jigglysquishy
Registered User
Opened the thread and @TheDevilMadeMe sums up my thoughts on the 2 spot debate.
"Ray Bourque and Eddie Shore also need to be included in any serious discussion about the #2 defenseman of all time"
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
"Ray Bourque and Eddie Shore also need to be included in any serious discussion about the #2 defenseman of all time"
Weztex
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2006
- 3,145
- 3,878
If you feel that this list is presented to you as an empirical study, then the problem may lie in the way you receive it. Any list of this kind is objectively questionable since it is built on the opinions of people who value different things in different ways. To call it very biased is implying that the entire community that put effort into it is somehow subject to collective preconceived ideas. However the months/years of discussions leading to this list were filled with debates, opposing views, differences in perspectives and contrasts in evaluations. The final result in an aggregation of rational and thoughtful discussions between hockey history buffs, including some of the most knowledgable people on hockey history.
If you feel that the ranking of a player you love on an aggregated list built by tens of well informed people is a pile of shit, maybe - 1) you need to ask yourself if you have all the information you need to make a sound opinion about said player -2) go and try to put up a list you consider better so we collectively educate ourselves with one man's opinion. -3) maybe take a breath and don't take those ranking like they will change anything in anyone's life.
Think people here misunderstand what I don't like about the list. I don't think Lidström deserves to be ranked higher than 3rd amongst defencemen and I could see a case for him being ranked as low as 6th but I see zero case for ranking Harvey above him, it just doesn't make any sense and especially not if one can't acknowledge there is a case, however weak, for Lidström above Bourque.
My "problem" with the list(I am fully aware I can just ignore it's excistence) is that Habs players are ranked way to high. To me having so many habs players in the top 10 is similiar to claiming all players of yesterday were inferior to the ones playing now.
Someone asked me to post a list? Let's say my top 10 is something like the obvious 4(Gretzky first, Howe second), then Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Hull, Bourque in some order. Don't really see how that's relevant to be fair but I do enjoy making lists and think I have put quite a bit of thought into mine over the years.
I will read the stuff that was posted(Might be I have already read it since I have lurked around here for a good 10 years by now). I will also try to tone my language down and I fully realize that some people here are very knowledgeable but people with knowledge are prone to bias all the same. Keep in mind I didn't seek this list out to criticize if for the very reason that people have the rights to their opinions but when I keep getting it shoved down my throat it was hard to not get annoyed especially since I very much disagree.
Lastly the fact that I don't like this particular ranking doesn't mean I don't like the forum because I do(else I wouldn't spend time here) and I realize alot of effort goes into it, so keep up the good work.
My "problem" with the list(I am fully aware I can just ignore it's excistence) is that Habs players are ranked way to high. To me having so many habs players in the top 10 is similiar to claiming all players of yesterday were inferior to the ones playing now.
Someone asked me to post a list? Let's say my top 10 is something like the obvious 4(Gretzky first, Howe second), then Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Hull, Bourque in some order. Don't really see how that's relevant to be fair but I do enjoy making lists and think I have put quite a bit of thought into mine over the years.
I will read the stuff that was posted(Might be I have already read it since I have lurked around here for a good 10 years by now). I will also try to tone my language down and I fully realize that some people here are very knowledgeable but people with knowledge are prone to bias all the same. Keep in mind I didn't seek this list out to criticize if for the very reason that people have the rights to their opinions but when I keep getting it shoved down my throat it was hard to not get annoyed especially since I very much disagree.
Lastly the fact that I don't like this particular ranking doesn't mean I don't like the forum because I do(else I wouldn't spend time here) and I realize alot of effort goes into it, so keep up the good work.
Last edited:
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,227
- 30,234
Saying "Habs players are overrated" doesn't really add anything to the discussion, especially when one of them is on the list in no small part for stuff he did for another team. Also it's a team with three separate dynasties (and numerous other eras where they were strong) - they're going to be very well represented for any voter who strongly values playoff performance based on that fact alone.
Compare - they have three readily identifiable dynasties. The Leafs have a total of two both in the O6 era, the Red Wings have one, the Oilers one, the Islanders one, and the Senators one - their three dynasties and numerous other strong teams is going to - by necessity - have them high on the list, especially when dynasties tend to share at least some players between them.
