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

[tinyzombies]

Crosby would be right, but he also never faced Bourque or any other defenseman in contention for 2nd best of all time.

When no one is looking you can slide those Norrises Coffey won over to Bourque as well.

 

[JackSlater]

With people that value peak play above prime and consistency. I can see why Bourque is ommitted. Other then that though, he honestly seems like a slam dunk player in the top 10 to me. He seems to have the best case for elite longevity ever excluding Howe, and it looks like he's solidly 2nd place in that regard.

We're talking about a player that finished top 5 in norris voting 19 times, and never finished outside of the top 10 his entire 22 year career.

When you stack his norris finishes up against the likes of Lidstrom and Harvey, theres a noticeable gap in Bourque's favour.

Enough so that the 2 extra Norris wins shouldn't trump 19 years vs 13 years of top 5 Norris finishes. Lidstrom has 3 finishes just outside the top 5. So even if we're being generous by including those 3 years, he still has 3 other years where he was completely left off the Norris voting.

Lidstrom would have had to been top 5 in Norris voting his entire 20 year career to beat Bourque in that regard.

Bourque is a justifiable pick top ten pick, especially if someone favours longevity and career value. Just among defencemen his peak is competitive with anyone other than Orr's, and he beats everyone else in terms of longevity at an elite level.

 

[Neutrinos]

The faulty logic in this analysis is that you have gotten into the realm of a hypothetical scenario with a clear agenda as to why you went into that realm.

Context as to league size needs to be considered when comparing raw scoring finishes when you have two players with similar offensive resumes but it is not reasonable to bring a player up a clear level statistically. This doesn't require a thought experiment of removing players from the league and throwing out subjective interpretations masquerading as arguments.

I like the narrative that "OV started out like Bobby Hull then morphed into Brett Hull" after his peak. OV's longevity makes him the "Gordie Howe" of goalscorers; maybe didn't reach the goalscoring peak of a few others but his ability to stay among the elite goalscorers for an unprecedented amount of time is worthy of serious consideration in comparison to his direct peers (Hull, Jagr, Richard, Lafleur).

Shouldn't players be ranked based on the overall impact of their play, and not just their yearly goal total?

From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin had 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135


It just doesn't make sense that one of the 10 best players of all-time would go entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

 

[JackSlater]

Shouldn't players be ranked based on the overall impact of their play, and not just their yearly goal total?

From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135


It just doesn't make sense that one of the 10 best players of all-time would go entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

He's talking specifically about goal scoring. However I do consider post-2010 Ovechkin a pretty underwhelming player when it comes to the top ten or so players ever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No order...

*Martin Brodeur ~ His win total speaks for itself. Over 100 more wins than second place Patrick Roy. I know he had an incredibly long career, but I can't hold that against him.

*Alex Ovechkin ~ Number Two all-time in goals scored. There is no way anyone can have over 800 goals and not be in the Top Ten.

*Ray Bourque ~ Over 400 goals and 1500 points. Number Three all-time in +/- behind Bobby Orr and Larry Robinson, and ahead of fourth-place Wayne Gretzky. In MY opinion, the second-best defenseman in history after Orr.

*Patrick Roy ~ Number One all-time in playoff wins with 151, 38 more playoff wins than Brodeur in 3 fewer seasons, and three Conn Smythe Trophies won in three different decades: 1986; 1993; 2001.

*Maurice Richard ~ Doesn't quite have the numbers that others on this list have, but he was dominant in his era in a way that puts him on this list, and there are very few players in NHL history I'd rather have on the ice if I were down by a goal with less than two minutes to go.

*Jaromir Jagr ~ Second all-time in career points with 1921, and Number One all-time in game-winning goals with 135. Jagr made a difference in the NHL standings and record books. Won the Art Ross Trophy five times. Tied with Esposito and behind only Lemieux; Howe; and Gretzky for most Ross wins.

May be the first siting of Brodeur in the Top 10.

 

[rfournier103]

May be the first siting of Brodeur in the Top 10.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

He's got the most wins among net-minders. I'm pretty sure that counts for something. I've seen him play many times and I remember him being pretty good.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

He's got the most wins among net-minders. I'm pretty sure that counts for something. I've seen him play many times and I remember him being pretty good.

Gotta be better than pretty good to be a top 10 player.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"No thanks" to any goalie in the top 10 for me...

 

[rfournier103]

Gotta be better than pretty good to be a top 10 player.

I think you know me well enough by now to know what I mean by saying Martin Brodeur was “pretty good.”

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think you know me well enough by now to know what I mean by saying Martin Brodeur was “pretty good.”

True.

But you had to know I would reply in kind.

 

[rfournier103]

True.

But you had to know I would reply in kind.

