in mind that the award didn't exist for much of Ragulin's career. We also don't have voting for 79 when Vasiliev and Pervukhin were the All Stars)

There definitely appears to be a "valuable" aspect to Soviet Player of the Year voting, as you can see from Pervukhin's record vs. Kasatonov's

Here are some ridiculously flowery quotes that do succeed in describing his style at least:

The Red Machine said:

...coming along to supplement and then supplant Davidov and Vasiliev on the nationals were two other Dyanamo defensive stars - the crafty Vasily Pervukhin and the tough Zinetula Bilyaletdinov​

Kings of the Ice said:

Vasili Pervukhin stands out as the one player least likely to make a mistake on the ice. His flawless play was really quite remarkable, whether in closing a breach on the defensive line or winning a tussle with an opponent.

Pervukhin maneuvered himself as lightly as a butterfly to match the pace and rhythm of the attacker.

For Pervukhin there were no slumps, nor opponents that he couldn't handle.

The powerplay built around Pervukhin became a Soviet classic in those years.

...Pervuhkin's initiating pass made mounting an attack relatively smooth​

 

[ted2019]

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.

I have Ullman up at the very tippy top of the 2nd half of my top 200 list.

 

[wetcoast]

Starshinov?

...

Are you guys giving dynasty captain George Armstrong any consideration?

Dunno about Starshinov will have to look but the Big Chief is an easy no as he is a complimentary player and there are better ones than him available.

John Tonelli for instance.

 

[seventieslord]

Is the ESVsX from Overpass adjusted stats worksheet?

It's scattered across the EV_PP_SH sheet that came from the hsp, and overpass' 1967-2016 sheet. Of course, NHL.com goes back to 1931 or something now, which is how I was able to add Blake to that chart. If it was easy to copy stats from NHL.com to excel, I'd probably have it in a comprehensive single sheet right now, but as you probably know, they make it bloody impossible. Last time I asked, no one had figured out a way around that.

 

[rmartin65]

Maybe Jon Toews ?

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

Ugh... really? He's... what, the 5-10th best center among his age-cohort (does drafted within 3 years on either side seem fair? So that would be the C talent pool from the 2003-2009 drafts.)? That's not good enough for the top 200 of all time, in my opinion.

The '03 draft has Getzlaf, Bergeron, and Staal (E). I'd rate all 3 of those guys over Toews, but lets just say 1 for sure (Bergeron), and two debatable.

The '04 draft has Malkin. Clearly better than Toews, but no other player is really in contention there.

The '05 draft has Crosby and Kopitar. Both, in my opinion, better, but let's say Crosby for sure, Kopitar as a maybe.

The '06 draft has (in addition to Toews) Backstrom and Giroux. Again, while I think both are superior, I think you could reasonably say its debatable.

The '07 draft has nobody.

The '08 draft has Stamkos. I guess if you put a lot of weight on playoffs it could be close, but I'm going to give the easy nod to Stamkos.

The '09 draft has Tavares and O'Reilly. Both in the debatable pile for me.

Totaling it all up, that leaves me with what I would consider to be 4 (Crosby, Malkin, Bergeron, Stamkos) centers clearly better, and 7 debatable. At best, this puts Toews at 5. At worst, at 12. Again, I think there are better players to include here.

 

[wetcoast]

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".

why highlight the 5 time SC champion?

One was as a rookie in which he had a limited role?

The last one was in the last Leafs SC as a 36 year old were he also had a limited impact.

In the other 3 was he ever the 5th best Red Wing?

I know the rest of his resume is better than Kevin Lowe but Lowe has 6 SC's, to me the 5 SC for Provost isn't the reason to have him in the top 200 there are better reasons to put forward.

 

[Vilica]

It's scattered across the EV_PP_SH sheet that came from the hsp, and overpass' 1967-2016 sheet. Of course, NHL.com goes back to 1931 or something now, which is how I was able to add Blake to that chart. If it was easy to copy stats from NHL.com to excel, I'd probably have it in a comprehensive single sheet right now, but as you probably know, they make it bloody impossible. Last time I asked, no one had figured out a way around that.

Would this be helpful to you? This is all O6 forwards who played at least 10 games in a season.