You say you see "zero case" - we have spilled enough digital ink on that discussion for that contention to be because you simply haven't looked for said case, not for said case not existing.
Compare - they have three readily identifiable dynasties. The Leafs have a total of two both in the O6 era, the Red Wings have one, the Oilers one, the Islanders one, and the Senators one - their three dynasties and numerous other strong teams is going to - by necessity - have them high on the list, especially when dynasties tend to share at least some players between them.
You say you see "zero case" - we have spilled enough digital ink on that discussion for that contention to be because you simply haven't looked for said case, not for said case not existing.
Last edited:
Professor What
Registered User
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,227
- 30,234
Got nothing else to do with it - might as well waste it.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
That's what my girlfriend says when I've been reading newspapers for 1918 Seattle Mets game summaries
I'm used to it
Professor What
Registered User
Well, I'll back you up on the newspaper part. Something can come from that.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I dunno, I thought his last response was reasonable.
The issue with having Harvey over both of Bourque and Lidstrom has been identified here before (quite possibly by psycat... I don't remember) and it's a legitimate question.
- The argument for Harvey > Bourque is that he had a pioneering role in a very successful team environment, and has a higher trophy count.
- The argument for Bourque > Lidstrom is that he was the better hockey player for a longer period of time, regardless of trophy counting.
- But then you get to Harvey > Lidstrom and the snake seems to eat its tail. Their arguments are damn near identical, so it would seem you either have to put Harvey lower or Lidstrom higher.
- The question of Bourque >/< Lidstrom has been resolved, very narrowly but also decisively, in Bourque's favor.
- So the logical next step would be to put Harvey and Lidstrom at 3/4 depending on preference.
The thing about the Habs is, I think, not worth talking about. For a long time they were a dominant franchise with a bunch of generational players. Not a big deal or indicative of voter bias.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The argument for Harvey #2 among defensemen is that his peak/prime was simply higher than anyone other than Orr. All this talk about trophies makes it seem like every Norris win (other than Orr) was the same. It wasn't. When he was at his best, Harvey dominated the voting in a way that nobody but Orr could come close to.
Professor What
Registered User
Well, I could have missed something since I caught up on it all at once and there had been plenty of bile spewed before the last post which definitely could have influenced my impression of that post.
But as for determining the question of who ranks where with Bourque/Harvey/Lidstrom/Shore, I'm not going to fuss with anyone that makes a thoughtful argument for those four in any order. Of course, intense previous comments about that probably did a lot to put me off too.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Eddie Shore finished first in defenseman all-star voting 8 times, likely resulting in 8 Norris Trophies if it existed.
In terms of best 8 season stretch, he is arguably second only to Orr.
In terms of best 8 season stretch, he is arguably second only to Orr.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,625
- 16,390
Top five players on my list who didn't make the top 200
Top five player on the top 200 not on my list
Among players on both lists, five players I've overrated vs HOH
Among players on both lists, five players I've underrated vs HOH
What's good is I don't see any systematic bias in who I've overrated or underrated (ie I'm not consistently too harsh or too lenient on players from a specific position, era, team, or country).
The only exception might be valuing defensive/two-way forwards too much (see: Gainey, Provost, Carbonneau and Lemaire). But looking at other top two-way forwards, my ranking is usually within 10 spots either direction of the HOH consensus (true for Modano, Toews, Francis, Bergeron, Gilmour, Clarke, Datsyuk, Trottier, H. Richard, Forsberg, Fedorov, Nighbor, among others).
- 145. Hap Holmes
- 164. Frank McGee
- 176. Bob Gainey
- 188. Claude Provost
- 190. Guy Carbonneau
Top five player on the top 200 not on my list
- 163. Bryan Hextall
- 177. Babe Siebert
- 182. Duke Keats
- 185. Carey Price
- 187. Nikita Kucherov
Among players on both lists, five players I've overrated vs HOH
- Steven Stamkos (122 vs 170 = +48)
- Jacques Lemaire (144 vs 190 = +46)
- Lionel Conacher (136 vs 171 = +35)
- Vaclav Nedomansky (169 vs 139 = +31)
- Patrick Kane (67 vs 93 = +26)
Among players on both lists, five players I've underrated vs HOH
- Jack Stewart (195 vs 125 = -70)
- Roy Worters (166 vs 111 = -55)
- Marian Hossa (206 vs 157 = -49)
- Vladimir Krutov (171 vs 127 = -44)
- Elmer Lach (113 vs 81 = -32)
- Victor Hedman (178 vs 146 = -32)
What's good is I don't see any systematic bias in who I've overrated or underrated (ie I'm not consistently too harsh or too lenient on players from a specific position, era, team, or country).