You strike me as the kind of man who is always pushing me to be a better version of myself.

I had a teacher like that in high school. No matter what I turned in, it was never good enough. He knew what I could do, and demanded better.

If that is where we are, then I appreciate that. Thank you. If not, I appreciate it anyway because you refuse to let me float through here like a minimalist lump of crap.

If you’re ever in my neck of the woods, the first round is on me.

 

[Neutrinos]

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

He's got the most wins among net-minders. I'm pretty sure that counts for something. I've seen him play many times and I remember him being pretty good.

He's also got the most games played among netminders with 1266, which is 222 ahead of the next guy on the list

 

[rfournier103]

He's also got the most games played among netminders with 1266, which is 222 ahead of the next guy on the list

Are we going to punish him for his longevity?

 

[Neutrinos]

Are we going to punish him for his longevity?

What did you have in mind?

 

[rfournier103]

What did you have in mind?

He played in New Jersey. That’s punishment enough.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He's also got the most games played among netminders with 1266, which is 222 ahead of the next guy on the list

And the most losses.

 

[Overrated]

"No thanks" to any goalie in the top 10 for me...

Why shouldn't Hasek be in the top10? He dominated against skaters in maybe the most competitive era ever.

 

[crobro]

Hull
Shore
Beliveau
richard
Hasek
Jagr

 

[daver]

He's talking specifically about goal scoring. However I do consider post-2010 Ovechkin a pretty underwhelming player when it comes to the top ten or so players ever.

There certainly is a bit of Jekyll and Hyde to his career arc, and accordingly the narrative about him too.

Peak OV had no flaws, or his offensive upside was so high it didn't matter that he hardly put any effort on the defensive side of things; the other team had to be wary of a him in all ends of the ice. This is similar Jagr and Mario

Post 2010 saw glimpses of peak OV but he fundamentally became more of a triggerman more than an offensive force. He received appropriate recognition in Hart voting in the years where he wasn't a clear liability defensively (13/14 most notably), but his post peak/age 26 onwards resume would certainly place him outside the Top20/30 while his three year peak/by age 25 resume certainly has a Top 5/10ish feel.

 

[Johnny Tomala]

Hašek
Jagr
Beliveau
Bobby Hull
Harvey

 

[rfournier103]

He's also got the most games played among netminders with 1266, which is 222 ahead of the next guy on the list

And the most losses.

Cy Young has both the most wins and most losses in MLB pitching history, and the award for best pitcher is named after him. (He likely has the most career starts, also)

 

[JackSlater]

There certainly is a bit of Jekyll and Hyde to his career arc, and accordingly the narrative about him too.

Peak OV had no flaws, or his offensive upside was so high it didn't matter that he hardly put any effort on the defensive side of things; the other team had to be wary of a him in all ends of the ice. This is similar Jagr and Mario

Post 2010 saw glimpses of peak OV but he fundamentally became more of a triggerman more than an offensive force. He received appropriate recognition in Hart voting in the years where he wasn't a clear liability defensively (13/14 most notably), but his post peak/age 26 onwards resume would certainly place him outside the Top20/30 while his three year peak/by age 25 resume certainly has a Top 5/10ish feel.

I'd be more harsh than that on post-2010 Ovechkin. Extremely one dimensional and on a team willing to build its first line and power play around getting him goals, of course to his credit he obliged by scoring tons of goals. Ovechkin from 2006-2010 is a different story and that period is what puts him into the conversation with the best ever in the 5-20 range.

 

[daver]

I'd be more harsh than that on post-2010 Ovechkin. Extremely one dimensional and on a team willing to build its first line and power play around getting him goals, of course to his credit he obliged by scoring tons of goals. Ovechkin from 2006-2010 is a different story and that period is what puts him into the conversation with the best ever in the 5-20 range.

It is an interesting thought experiment to first, rate OV's post 2010 career vs. his peers over the same time period, then compare how his Top 20 all-time peers fared after age 25, then weigh that vs. their overall body of work.

 

[JackSlater]

It is an interesting thought experiment to first, rate OV's post 2010 career vs. his peers over the same time period, then compare how his Top 20 all-time peers fared after age 25, then weigh that vs. their overall body of work.

I'm more interested in how people would rank post-2010 Ovechkin alone as a player. I think it would be all over the map. If you are just looking at trophies he is going to be pretty high, but if you care about actually watching the player then he isn't. It's not really the point of this thread though.

 

[daver]

I'm more interested in how people would rank post-2010 Ovechkin alone as a player. I think it would be all over the map. If you are just looking at trophies he is going to be pretty high, but if you care about actually watching the player then he isn't. It's not really the point of this thread though.

I think his Hart trophy finishes are pretty representative of him as a player moreso than his Rocket finishes.