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

[Professor What]

Not just McGee and Phillips. Hod Stuart and Russell Bowie were in the mix too.

Generally speaking, that generation of hockey players was composed of mainly the sons of fairly wealthy folks, from a select few cities in Eastern Canada, so the talent pool wasn't nearly as large as it would become in subsequent generations.

Hard to know just how good those players were, but a "rule of thumb" some of us seem to use here is to consider the best of that generation to be approximately as good as the second tier stars of the next generation. See for example Hod Stuart being ranked somewhere between Eddie Gerard and Moose Johnson on the HOH Top defensemen list. Not saying that's the "right" answer to something with so much uncertainly, just that it's something that seems to work for a lot of us.

Fair point on Bowie and Stuart. I chose the two I did because I've found more references to them. I guess I'm still kind of stuck in the idea that a decade, if that, could make that much of a difference. I'm really starting to feel that the last great amateurs were underrated. Maybe not horrifically, but also not completely insignificantly.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Generally speaking, that generation of hockey players was composed of mainly the sons of fairly wealthy folks, from a select few cities in Eastern Canada, so the talent pool wasn't nearly as large as it would become in subsequent generations.

That’s a good concise way to put it.

To me the “value” of generations, as defined by the pressure of competition for roster spots and individual achievements, goes as follows:

Post-1990/1950-1967
———————————— (small gap)
1980s/1930s/late 1920s
———————————— (medium gap)
1970s/Late 1940s/early 1920s/1900-1914
———————————— (big gap)
WWII/WWI/pre-1900

Of course there are a lot of other factors going into each player’s achievements than the date on the calendar. But that’s at least my starting point for how to assign relative credit, all other things equal.

Which is to say, guys like Phillips and Bowie will have a place on my list, but not as high as the stars of future generations. And the 5th best player of that era won’t have a spot at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Who are they? I haven't actually put together my list, so it was based more on first impressions. It's possible that I'm wrong - just don't let my wife know.

I have Wilson, Zubov, Smith, Neely, Gartner and Housley. Currently. Neely is the only one not near the bottom.

Gartner and Housley are real whipping boys here, but damnit, Gartner has over 700 goals. Only 7 players have more. And Housley was a hell of an offensive player. Terrible defensively. He may not make my final list.

OK, I'm ready for comments (maybe ready to backpedal).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Just a few years before the rise of professional hockey, the title of best player in the game was generally debated between Frank McGee and Tommy Phillips. Yet, they don't seem to be on the same discussion planet as Nighbor, Taylor, or Lalonde, who peaked just a very few years later. I'm not trying to drag down Nighbor, Taylor, and Lalonde, because those guys were incredible, but something here seems a bit amiss to me. I see two possibilities: 1) Nighbor, Taylor, and Lalonde were just such incredible talents that they stood out a mile above everyone else in their era, or 2) there's too much of an emphasis placed on the transition from the amateur game to the professional game, and too little credit is given to the top players in the final years before the advent of widespread pro leagues. Personally, my instincts tell me that there's probably a bit of truth to both, but I'm not very sure where to put the balance. I'd be interested to know which professional players who were on top of their game say, 1920 and earlier are most comparable to someone like McGee and Phillips in the minds of other posters.

I think the big difference is that the latter of the players in question had staying power not present in the previous generation. Frank Nighbor won the inaugural Hart Trophy almost 20 years after Frank McGee retired. Newsy Lalonde had a 20 year career that started just as McGee's was ending. Taylor and Phillips were arguably more contemporary to each other, though Taylor's peak was still probably nearly a decade after Phillips'.

Working backwards, McGee and Phillips didn't come too long after guys like Clare McKerrow and Haviland Routh, but nobody would claim those early 1890s guys were just as good as the early 1900s guys. Or at least, nobody has really attempted to that I've seen.

It's certainly possible our perceptions of this era are incorrect, but we're pretty much at the mercy of that first wave of men who made an actual career and living out of hockey. So yeah, I mean it's not really surprising that guys like Art Ross, Lester Patrick, Taylor, Lalonde, etc. give us the impression that their generation is when hockey "came of age". People are naturally inclined to such a bias. But we don't really have any evidence that they were wrong, and indeed we do have evidence that the game was making a "great leap forward" around the time they entered the picture, in that people were suddenly willing to pay men salaries to play for their club, and the game was being played professionally in the US and Western Canada in short order.

I'm open to the argument that the pre-professional era has been sold short by analysts 110-120 years after the fact, I'm just not sure what that argument would entail.