The only exception might be valuing defensive/two-way forwards too much (see: Gainey, Provost, Carbonneau and Lemaire). But looking at other top two-way forwards, my ranking is usually within 10 spots either direction of the HOH consensus (true for Modano, Toews, Francis, Bergeron, Gilmour, Clarke, Datsyuk, Trottier, H. Richard, Forsberg, Fedorov, Nighbor, among others).
Last edited:
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,625
- 16,390
Part of the case for Harvey over Bourque is the "eye test". There's very much a sense of him being a man playing against boys (or, maybe more accurately, an aging father playing against his teenage children). What I mean is he's not necessarily any bigger or faster than his competitors, but he didn't need to be. He knew where to position himself, and what moves to anticipate, so that he was more effective than anyone else in a dispassionate, almost mechanical way.
As great as Bourque was, I never got that sense about him (ie a man playing against boys). Nor with Lidstrom, or Potvin - who, at least to me, peaked higher than either of them. The only other defenseman who looked so advanced versus his peers, and I don't make this comparison lightly, is Bobby Orr.
One of Harvey's greatest strengths was his ability to speed up or slow down the game based on what his team needed. That's why I've always considered him the most consistent and most valuable member of the Habs dynasty of the late 1950's. He was the engine of that team. (Admittedly, he wouldn't have been able to use this strength nearly as much if he were playing now, since coaches now make many of the strategic decisions that players once controlled).
I've said previously that Gretzky is the only player in history who I'd say clearly had a higher hockey IQ than Harvey. The sad irony is Harvey, an alcoholic, had his personal life spiral out of control. It was a stark contrast with the quiet mastery he displayed on the ice.
I realize this is a very subjective post (coming from someone who usually tries to post facts and numbers). But there's some (limited) statistical support for these observations. He led the 1960 Habs in plus/minus in both the regular season and playoffs (tied). The Rangers, in 1962, saw their goals against drop by 42 when Harvey joined (they had the same goalie both years, and not much else changed with the roster - Harvey finished a career-high 2nd in Hart voting immediately after leaving Montreal).
During Harvey's peak in Montreal (1955 to 1961), the Habs won five straight Stanley Cups (and also lost in game 7 against Howe's Red Wings). They won just six playoff games in the first three years after he went to New York (the team still had Plante in net, another Norris winner in Johnson on the blueline, plus Beliveau, Geffrion and H. Richard). When they won a Cup again four years later, there was massive turnover on the roster. It's not right to attribute all of the changes in the Habs' fortunes to Harvey, of course, but it does provide some anecdotal evidence about his value.
If someone's goal is to dismiss hockey before 2006 (or 1980, or 1968), then none of this matters. But there's real value in trying to watch Harvey play because, I think, his ranking over Bourque or Lidstrom becomes easier to understand (regardless how you rate the Bruins vs the Red Wing).
As great as Bourque was, I never got that sense about him (ie a man playing against boys). Nor with Lidstrom, or Potvin - who, at least to me, peaked higher than either of them. The only other defenseman who looked so advanced versus his peers, and I don't make this comparison lightly, is Bobby Orr.
One of Harvey's greatest strengths was his ability to speed up or slow down the game based on what his team needed. That's why I've always considered him the most consistent and most valuable member of the Habs dynasty of the late 1950's. He was the engine of that team. (Admittedly, he wouldn't have been able to use this strength nearly as much if he were playing now, since coaches now make many of the strategic decisions that players once controlled).
I've said previously that Gretzky is the only player in history who I'd say clearly had a higher hockey IQ than Harvey. The sad irony is Harvey, an alcoholic, had his personal life spiral out of control. It was a stark contrast with the quiet mastery he displayed on the ice.