Edit: I didn't want the Google spreadsheet to load inline, let's try it this way

http:// docs . google . com

Put these two split apart into one link

/spreadsheets/d/1TxGz9Xyade8-3m-adUqcbi4vu98YuKUTWdD0Y5pYhSk/edit?usp=sharing

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Has anyone ever tried to quantify team effects for Original Six scorers? It seems pretty unarguable that playing in Toronto took a whole bunch of points off the board, just quickly eyeballing guys like Max Bentley or Frank Mahovlich. There's also the fact that the Leafs had very few players near the top of the league for pretty much the entire period of their post-WWII stretch as Cup contenders:

# of individual seasons with 65 or more points, 1945-46 to 1968-69:
1. Montreal: 38
2. Detroit: 35
3. Chicago: 25
4. N.Y. Rangers: 16
5. Boston: 13
6. Toronto: 6

The Leafs had more Cups (8) than individual seasons with 65 or more points over that time frame, which kind of makes me wonder whether their forwards are a little underrated historically. Definitely very interested in hearing some more scouting reports/contemporary opinions on Leaf players from that time period.

 

[wetcoast]

What dynasty captain does NOT deserve top-200 ranking?

Why should geographic and chronological (6 team) luck matter more than individual performance?

Even in the most recent ATD were many centers who are obviously ahead of Armstrong due to positional needs he didn't go in the top 252.

OPPF Draft 2020 - Draft Thread 2

But I'm glad to see that you took John Tonelli at 157.

Even in the aggregate list of the top wingers project Armstrong was only 77th and surely has been passed by a few wingers since then.

HOH Top 60 Wingers - Round 1 Voting Results (Aggregate List)

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Well you are going to need to crash course it as he will be in the first round of voting as sure as the sun rises in the east.

I do get a bit of the secondary player versus star player feel from him so I will need to figure him out as well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ugh... really? He's... what, the 5-10th best center among his age-cohort (does drafted within 3 years on either side seem fair? So that would be the C talent pool from the 2003-2009 drafts.)? That's not good enough for the top 200 of all time, in my opinion.

The '03 draft has Getzlaf, Bergeron, and Staal (E). I'd rate all 3 of those guys over Toews, but lets just say 1 for sure (Bergeron), and two debatable.

The '04 draft has Malkin. Clearly better than Toews, but no other player is really in contention there.

The '05 draft has Crosby and Kopitar. Both, in my opinion, better, but let's say Crosby for sure, Kopitar as a maybe.

The '06 draft has (in addition to Toews) Backstrom and Giroux. Again, while I think both are superior, I think you could reasonably say its debatable.

The '07 draft has nobody.

The '08 draft has Stamkos. I guess if you put a lot of weight on playoffs it could be close, but I'm going to give the easy nod to Stamkos.

The '09 draft has Tavares and O'Reilly. Both in the debatable pile for me.

Totaling it all up, that leaves me with what I would consider to be 4 (Crosby, Malkin, Bergeron, Stamkos) centers clearly better, and 7 debatable. At best, this puts Toews at 5. At worst, at 12. Again, I think there are better players to include here.

Toews and Bergeron have very similar numbers in both the playoffs and regular season.

Toews production is better, Bergeron has the better plus/minus.

Bergeron has his four Selkes and Toews his Conn Smythe and three Cups.

Can't really see them being too far apart.

 

[seventieslord]

Would this be helpful to you? This is all O6 forwards who played at least 10 games in a season.

Edit: I didn't want the Google spreadsheet to load inline, let's try it this way

http:// docs . google . com

Put these two split apart into one link

/spreadsheets/d/1TxGz9Xyade8-3m-adUqcbi4vu98YuKUTWdD0Y5pYhSk/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you. this will help a little, but overall the results going back to 30-31 would still be fragmented among 4 places... NHL.com, then to this sheet, then to overpass' sheet, then nhl.com for most recent seasons not covered by his sheet.

 

[Professor What]

Well you are going to need to crash course it as he will be in the first round of voting as sure as the sun rises in the east.

I do get a bit of the secondary player versus star player feel from him so I will need to figure him out as well.

Yeah, it's not so much a matter of unfamiliarity as much as pinning down his role, as you point out. I don't think it will be as hard to figure it out among a small group if players that will be given as it will be in the list overall. It's the initial ranking that I'm trying to grapple with. I think that's going to be the tough part for all of who are questioning him right now.

 

[Professor What]

Even in the aggregate list of the top wingers project Armstrong was only 77th and surely has been passed by a few wingers since then.

HOH Top 60 Wingers - Round 1 Voting Results (Aggregate List)

Figuring that one third of the players on the ice at any one time are wingers would extrapolate that to a #231 ranking with all players. Not a perfect system of estimation, of course, but it suggests that he should be expected near the cutoff point on a lot of lists.

 

[rmartin65]

Toews and Bergeron have very similar numbers in both the playoffs and regular season.

Toews production is better, Bergeron has the better plus/minus.

Bergeron has his four Selkes and Toews his Conn Smythe and three Cups.

Can't really see them being too far apart.

Neither of those guys have the production to make the list on production alone (and plus/minus is not a stat I particularly care for, so that is a non-starter).

