Who are your 5th -10th best players of all time, today?

[plusandminus]

This is weird terminology and speaks to someone deeply unfamiliar with the history of the sport.

None of us are going to have an American in the top 30 (Chelios not appearing until 41 in the top 100).

There are only 4 non Canadians in the top 20, all peaking in the 15 year period of 1995-2010. It is entirely reasonable to have an all Canadian top 10 just owing to the history of the sport, and that 5-17ish is a clump of players.

Most of us have 1 Euro in the top 10.

Walking into a thread asking for 5 players, only listing 2, and then calling everyone biased just screams looking for a fight.

I didn't at all mean what you interpreting me to mean.
I wrote two sentences.

"Probably 5 Hasek. 6 Jagr".
That's because I'm not sure about the others. It's not all black and white to me. Many other list less or more than six names for the spots 5-10. To me it's rather a humble way of writing, instead of being dead sure. Others here state that it may vary for them from day to day.
For me, Hasek is the greatest goalie of all time. I'm not sure, and I may be wrong. How can people be so dead sure? I'm not. I also rate Hasek's peak and prime very high. I do not consider my view dead sure. Others here list Hasek high too.

I'm very unsure about Jagr. Having followed him since his juniors, I do think of him as a "worthy" (it's just a word) number 6. But if others don't, they may be more right than me. How do me know? How can anyone be dead sure?

"Although I notice that many here seems to prefer 10 Canadian/North American players as the top-10."

So it's the word "North American" that you reacted the most to? But I didn't mean anything bad. Would "10 Canadian" sound better? I know it's 10 Canadians, but it's also 10 North Americans. I'm sorry if I'm using bad English (it's very much not my native language).
I know where each country's player turns up on the projects rankings. I've read and written here for 12 years, in the History section.

Many here does prefer 10 Canadians. Isn't that just a neutral fact? Do one have interpret it as me trying to "pick a fight".
What if I had added ", so maybe I'm a bit high on Hasek and Jagr"?

I reported your post (no harm meant) to avoid any "fight picking", but got rejected.
I do feel bad because I'm obviously unable to write two sentences without immediately being accused for things like "picking a fight", being "deeply unfamiliar with the history of the sport", etc.

Probably 5 Hasek. 6 Jagr.

Although I notice that many here seems to prefer 10 Canadian/North American players as the top-10.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[The Panther]

Hmm, I don't know. But I encourage everyone to lock Connor McDavid into your top-10s, especially if he wins another scoring title (5th) and Hart trophy this season. If he wins the Art Ross (which, barring injury, seems certain), he'll be tied with Esposito and Jagr for third-most in history, and he'll be one shy of Howe and Lemieux. It's still a big "if", I guess, but if he wins the Hart this year (which seems very likely at present), he'll have three, which would make him tied for fourth-most in history, at age 26. (And it should be 4 Harts after the travesty of last season, but don't get me started.) McDavid also just had (last spring) maybe the single-most dominant three-round playoff performance by anybody, ever.

As to other current/recent players, I don't think I would have Crosby or Ovechkin in my top-10. I'm not religious about these ranking things, but I think they'd be more so in the 11-20 range somewhere. But I'm not sure.

Besides McDavid entering my top-10 now, I'd have Jágr in there somewhere for sure. Speaking of Czechs, I'd also have Hašek in there, for sure. And I don't think Hašek was better than the remarkable Jacques Plante (most underrated player on this forum, except for Lindros), so I'd have him in my top-10, also. Good to have two goalies.

So, Wayne, Gordie, Bobby, Mario, Jaromir, Dom, Jacques, Connor... How many is that? 8! So, I need two more. And I have only one defenceman, so far.

So, I think I'd add in one or two of Harvey, Bourque, Lidström...

Yeah, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be ranking any current players (except McDavid) in my personal top-5 to 10 -- not that I have a firm grasp on what my 10 is.

To be honest, I don't really think the peak level of players I've seen such as Forsberg or Lindros (or even Pronger) is really any lower than, say, Plante or Bourque or Lidström, but at some point if you're ranking all-time players, you have to go a bit beyond peak and into longevity and achievements.

As to my #11-20 list, I think it would include Morenz, Crosby, Ovechkin, M. Richard, Beliveau, maybe Lidström, Forsberg, maybe Lafleur, etc. Then, we get to Messier, Sakic, et al. It's a tough list.

(Patrick Roy would probably be around my #20-30 ranking, but I think I have him lower than almost anyone.)

 

[psycat]

Apparently on the main board if you played in the O6 and won multiple cups you suck, I saw Nighbor called a Lady Byng Specialist. That's so inaccurate I'm at a loss for words and don't even know how to reply.