I realize this is a very subjective post (coming from someone who usually tries to post facts and numbers). But there's some (limited) statistical support for these observations. He led the 1960 Habs in plus/minus in both the regular season and playoffs (tied). The Rangers, in 1962, saw their goals against drop by 42 when Harvey joined (they had the same goalie both years, and not much else changed with the roster - Harvey finished a career-high 2nd in Hart voting immediately after leaving Montreal).
During Harvey's peak in Montreal (1955 to 1961), the Habs won five straight Stanley Cups (and also lost in game 7 against Howe's Red Wings). They won just six playoff games in the first three years after he went to New York (the team still had Plante in net, another Norris winner in Johnson on the blueline, plus Beliveau, Geffrion and H. Richard). When they won a Cup again four years later, there was massive turnover on the roster. It's not right to attribute all of the changes in the Habs' fortunes to Harvey, of course, but it does provide some anecdotal evidence about his value.
If someone's goal is to dismiss hockey before 2006 (or 1980, or 1968), then none of this matters. But there's real value in trying to watch Harvey play because, I think, his ranking over Bourque or Lidstrom becomes easier to understand (regardless how you rate the Bruins vs the Red Wing).
I don't think anyone at any point was biased towards Habs because they're Hab fans. I've been a Habs fan my whole life - but I didn't live through the 50s and felt no bias whatsoever towards players.
I think what a lot of voters valued highly is playoff success though. That's why you see a lot of players from dynasties (not just Habs) rank highly.
Tampa just won 2 cups. They're good enough to win the next 2. And who knows - maybe they lose for 2 years afterwards, and then win 2 more. 6 in 8 years for that core, dynasty, and a big one. When ranking players 20 years from now - wouldn't guys like Point/Stamkos/Kucherov/Hedman/Vasi factor in very, very highly in rankings vs peers/all-time thanks to that success? Example I think Auston Matthews > Brayden Point pretty easily. Give Point a very critical role in 4 more cup wins - good chance it'll be Point > Matthews. Playoff success simply counts?
Now if you want to argue playoffs are valued too highly and regular season is more important (and considering you place Jagr/Hasek that high, I suspect you do) - that's fine. Others have argued the same too - but it does seem people around here usually value playoffs a lot.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Yeah, I didn't want to go there...but the Habs won like 17 Cups in a 38 year span...yeah, they probably had a lot of the best players, eh? I don't know how else they could have done this...
Conversely, I actually think the 60's Leafs are underrated (unlike the 2010's Leafs on the main borad, wacka wacka!) because they played defense so much that their talent couldn't put up the numbers. There are some really talented players on those teams, and we don't represent them highly enough sometimes...
I also believe that the playoffs have a varying value as well. Not all playoffs are created equally...so to say "I value playoffs more than regular season" or whatever as a blanket statement isn't for me either. The playoffs in 2022 aren't the same as the two-game total goals series in 1927 or whenever...unfortunately, everything requires a lot of context even though blanket statements (there's too many Habs!) are so much easier...
Conversely, I actually think the 60's Leafs are underrated (unlike the 2010's Leafs on the main borad, wacka wacka!) because they played defense so much that their talent couldn't put up the numbers. There are some really talented players on those teams, and we don't represent them highly enough sometimes...
I also believe that the playoffs have a varying value as well. Not all playoffs are created equally...so to say "I value playoffs more than regular season" or whatever as a blanket statement isn't for me either. The playoffs in 2022 aren't the same as the two-game total goals series in 1927 or whenever...unfortunately, everything requires a lot of context even though blanket statements (there's too many Habs!) are so much easier...
Professor What
Registered User
The Habs won with star power, while the Leafs won more with a team concept. Obviously, a guy who thrived in the former will have a better looking individual career.
Then again, to your point, the fact that those players with the Leafs all fit so selflessly into that concept says a lot. It's impossible to really quantify that, but I agree that some of them almost certainly get the shaft as a result.
Yes the Habs did win 17 Cups in 38 years but while it might tell us how "great" the team was it might also tell us that the NHL at that time period was "easier" to construct a team to do so as well.