A Selke and a Conn Smythe are nice... but hardly THAT special. Lots of players with one Selke aren't making this list. Same thing with the Conn Smythe- lots of players with one won't be making the list. Hell, O'Reilly won his Selke and Smythe in the same season, and won the Cup that year for good measure, and he won't be making it. 4 Selkes, on the other hand, is historical.

Toews' case is almost purely based on his team success. And it shows- when his team isn't good, he is not talked about as one of the stars in the league.

 

[buffalowing88]

Neither of those guys have the production to make the list on production alone (and plus/minus is not a stat I particularly care for, so that is a non-starter).

A Selke and a Conn Smythe are nice... but hardly THAT special. Lots of players with one Selke aren't making this list. Same thing with the Conn Smythe- lots of players with one won't be making the list. Hell, O'Reilly won his Selke and Smythe in the same season, and won the Cup that year for good measure, and he won't be making it. 4 Selkes, on the other hand, is historical.

Toews' case is almost purely based on his team success. And it shows- when his team isn't good, he is not talked about as one of the stars in the league.

This is probably an arbitrary question, but at what point does the team success become a reflection of him, as opposed to what you're insinuating? Toews is a winner. I have probably seen him 4-5 times in person and never walked away that impressed. But yet he finds himself in positions to win and he so regularly that I don't want him to just be dropped from this conversation. I'm willing to remove him from my Top 200 should I hear more evidence that he's not that great, but otherwise he's right at 175 for me.

 

[rmartin65]

This is probably an arbitrary question, but at what point does the team success become a reflection of him, as opposed to what you're insinuating? Toews is a winner. I have probably seen him 4-5 times in person and never walked away that impressed. But yet he finds himself in positions to win and he so regularly that I don't want him to just be dropped from this conversation. I'm willing to remove him from my Top 200 should I hear more evidence that he's not that great, but otherwise he's right at 175 for me.

Toews is (was, at least) a good player, so he definitely contributed to them being a good team. But, this list is going to include two of his teammates. How many other players on this list are going to be the 3rd best player on their team, particularly in the post-expansion/cap era?

A good player on a good team doesn't get a "goodness multiplier" that makes him great. It means that he was a good player in a good situation.

 

[MXD]

Ugh... really? He's... what, the 5-10th best center among his age-cohort (does drafted within 3 years on either side seem fair? So that would be the C talent pool from the 2003-2009 drafts.)? That's not good enough for the top 200 of all time, in my opinion.

The '03 draft has Getzlaf, Bergeron, and Staal (E). I'd rate all 3 of those guys over Toews, but lets just say 1 for sure (Bergeron), and two debatable.

The '04 draft has Malkin. Clearly better than Toews, but no other player is really in contention there.

The '05 draft has Crosby and Kopitar. Both, in my opinion, better, but let's say Crosby for sure, Kopitar as a maybe.

The '06 draft has (in addition to Toews) Backstrom and Giroux. Again, while I think both are superior, I think you could reasonably say its debatable.

The '07 draft has nobody.

The '08 draft has Stamkos. I guess if you put a lot of weight on playoffs it could be close, but I'm going to give the easy nod to Stamkos.

The '09 draft has Tavares and O'Reilly. Both in the debatable pile for me.

Totaling it all up, that leaves me with what I would consider to be 4 (Crosby, Malkin, Bergeron, Stamkos) centers clearly better, and 7 debatable. At best, this puts Toews at 5. At worst, at 12. Again, I think there are better players to include here.

Most fifth best centers of their generations will make the Top-200, and that's if they haven't made the Top-100.

I mean, on a DOB +/- 4 basis, Steve Yzerman was ranked 5th amongst centers, and he made the Top-40!

 

[MXD]

Toews is (was, at least) a good player, so he definitely contributed to them being a good team. But, this list is going to include two of his teammates. How many other players on this list are going to be the 3rd best player on their team, particularly in the post-expansion/cap era?

A good player on a good team doesn't get a "goodness multiplier" that makes him great. It means that he was a good player in a good situation.

Not many, but had Patrick Kane been a Penguin, he'd only be the 3rd best player on his team, and that would've been a really bad reason to keep him off.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is probably an arbitrary question, but at what point does the team success become a reflection of him, as opposed to what you're insinuating? Toews is a winner. I have probably seen him 4-5 times in person and never walked away that impressed. But yet he finds himself in positions to win and he so regularly that I don't want him to just be dropped from this conversation. I'm willing to remove him from my Top 200 should I hear more evidence that he's not that great, but otherwise he's right at 175 for me.