That poster would be me. I just dont' see how one can possibly rank Harvey above Lidström(And I rank atleast 2 defencemen ahead of Lidström). Everything I saw indicates that he was at best equal defensively(and I am being generous) while barely contributing offensively in comparison. So how could he possibly be ranked higher? In the case of Harvey we can't even use the "team argument" against Lidström since he(Harvey) played on arguably the most stacked teams ever in a league with low parity.

Harvey might belong inside the top 25, which is nothing to scoff at mind you, but nowhere close to top 10. Heck Shore have a better case as "pioneer".

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I have it down to seven names, and I'm struggling to make the final cut. In alphabetical order - Beliveau, Bourque, Crosby, Harvey, Hasek, Hull, and Roy. How's that for a non-answer?

 

[Professor What]

5. Beliveau
6. Hasek
7. Harvey
8. Richard
9. Crosby
10. Ovechkin

 

[The Panther]

I'm not understanding why my friends here would rate Hull, Richard, or even Beliveau above Jagr or McDavid. Just talking about forwards, what's the justification for those?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm not understanding why my friends here would rate Hull, Richard, or even Beliveau above Jagr or McDavid. Just talking about forwards, what's the justification for those?

To me, there's a lot of value in being an all-star level player for an extended period of time. (Say, top 5-10 at their position).

Bourque played at that level almost continuously for 22 years. We can debate when Lidstrom started to peak, but call it 15 years for him. Harvey did that for 11 years, when careers were shorter. Crosby and Ovechkin both have had some down years, but they've been near the top almost continuously for 17 years. Beliveau and Richard were both at that level for around 15 years (when careers were shorter), and with Hull it's closer to 20 unless you dismiss the WHA outright.

McDavid has been elite for effectively seven seasons (and this year is only halfway done). Can you argue that McDavid's best seven years top the best seven seasons of Hull or Lidstrom or Crosby? Yes, for sure. But the difference (IMO) isn't big enough that I'd rank seven years of McDavid ahead of, say, 19 years of Hull. If the question is best peak, or most natural talent, I'd rank McDavid very high on the list. But "greatest", to me, has to take longevity into account.

On top of that, as great as McDavid was last spring, he probably still has the weakest playoff resume of anyone contending for the top ten. (Who would be next weakest - probably Eddie Shore)? It's very likely he'll change that with time, and I'll revise his ranking accordingly. But he hasn't done that yet.

(To anticipate two responses - first, I'm not talking about compiling, like Dave Andreychuk hanging on to score 35 points from the 3rd line. There's an obvious contrast between that, and say Ovechkin being near the top of the league in goals year after year. Second, Orr and Lemieux kind of break this rule, but they were so good, I'm okay making an exception for them. If McDavid starts dominating to the same extent as #66, I'll make the same concession for him).

 

[jigglysquishy]

To add onto that, this is only McDavid's 7th healthy season. I won't update a list mid season, so we have only 6 outstanding seasons to go off.

Hull and Beliveau were Hart finalists in their 7th best season. And then had a decade of elite play afterwards.

McDavid will almost certainly overtake them. But he's only a third through his career.

At this point of their careers, Sakic and Yzerman didn't have Cups, Crosby hadn't won a second Art Ross, Gretzky still had 2 Cups to win, Esposito hadn't hit 50 goals yet, Lidstrom had yet to win a Norris, Roy had 2 more Smythes to win, Jagr had 4 more Art Rosses to win. A lot more career left to play.

If McDavid pulls off the crazy season he's in the midst of (60 goals/140 points/Hart) he ends up with that peak signature season we've all expected him to have.

 

[The Panther]

To me, there's a lot of value in being an all-star level player for an extended period of time. (Say, top 5-10 at their position).

Bourque played at that level almost continuously for 22 years. We can debate when Lidstrom started to peak, but call it 15 years for him. Harvey did that for 11 years, when careers were shorter. Crosby and Ovechkin both have had some down years, but they've been near the top almost continuously for 17 years. Beliveau and Richard were both at that level for around 15 years (when careers were shorter), and with Hull it's closer to 20 unless you dismiss the WHA outright.

McDavid has been elite for effectively seven seasons (and this year is only halfway done). Can you argue that McDavid's best seven years top the best seven seasons of Hull or Lidstrom or Crosby? Yes, for sure. But the difference (IMO) isn't big enough that I'd rank seven years of McDavid ahead of, say, 19 years of Hull. If the question is best peak, or most natural talent, I'd rank McDavid very high on the list. But "greatest", to me, has to take longevity into account.

On top of that, as great as McDavid was last spring, he probably still has the weakest playoff resume of anyone contending for the top ten. (Who would be next weakest - probably Eddie Shore)? It's very likely he'll change that with time, and I'll revise his ranking accordingly. But he hasn't done that yet.