One of the things that I notice on this list, and quite a few of the "greatest" lists is that the list makers like winners and they might have a tendency to overate individual players sometimes because of their team accomplishments and then ever so slightly downplay others because they didn't win as much or as often and simply don't really look at why that player didn't win as often.
Prime examples of this are Jagr and obviously Marcel Dionne.
Sure it's entirely feasible that 3 of the top 10 players of all time played on the same team in basically the same era Harvey, Maurice and Beliveau but it's also a real argument that maybe they get placed too high because of the perfect conditions for them winning so many SCs as well.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,146
- 2,693
Just struck me that if not for the pandemic (obviously paced for it, though), McDavid would most likely be looking at his 7th straight season of +100 points. Straight! The only other ones who have scored +100 pts in a season atleast seven times over their career are Gretzky, Lemieux, Dionne, Stastny, Bossy. Probably all see what connects them there...
www.hockey-reference.com
When it is all said and done, I wonder if McDavid could make it a Big 5 as opposed to the Big 4 it is today.
Connor McDavid Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Title | Hockey-Reference.com
Checkout the latest stats of Connor McDavid. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, trade, draft and more on Hockey-Reference.com
www.hockey-reference.com
When it is all said and done, I wonder if McDavid could make it a Big 5 as opposed to the Big 4 it is today.
Just out of curiosity, if this was a list of the top 200 NHL players, how many players would come off? Aside from the Soviet/Czech players who played in Europe, how many of the really old players wouldn't be on a top 200 NHL players list?
Babe Dye
Charlie Gardiner
Clint Benedict
Cy Denneny
Duke Keats
Eddie Gerard
Frank Foyston
Frank Frederickson
Frank Nighbor
Georges Boucher
Georges Vezina
Hap Holmes
Harry Cameron
Hugh Lehman
Ivan Johnson
Joe Malone
Mickey MacKay
Newsy Lalonde
Sprague Cleghorn
Babe Dye
Charlie Gardiner
Clint Benedict
Cy Denneny
Duke Keats
Eddie Gerard
Frank Foyston
Frank Frederickson
Frank Nighbor
Georges Boucher
Georges Vezina
Hap Holmes
Harry Cameron
Hugh Lehman
Ivan Johnson
Joe Malone
Mickey MacKay
Newsy Lalonde
Sprague Cleghorn
Last edited:
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Dye is probably the easiest call. He played his whole pro career in the NHL, so he’s easily in.
Some are easy to scratch off because they played an irrelevant phase of their career in the NHL. Keats, Foyston, Fredrickson, Lehman, MacKay didn’t do anything meaningful enough to even be considered for an NHL-only list.
On the other end of the spectrum, some of these guys played the great majority of their career in the NHL. Gardiner, Denneny, Gerard, Nighbor, Vezina, Johnson, Benedict, Boucher.
The big question is whether we are going to be “NHL purists” and not count the NHA. That decision has a lot of weight on Lalonde, Malone, and Cleghorn. They might still make the cut, but it would be at a much lower ranking.
That leaves Holmes and Cameron, who both had messy career arcs through the NHL and other leagues. I don’t think either of them makes it based on his NHL argument alone. So that’s 12 in, 7 out.
Could you explain why Gerard would be considered safe for an NHL-only list, whereas Cameron would most likely not? Just looking at their stats (NHL-exclusive), the both of them played at the exact same time (1917-1923) and played almost the exact same number of games (129 for Cameron vs. 128 for Gerard). If anything, Cameron comes out looking better than Gerard here, as he had 142 points, compared to Gerard's 101.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It really just comes down to Gerard being a much better player. Take his two NHA seasons off his career (25%) and he's still a safe bet to be top-200, since he's ~85th as it is. Cameron's probably a near-miss on the existing top-200, needing the ~30 non-NHL players to come off to make room for him. But, lop off four of his ten high-level seasons.... and he's probably no better off than he is now.
Career point totals are probably the best possible way to ensure that you overrate Cameron and underrate Gerard, by the way. I can see how superficially they look like equals using simple stats but a deeper look at the era would show you who was significantly better defensively, more respected as a player and person, contributed to winning more, and was unanimously seen as the superior player by all observers.