The year Toews became captain in Chicago, they went from a non-playoff team to losing in the conference finals. He was 20 years old. The next season the Hawks won the Cup and Toews was the Conn Smythe winner. I would argue he was every bit as important as Kane & Keith in turning the Blackhawks into a great team.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

How many other players on this list are going to be the 3rd best player on their team, particularly in the post-expansion/cap era?

One way to look at it: Chicago was the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty in the cap era, Bettman even said as much. Earlier in the decade, the NHL officially recognized 9 dynasties over the course of its history.

How many of these teams didn't have at least 3 players either already on the list, or going to be added to the list?

1920s Ottawa: Nighbor, Benedict, Denneny, Gerard. Boucher to be added. Cleghorn and Clancy both played there for some time.

40s - 50s Leafs: Apps, Kennedy, Broda, Bentley.

50s Wings: Howe, Abel, Lindsay, Sawchuk, Kelly. Pronovost, Delvecchio, Stewart to be added.

50s Canadiens: Practically half the team is either added or to be added.

60s Leafs: Kelly, Horton, Keon, Mahovlich. Brewer, Stanley, Bower, Armstrong, all contenders for the list.

60s Canadiens: Beliveau and Richard. Lemaire, Blake, Savard, Laperriere, Lapointe, Worsley all going to be added. Tremblay a contender as well.

70s Canadiens: Practically half the team is either added or to be added.

80s Islanders: Potvin, Bossy, Trottier. Smith to be added.

80s Oilers: Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Kurri. Fuhr to be added.

So if anything, only two Blackhawks added would be an unusually low number for a dynastic team. Marian Hossa will be a contender for the list too, and he was less important to those teams than Toews, with a peak in Ottawa/Atlanta that wasn't substantially better than Toews's peak.

 

[rmartin65]

Most fifth best centers of their generations will make the Top-200, and that's if they haven't made the Top-100.

I mean, on a DOB +/- 4 basis, Steve Yzerman was ranked 5th amongst centers, and he made the Top-40!

Will they really? That would surprise me, and would force me to re-evaluate.

As for Yzerman- You widened the margins. Also, Toews isn't competing against 99 and 66. As much as I respect Crosby and Malkin, they simply are not on that level.

Not many, but had Patrick Kane been a Penguin, he'd only be the 3rd best player on his team, and that would've been a really bad reason to keep him off.

That's fair. But would Kane have the same chance to shine? Instead of being the premier offensive threat on his team, he'd be the third. His career would be totally different. But, like I said, that is a fair argument.

The year Toews became captain in Chicago, they went from a non-playoff team to losing in the conference finals. He was 20 years old. The next season the Hawks won the Cup and Toews was the Conn Smythe winner. I would argue he was every bit as important as Kane & Keith in turning the Blackhawks into a great team.

Correlation does not equal causation. Kunitz has 4 cups, an equal amount of post-season AS recognition, and better points finishes. I don't think he is the reason for the Pens' success.

One way to look at it: Chicago was the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty in the cap era, Bettman even said as much. Earlier in the decade, the NHL officially recognized 9 dynasties over the course of its history.

How many of these teams didn't have at least 3 players either already on the list, or going to be added to the list?

1920s Ottawa: Nighbor, Benedict, Denneny, Gerard. Boucher to be added. Cleghorn and Clancy both played there for some time.

40s - 50s Leafs: Apps, Kennedy, Broda, Bentley.

50s Wings: Howe, Abel, Lindsay, Sawchuk, Kelly. Pronovost, Delvecchio, Stewart to be added.

50s Canadiens: Practically half the team is either added or to be added.

60s Leafs: Kelly, Horton, Keon, Mahovlich. Brewer, Stanley, Bower, Armstrong, all contenders for the list.

60s Canadiens: Beliveau and Richard. Lemaire, Blake, Savard, Laperriere, Lapointe, Worsley all going to be added. Tremblay a contender as well.

70s Canadiens: Practically half the team is either added or to be added.

80s Islanders: Potvin, Bossy, Trottier. Smith to be added.

80s Oilers: Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Kurri. Fuhr to be added.

So if anything, only two Blackhawks added would be an unusually low number for a dynastic team. Marian Hossa will be a contender for the list too, and he was less important to those teams than Toews, with a peak in Ottawa/Atlanta that wasn't substantially better than Toews's peak.

Different time periods. Less teams being in the league- and no salary cap- allowed teams to hoard talent in a way they can't today.

 

[MXD]

Will they really? That would surprise me, and would force me to re-evaluate.

As for Yzerman- You widened the margins. Also, Toews isn't competing against 99 and 66. As much as I respect Crosby and Malkin, they simply are not on that level.

...Which is why Yzerman made the Top-40, and Toews is merely a candidate to crack 200.