(To anticipate two responses - first, I'm not talking about compiling, like Dave Andreychuk hanging on to score 35 points from the 3rd line. There's an obvious contrast between that, and say Ovechkin being near the top of the league in goals year after year. Second, Orr and Lemieux kind of break this rule, but they were so good, I'm okay making an exception for them. If McDavid starts dominating to the same extent as #66, I'll make the same concession for him).

To add onto that, this is only McDavid's 7th healthy season. I won't update a list mid season, so we have only 6 outstanding seasons to go off.

Hull and Beliveau were Hart finalists in their 7th best season. And then had a decade of elite play afterwards.

McDavid will almost certainly overtake them. But he's only a third through his career.

At this point of their careers, Sakic and Yzerman didn't have Cups, Crosby hadn't won a second Art Ross, Gretzky still had 2 Cups to win, Esposito hadn't hit 50 goals yet, Lidstrom had yet to win a Norris, Roy had 2 more Smythes to win, Jagr had 4 more Art Rosses to win. A lot more career left to play.

If McDavid pulls off the crazy season he's in the midst of (60 goals/140 points/Hart) he ends up with that peak signature season we've all expected him to have.

Thanks for explaining; I can understand these perspectives.

I think we all (including me) factor in longevity and consistency by degrees, but I guess I am less concerned about it once a player has reached a certain stage in his career. What is that stage? I don't know exactly, but I think my general feeling is the "Bobby Orr Test". If the given player has put together as many strong consecutive seasons as Orr in Boston (i.e., 9 seasons, with about 7 at "elite" level), then that is enough for me.

At the end of this season, McDavid (remaining healthy) will have played only 62 fewer games for Edmonton than Orr played for Boston.

Don't get me wrong -- longevity and (esp.) consistency are big things for me, too. But if a player can put together about 7 or 8 consecutive elite seasons, that's enough for me to consider him for top-10 all time. (This is one reason I would rate Lindros higher than most of you ---this forum famously low-balls him --- but in his case, his regular injuries also knock him down a peg or two.)

 

[daver]

Thanks for explaining; I can understand these perspectives.

I think we all (including me) factor in longevity and consistency by degrees, but I guess I am less concerned about it once a player has reached a certain stage in his career. What is that stage? I don't know exactly, but I think my general feeling is the "Bobby Orr Test". If the given player has put together as many strong consecutive seasons as Orr in Boston (i.e., 9 seasons, with about 7 at "elite" level), then that is enough for me.

At the end of this season, McDavid (remaining healthy) will have played only 62 fewer games for Edmonton than Orr played for Boston.

Don't get me wrong -- longevity and (esp.) consistency are big things for me, too. But if a player can put together about 7 or 8 consecutive elite seasons, that's enough for me to consider him for top-10 all time. (This is one reason I would rate Lindros higher than most of you ---this forum famously low-balls him --- but in his case, his regular injuries also knock him down a peg or two.)

If injuries can be factored into the equation, the value of Crosby's career per game production is clearly closer to Howe's than it is to any other forward in contention for #5 - Richard, Beliveau, Hull and Jagr.

If he plays literally 50 - 60 more games (4% of his career) at key times in his career, he would be the consensus #5 player as he would have reasonably have 3 to 4 more Rosses and Hart trophies to compliment a playoff resume befitting his regular season resume.

Unlike Lindros, Crosby's injuries were more bad luck and also bad timing, to an almost comical level.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm not understanding why my friends here would rate Hull, Richard, or even Beliveau above Jagr or McDavid. Just talking about forwards, what's the justification for those?

The biggest reason for not having McDavid top 10 today for me is simply because it's not needed?

It might sound stupid, but why make it so difficult by trying to evaluate half a career vs full career of others, when I may as well wait ~3-4 more years to get a better sense of his full prime to see where he belongs.

If he retired at end of the season - would I have him top 10? I don't know, I'd have to look at it a lot more closely, but it's hard to compare half careers to full careers. May as well just wait...

For Crosby - I think it's around the 2016/2017 timeframe where I felt more comfortable ranking him all time in the top 10. Around ~age 30. It wasn't his full career, but was the majority of his prime was played out. I expect the same for McDavid, give it ~3-4 more years and i'll have a better sense of where to rank him.

 

[The Panther]

The biggest reason for not having McDavid top 10 today for me is simply because it's not needed?

It might sound stupid, but why make it so difficult by trying to evaluate half a career vs full career of others, when I may as well wait ~3-4 more years to get a better sense of his full prime to see where he belongs.

If he retired at end of the season - would I have him top 10? I don't know, I'd have to look at it a lot more closely, but it's hard to compare half careers to full careers. May as well just wait...

For Crosby - I think it's around the 2016/2017 timeframe where I felt more comfortable ranking him all time in the top 10. Around ~age 30. It wasn't his full career, but was the majority of his prime was played out. I expect the same for McDavid, give it ~3-4 more years and i'll have a better sense of where to rank him.

