Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time

[The Macho King]

Mike Grant easily 1st

I'm going to say something we all know here.

We can't have a "best mustaches" list because we're going to get inundated by Leafs fans putting over Wendel Clark. The project is doomed to fail.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm going to say something we all know here.

We can't have a "best mustaches" list because we're going to get inundated by Leafs fans putting over Wendel Clark. The project is doomed to fail.

Don't forget Macoun. Relative to his era he was hugely dominant.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Yeah, but relative to his era?

I guess his VStashX isn't that great you're right

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I guess his VStashX isn't that great you're right

The VStashX is a terrible metric which overrates modern players.

There, I said it. I mean, his 7-year VStashX puts Cal Clutterbuck through the roof, but if we had a time machine and made him compete against 70s mustaches, his numbers would look way more pedestrian.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Players in the late 90s tended to be clean shaven so era comparisons have to take that into account.

The 70s was a high scoring era for mustaches. How do we evaluate the impact of disco on facial hair evolution?

 

[Professor What]

My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.

 

[The Macho King]

My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.

A mustache is an independent item. Mustaches as part of a beard are beards, not mustaches.

Exception - if you rock a mustache at all times but have a beard due to playoff bearding, it still counts as a mustache.

 

[Professor What]

A mustache is an independent item. Mustaches as part of a beard are beards, not mustaches.

Exception - if you rock a mustache at all times but have a beard due to playoff bearding, it still counts as a mustache.

I'm offended. I find that highly discriminatory. I'm gonna go figure out how to launch some sort of protest now. FREE THE STACHE!

 

[seventieslord]

My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.

Absolutely this. Giving too much credit to Joe Thornton's mustache would be ignoring the influence of its linemate, the beard.

This brings up another really important point for consideration. The fu Manchu. It takes up facial space typically reserved for beards, but in this case it's clearly a part of the mustache. Where do we draw the line?

And if you draw that line at the bottom of the chin, well then you've pretty much made a goatee. Where do they fit in? They're surely closer to a mustache than a beard. I know interpositional comparisons are encouraged. But how do you evaluate a good beard relative to a good goatee?

Part of me thinks that if we are the history of hockey board, then this thing shouldn't be so restrictive. All mustaches should be eligible, but so should beards, goatees, handlebars, soul patches, neckbeards, sideburns, and even good stubble. And what do you make of whatever it is that Crosby grows? It's none of the above but no one would deny it is significant and memorable.

 

[Professor What]

Absolutely this. Giving too much credit to Joe Thornton's mustache would be ignoring the influence of its linemate, the beard.

I still feel like this is only half of the point. Yes, the beard contributes to the mustache, but without the mustache, we all know the beard wouldn't be the same. I'm only interested in truth and fairness here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Once again, this board is going to be anti-Brodeur I see...he played on a team that forbade facial hair...once again, he's more negatively affected by "the system" than anything...

 

[Professor What]

Once again, this board is going to be anti-Brodeur I see...he played on a team that forbade facial hair...once again, he's more negatively affected by "the system" than anything...

Wanna join my protest?

 

[wetcoast]

Don't forget Macoun. Relative to his era he was hugely dominant.

End of discussion eh?

 

[wetcoast]

My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.

Obviously this is a case of a "secondary" mustache right?

 

[seventieslord]

End of discussion eh?

It was a pretty high-mustache era, so I wouldn't be confident saying he's definitely the GOAT.

 

[wetcoast]

It was a pretty high-mustache era, so I wouldn't be confident saying he's definitely the GOAT.

We obviously need more research into this project but also need to investigate substances used in promoting mustache growth and grooming techniques.

As a non mustache (and avid anti facial hair advocate for myself) I feel unqualified in doing this project without more research.

 

[Professor What]

Obviously this is a case of a "secondary" mustache right?

This is absolutely brutal. I'm starting a list of names for my protest.

Of course, I've got to find a place worthy of the stache to hold said protest first.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Just FYI, there’s a poster named psycat who is running around the main board criticizing this list wherever he can.

Not that his personal opinion matters at all (since his criticisms are to simply call it a “shitpile”) but since I’m not sure if many of you venture out there, I thought I’d let you know.

I’m trying to defend the list as I know how much work went into it but clearly people only care about hearing what they want to hear.

The biggest iconic superstar for their country?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just FYI, there’s a poster named psycat who is running around the main board criticizing this list wherever he can.

Not that his personal opinion matters at all (since his criticisms are to simply call it a “shitpile”) but since I’m not sure if many of you venture out there, I thought I’d let you know.

I’m trying to defend the list as I know how much work went into it but clearly people only care about hearing what they want to hear.

The biggest iconic superstar for their country?