As for who McGee and Phillips would best compare to from the next generation, I think someone like Joe Malone might be reasonable in comparison (though even he would definitely be considered the upper bound by most). It's just really hard to elevate McGee and his exploits that occurred in a few 6 or 8 game seasons to the level of a Lalonde who excelled for so many more years against other players who could claim the same.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I have Wilson, Zubov, Smith, Neely, Gartner and Housley. Currently. Neely is the only one not near the bottom.

Gartner and Housley are real whipping boys here, but damnit, Gartner has over 700 goals. Only 7 players have more. And Housley was a hell of an offensive player. Terrible defensively. He may not make my final list.

OK, I'm ready for comments (maybe ready to backpedal).

I'll try to respond in more detail later but I wonder if we're talking about the same Smith. I meant Clint Smith (the tiny centre from the late thirties to late forties) - who's in the Hall of Fame, but I'm not really sure why. Billy (and Hooley, for that matter) will be on my list.

 

[Professor What]

@Kyle McMahon I agree with the point about longevity, both in number and length of series, and that's why I don't think they're horrifically underrated, but I think there's a flip side of it as well. The fact that they were amateur hockey players and professionals in other realms meant that they necessarily had to limit their involvement in hockey. I'm much more willing to give some benefit of the doubt to them on a lack of longevity that modern players, unless the modern players do something on the level of Orr or Dryden. The early players made the most of those circumstances, and I don't think that can be forgotten.

Right now, I kind of just want to throw everything that comes to mind into the discussion, because I really want to get give best feel for where to put these guys.

 

[ted2019]

I've been trying to rank my list on a similar basis. This has, again, been insightful. But the thing where I get real crossed (in the bottom 100s) involves the Sedins. Everything in my nature wants to exclude them. I took the latest Top-100 to heart when I started making this list and I'm going to call that gospel for me. Others can disagree. But the Sedins just don't push the dial for me. I always thought that Daniel would have done better on his own than Henrik, but Henrik has the accolades. I'm also the person hell-bent on discounting St. Louis, but I lost that argument.

St. Louis finished 98 on the 2018 list, while the Sedin's didn't get a single vote on the aggregate list.

 

[ted2019]

I think this is a good way of looking at it. As I mentioned, I haven't put together my list yet, but this is how I was planning to approach it.

There's 289 players in the HOF. 8 of them are women (I assume the list is men only - no?). So that's 281 male players.

We can pretty easily discard from the top 220 a number of HOF'ers- Lowe, Boivin, Wilson, Zubov, Duff, Shutt, Bauer, Gillies, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli, Mullen, LaFontaine, McDonald, Laprade, Smith, Weiland, and Cheevers. (I'm not even going into players like Anderson, Nieuwendyk, Federko, Carbonneau, Gartner, Neely, and Housley - who I can see some, although weaker, arguments for). That gets us down to around 260.

But then you have a bunch of players who are clearly deserving who aren't yet in the Hall - say a dozen European players, plus Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, McDavid, Thornton, Bergeron, Chara, Keith, Karlsson, Lundqvist. Then there's borderline players like Alfredsson, Toews, the Sedins, Elias, Roenick, Fleury, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Stamkos, Luongo, etc. That gets us back to around 290.

The point is - as a general rule of thumb, if you're ranking 220 players, they should be clearly above the bottom rung of the Hall of Fame. (Going back to what someone said before about Barasso - personally I'd have him in the Hall but I recognize that he'd be in the lower tier. So for that reason I doubt he'll make my list).

Out of all of the players you have listed, I have Weiland ( possible) on my list. On the borderline players I have Toews ( still judging, think he's REALLY overrated). Elias, Zetterberg, Pavel, Stamkos, Luongo are definitely on my list. Barrasso is one that could make my list.

 

[ted2019]

I have Wilson, Zubov, Smith, Neely, Gartner and Housley. Currently. Neely is the only one not near the bottom.

Gartner and Housley are real whipping boys here, but damnit, Gartner has over 700 goals. Only 7 players have more. And Housley was a hell of an offensive player. Terrible defensively. He may not make my final list.

OK, I'm ready for comments (maybe ready to backpedal).

Is this Alf, Hooley, Clint, Billy or Tommy Smith? The rest have no shot on my list.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'll try to respond in more detail later but I wonder if we're talking about the same Smith. I meant Clint Smith (the tiny centre from the late thirties to late forties) - who's in the Hall of Fame, but I'm not really sure why. Billy (and Hooley, for that matter) will be on my list.

I thought you meant Billy.

I don't even know who Clint Smith was.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is this Alf, Hooley, Clint, Billy or Tommy Smith? The rest have no shot on my list.