 

[blundluntman]

Hull, Hasek, Harvey, Richard, Crosby, Beliveau. I have a very hard time picking the order but this seems to make most sense to me at the time.

 

[Voight]

In no particular order Ovechkin, Bourque, Roy, Hull, Crosby

 

[tinyzombies]

Still Beliveau for me. 10 Cups as best player on two dynasties that played different styles, captain of second dynasty.

5. Beliveau
6. Roy (one of three most clutch players ever, best career ever)
7. Richard (one of three most clutch players ever, 2nd best adj goalscorer ever)
8. Hull
9. Morenz or Crosby (tough one... I'll take Morenz for now... best player ever up to Howe, and only then by career length... Crosby knocking on door)
10. Bourque

Lidstrom lots of Norrises but little competition.

 

[norrisnick]

Still Beliveau for me. 10 Cups as best player on two dynasties that played different styles, captain of second dynasty.

5. Beliveau
6. Roy (one of three most clutch players ever, best career ever)
7. Richard (one of three most clutch players ever, 2nd best adj goalscorer ever)
8. Hull
9. Morenz or Crosby (tough one... I'll take Morenz for now... best player ever up to Howe, and only then by career length... Crosby knocking on door)
10. Bourque

Lidstrom lots of Norrises but little competition.

Wouldn't that also apply to Beliveau's Cups?

You can only compete against the players in the league with you.

 

[tinyzombies]

Wouldn't that also apply to Beliveau's Cups?

You can only compete against the players in the league with you.

No because those are Cups, not individual awards. Not easy to win 5 in a row or 5 in 6 years as the main guy. That's actually the opposite proof. Just my opinion. First dynasty obviously easier because that top 6 was nuts.

I have Bourque over Harvey because he brought a more rounded offensive side that Harvey wasn't allowed to do and was hampered by the stick he was using. But it's a wash for me. Bourque was robbed of several Norrises by Coffey's flashy numbers.

 

[norrisnick]

No because those are Cups, not individual awards. Not easy to win 5 in a row or 5 in 6 years as the main guy. That's actually the opposite proof. Just my opinion. First dynasty obviously easier because that top 6 was nuts.

I have Bourque over Harvey because he brought a more rounded offensive side that Harvey wasn't allowed to do and was hampered by the stick he was using. But it's a wash for me. Bourque was robbed of several Norrises by Coffey's flashy numbers.

You think it's easy to win 6 Norris Trophies in the span of 7 seasons?

Bourque only finished 2nd to Coffey once.

 

[tinyzombies]

You think it's easy to win 6 Norris Trophies in the span of 7 seasons?

Bourque only finished 2nd to Coffey once.

These are all great players so you have to look for something to separate them. Anyone can argue one over the other.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No because those are Cups, not individual awards. Not easy to win 5 in a row or 5 in 6 years as the main guy. That's actually the opposite proof. Just my opinion. First dynasty obviously easier because that top 6 was nuts.

I have Bourque over Harvey because he brought a more rounded offensive side that Harvey wasn't allowed to do and was hampered by the stick he was using. But it's a wash for me. Bourque was robbed of several Norrises by Coffey's flashy numbers.

Yeah, pretty easy in a 6 team league on a team with 9 HOF'ers including prime Harvey and Plante

 

[Sentinel]

Hasek
Esposito
Ovechkin
Beliveau
Hull
Crosby / Makarov / Jagr / Shore, depending on the day of the week.

 

[tinyzombies]

Yeah, pretty easy in a 6 team league on a team with 9 HOF'ers including prime Harvey and Plante

You mean in a league that isn’t water down and only has the best players in the world in it? And the league where they rarely called stick penalties are holding or any other kind of rough stuff that was way out of bounds?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bobby Hull
Maurice Richard
Crosby
Hasek
Shore

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Crosby is 5th imo. Excellent all around resume as the best career of his generation, some excellent regular season peaks, style of play works in playoffs, and longevity already pretty good. His dominance for his era is as good as Beliveau's but he did it against harder competition.

Ovie has good argument to sneak in top 10

Lafleur (23 on last top 200) is probably one of the closest resumes to McDavid if he retires today, but I think I'd put Lafleur ahead due to proving more in playoffs and he puts up some 70 point seasons into his early 30s that add up to some value.

 

[markymarc1215]

5. Ovechkin has to be there. Likely to be the all time goal scoring leader, and in an era of much tighter defenses and much better goaltending.

6. Hasek of course, guy was in a league of his own.

7. Crosby, 3 cups, still going strong

8. Jagr, most dominant player not named Mario for the better part of a decade.

9. Bourque, leading defenseman in all time scoring and a Cup. Amazingly consistent.

10. Jean Beliveau, one of the best to play the game and plenty of Cups to his name.