I can't speak for everyone, but I think the majority of the people who contributed to the HOH "Top X" projects appreciate thoughtful, constructive criticism. Nobody wants HOH to turn into an echo chamber, so outside voices are encouraged. Everyone here started as an outside voice, at some point.

There are a few people who repeatedly criticize the Top 100 project on the main board. Usually, the motivation is obvious - they're trying to discredit a list that they think underrated their favourite player. (As if 30+ adults had nothing better to do over the span of three months than write a few hundred thousands words, in order to screw over someone's favourite player). It's usually clear who's trying to have a good faith dialogue, and who's trying to repeat the same talking points over and over.

I don't think any of us are losing sleep over the ramblings from someone who 1) doesn't have the courage to post their criticisms here where the authors of the list can see them and address them; and 2) whose arguments consist of calling the list a "shitpile" written by a bunch of "geezers" and "habophiles". The ad hominems don't offend me, but the lack of substance does.

(To be clear - I don't want the last paragraph to deter anyone from making good faith criticisms of the list).

 

[jigglysquishy]

Almost all main board criticisms fall into three categories

1) Everyone before 2005/1991/1979/1967/1945/1928/1917 sucked. Usually coincides with when they started watching hockey or their favourite player started playing.
2) My favourite player is underrated and their rival is overrated (see, Roy and Hasek, Yzerman and Sakic, Gretzky and Lemieux, Lidstrom and Bourque, Crosby and Ovechkin)
3) Canadians or Canadiens are overrepresented.

I think everyone appreciates constructive criticism. And with how much my list has changed in the last decade I think we're more flexible than we are given credit for.

If anything, the lists have gotten more representative of all time periods and non NHL play.

 

[psycat]

Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.

Also the list is objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10. Call it whatever you wan't and might be I should have used different words to describe it but when there are discussions that can go either way(or in some cases is blatantly in favor of the non Hab player) and they all end up in favor of the Habs players there is reason to suspect the list is indeed, if not flat out a pile of shit, at the very least very, very biased.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.

Also the list is objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10. Call it whatever you wan't and might be I should have used different words to describe it but when there are discussions that can go either way(or in some cases is blatantly in favor of the non Hab player) and they all end up in favor of the Habs players there is reason to suspect the list is indeed, if not flat out a pile of shit, at the very least very, very biased.

Post your list.

 

[The Macho King]

I don't really like using this list as some sort of "see? X player is better than Y player" point of argument. I don't think that list represents *the* list of any single individual - it's the product of a consensus which means everyone hates it at least a little bit. Richard and Jagr are way too high for my liking. I'd have Bourque over Harvey. Don't even get me started on Paul Coffey.

I especially don't like it when the margins being discussed are razor thin. As a practical matter, there isn't a whole lot separating 10 from 15, or 30 from 40, or 60 from 80 in a project like this.

That being said - I still think it's a good project and I think it a) adds value (especially in relation to certain lists which selectively and incompletely pick from certain eras/regions in a way that is somehow worse than leaving those eras/regions out entirely), and b) is a fun way to spend some time.

To expand: I think a lot of this springs from @psycat thinking Lidstrom should be higher. Guess what? That's not an absurd position to take. I think he ended up about where he should have personally - weak era for Dmen and his main competition generally took a good chunk of games off every season for suspensions/injuries - but I also don't think it's wrong to think he should be higher. And if you want to knock Harvey for being a product of a stacked team in a weak era? Damn good point. Bourque for not winning a Cup until he was on a superteam? Yeah that's an issue. Richard for racking up his most notable achievements in a war-depleted league? Excellent point and worthy of discussion!

These issues were all discussed while making the list for the record, but people ended up being convinced by those arguments to varying degrees. And that's where the collective ended as to the strength of those arguments. Doesn't mean your critiques are without merit, but to the extent it adds some weight to the projects methodology (if not results) - those issues were not glossed over.

 

[ResilientBeast]

objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10.

the irony of this sentence lol

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.

Here's a 40 page thread on that exact topic.

Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

Here's a 27 page thread.

Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

Here's a 20 page thread.

Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Here's a mere 3 page thread.

Harvey Versus Lidstrom


By the time you've read all that, you've read the equivalent of a technical manual on this specific subject.

The thing is, it's completely legitimate to object to the ordering of the Harvey-Bourque-Lidstrom trio. I see what you're seeing there. But there are also extremely extensive arguments and counter-arguments underlying that order, and you're not doing anything at all to address them. It's like wandering onto another team's board and trying to argue with them about lineup decisions. You better be prepared to get into the weeds, fast, with outstanding points. Skimming along the surface isn't gonna cut it with a crowd that has already spent weeks exploring the depths.