So the guy with over 700 goals is not among the top 220 players?

 

[wetcoast]

Who are they? I haven't actually put together my list, so it was based more on first impressions. It's possible that I'm wrong - just don't let my wife know.

She already knows and I say this as a married man.

I think there are arguments for a couple of guys that you mentioned but it all comes down to what people focus on the most Peak, prime, career and/or other stuff.

Off the top of my head I think Zubov and Federko deserve attention but I can see arguments for and against as well.

A guy like Neely has alot of "what if" to him.

To me this is the allure of the project in that there are going to be more divergent opinions about which players should be ranked and where the further we go along.

 

[ted2019]

So the guy with over 700 goals is not among the top 220 players?

Not my list ( maybe at 210-220).

 

[buffalowing88]

So the guy with over 700 goals is not among the top 220 players?

He's quite the compiler. Like @ted2019 , I have him around the 220s and he'll probably have to jump some guys who had more impactful playoff resumes at this point. I just come away underwhelmed by guys like him and Andreychuk.

 

[buffalowing88]

She already knows and I say this as a married man.

I think there are arguments for a couple of guys that you mentioned but it all comes down to what people focus on the most Peak, prime, career and/or other stuff.

Off the top of my head I think Zubov and Federko deserve attention but I can see arguments for and against as well.

A guy like Neely has alot of "what if" to him.

To me this is the allure of the project in that there are going to be more divergent opinions about which players should be ranked and where the further we go along.

I think that's a good way of breaking down the different perspectives for arguments. I definitely weigh heaviest on peak and playoffs over career length or durability. I think a lot of people do, so that's not unique.

Zubov is definitely a candidate in my eyes. He was excellent for some great teams and for a long enough period of time. He's probably around 175 atm.

Federko was someone I initially was dismissive of but I went back after reading more about him last week and he definitely needs to be discussed, at the very least. Three very strong playoff runs on a consistently competitive team and a guy who has a peak that lasted for nearly a decade. I can't rule that stuff out.

 

[seventieslord]

He's quite the compiler. Like @ted2019 , I have him around the 220s and he'll probably have to jump some guys who had more impactful playoff resumes at this point. I just come away underwhelmed by guys like him and Andreychuk.

I think he's significantly better than Andreychuk, and at the same time, certainly not a top-220 player. You can be both!

 

[wetcoast]

So the guy with over 700 goals is not among the top 220 players?

I'm asking this sincerely as I think that you are a guy who really values peak (if I'm wrong on this then disregard the question but still think about it generally).

One of the things I try to think about for every player is what level did he achieve in his best season or peak point in play.

Was he (using Gartner here) ever a top 5 forward in the world? top 10? If not then what level was he when he was at his absolute best?

I won't answer the question here myself but his best season in points was a 10th place one in 84-85 and even in goals (which is his real argument) his top 10 finishes are 5,9,9,9 and a 10th place.

Looking at the top scorers for the 84-85 season, one could make an argument that Gartner might have been the 12-15ish best forward in the league that year (if we are looking at more than just simply stat counting) but it could be lower by a bit too.

I just think that if that is any players peak then to get into the conversation for the top 200ish players there has to be alot more that player needs to bring to the table.

Just as a simple comparison Mats Sundin (another player noted for great consistency but not an absolute great peak) had a 4th and 7th place finish and had some better best on best tournaments and that's the difference between a guy getting into the top 200 and just missing it.

 

[seventieslord]

Pretend Mike Gartner was born in 1979 and give him the same goals rankings he had at each age in the NHL from 99-00 to 17-18. How many career goals does he have then?

 

[buffalowing88]

Pretend Mike Gartner was born in 1979 and give him the same goals rankings he had at each age in the NHL from 99-00 to 18-19. How many career goals does he have then?

I went through that but excluded the 83-84 season for Gartner and the 04-05 season for the modern comp because of the lockout. If he's going to be evaluated to contemporary peers, I guess it's easiest just to cancel out that season.

With that said, I just looked up how much he scored each season and where that put him in the rankings. Then I looked up the ranking for the modern-era season that was applicable and counted the goal total for the player in the same place.

For instance, in 1978-1979, he was the 50th leading goal scorer in the NHL, so I looked up who was #50 in 1999-2000 and found it was 25 goals.

Wound up with 572 adjusted goals for a contemporary who would have played between 1999-2019.

That's roughly 28.6 goals/season...not very impressive but 572 goals in that era would be admittedly impressive.

 

[ted2019]

I'm asking this sincerely as I think that you are a guy who really values peak (if I'm wrong on this then disregard the question but still think about it generally).

One of the things I try to think about for every player is what level did he achieve in his best season or peak point in play.

Was he (using Gartner here) ever a top 5 forward in the world? top 10? If not then what level was he when he was at his absolute best?

I won't answer the question here myself but his best season in points was a 10th place one in 84-85 and even in goals (which is his real argument) his top 10 finishes are 5,9,9,9 and a 10th place.

Looking at the top scorers for the 84-85 season, one could make an argument that Gartner might have been the 12-15ish best forward in the league that year (if we are looking at more than just simply stat counting) but it could be lower by a bit too.

I just think that if that is any players peak then to get into the conversation for the top 200ish players there has to be alot more that player needs to bring to the table.

Just as a simple comparison Mats Sundin (another player noted for great consistency but not an absolute great peak) had a 4th and 7th place finish and had some better best on best tournaments and that's the difference between a guy getting into the top 200 and just missing it.

I see Gartner like Jeremy Roenick, as they are both complier's in the league. Sure Gartner had 708 goals, but he never received a single Hart Trophy vote and the here are his AS votes: 4,4,5,6,7,8,9,11. Someone else mentioned Andreychuk, but his record is worse then Gartner's overall. post season AS votes: 3,3,4,4,7,13,15. Hell, Roenick at least has a top 5 & 10 Hart vote to his credit and his AS votes are: 4,4,5,5,5. I'll take back my opinion on Gartner and say that he won't make my top 220 at all.

 

[ted2019]

I went through that but excluded the 83-84 season for Gartner and the 04-05 season for the modern comp because of the lockout. If he's going to be evaluated to contemporary peers, I guess it's easiest just to cancel out that season.

With that said, I just looked up how much he scored each season and where that put him in the rankings. Then I looked up the ranking for the modern-era season that was applicable and counted the goal total for the player in the same place.

For instance, in 1978-1979, he was the 50th leading goal scorer in the NHL, so I looked up who was #50 in 1999-2000 and found it was 25 goals.

Wound up with 572 adjusted goals for a contemporary who would have played between 1999-2019.

That's roughly 28.6 goals/season...not very impressive but 572 goals in that era would be admittedly impressive.

Instead of using adjusted goals, use the VsX as it really gives you a better measure of a players output.

 

[seventieslord]

I went through that but excluded the 83-84 season for Gartner and the 04-05 season for the modern comp because of the lockout. If he's going to be evaluated to contemporary peers, I guess it's easiest just to cancel out that season.

With that said, I just looked up how much he scored each season and where that put him in the rankings. Then I looked up the ranking for the modern-era season that was applicable and counted the goal total for the player in the same place.

For instance, in 1978-1979, he was the 50th leading goal scorer in the NHL, so I looked up who was #50 in 1999-2000 and found it was 25 goals.

Wound up with 572 adjusted goals for a contemporary who would have played between 1999-2019.

That's roughly 28.6 goals/season...not very impressive but 572 goals in that era would be admittedly impressive.

Thanks for doing that. You illustrated it perfectly. 572 goals is a nice number but, I mean, Patrick Marleau almost got there, and still might. That number alone, wouldn't make a modern player a guarantee for this list - unless it only took 1000 games to get that many, or if it wasn't the far and away number one selling point of the player.

 

[buffalowing88]

Thanks for doing that. You illustrated it perfectly. 572 goals is a nice number but, I mean, Patrick Marleau almost got there, and still might. That number alone, wouldn't make a modern player a guarantee for this list - unless it only took 1000 games to get that many, or if it wasn't the far and away number one selling point of the player.

Definitely agree with your last point. Goals are supposed to be what sets him apart and this just doesn't quite to it for me. 572 is a nice number, but his point total and playoff contributions are not going to color the picture any rosier when that is taken into account. Top-200 is just tough to justify when he's basically a slightly better Patrick Marleau.

 

[buffalowing88]

Instead of using adjusted goals, use the VsX as it really gives you a better measure of a players output.

Let me look into that for point totals with him now. I admittedly am not entirely familiar with applying that metric.

 

[buffalowing88]

Okay, I conducted a VsX comparison between Marleau and Gartner. I just used point totals per season a 20 year span for each (1997-2018 for Marleau and 1978-1998 for Gartner and just excluded the lockout season for Marleau). I used the second leading scorer in the league's point total for each comparable year as the bench mark.

Running through the numbers, Marleau averaged a score of .58 while Gartner had an average score of .54.

So that seems pretty damning for Gartner...