Your Mt.Rushmore of OVERRATED and Mt.Rushmore of UNDERRATED ... all time

[Arthur Morgan]

I think he already is the best player never to have won a Cup. He's clearly ahead of guys like Dionne, Park and Thornton.

maybe true but I mean, he still has ALOT of years left. more of a thing they say once they retire.
I think he wins one at some point anyways but right now I just cant place him above the others based on stats or personal awards

 

[MadLuke]

thats all nice and all but in sports the best of the best are weighed by championships. he 100% need to lead his team to a cup to have a chance at joining the top 4/5.

people are too quick to just place him in the top 4 already, imo he still hasnt passed Crosby

Oh by above everybody I thought you meant, considering the best player in the world currently playing.

Has for joint the top 4/5, that really new that he is in everyone conversation.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

So Beliveau, Maurice & Henri Richard, and Red Kelly are the best of the best?

why is hockey the only sport where winning cups doesn't matter? the only sport where oh its just a team award. Im sorry but without cups McDavid isn't joining the top 5.
winning matters

Oh by above everybody I thought you meant, considering the best player in the world currently playing.

Has for joint the top 4/5, that really new that he is in everyone conversation.

I meant more so I get it, he's the best player in the world. and I agree he is 100% the best player in the world. but still way too young in his career to just place in the top 4 or even 5 all time.
I say he's overrated because everyone or alot of people expect him to just bump everyone out without even winning a single cup.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's not where it doesn't matter, it's just that the biggest sport in North America (football -> NFL) completely overrates how big of a deal it is.

I'm not sure what baseball's historical community thinks about it, to be honest...I feel like championship rhetoric isn't so high there.

And the NBA is generally a non-competitive league where 75% of the league is completely ineligible to win a championship at game 1 of the regular season. So, the stars of the game are constantly around championships because of super teams and the like...

 

[MadLuke]

why is hockey the only sport where winning cups doesn't matter? the only sport where oh its just a team award. Im sorry but without cups McDavid isn't joining the top 5.
winning matters

Baseball (at least MLB) is a sport for which winning matter the less in ranking talk, players can be avoided by pitcher and are 1/9 or so of an offense.

NFL if you are not a quaterback, does not matter that much, no many talk about Barry Sanders playoff resume in all-time talk.

It goes from being almost all about it in a individual sports, to less and less as the sport get more and more a team sports (in football you rarely play defense and offense and if you are not a quaterback good luck having the kind of impact to turn a mediocre team into a contender).

It is I think, around:
NBA
quaterback-NFL
NHL
non quaterback NFL/MLB

How much winning is used in all times talks

 

[MadLuke]

It's not where it doesn't matter, it's just that the biggest sport in North America (football -> NFL) completely overrates how big of a deal it is.

Only for the QB position, Sanders, Jim brown won 0 superbowl, single win pre-SB era I think. Sanders did he ever won a playoff games ?

And the NBA is generally a non-competitive league where 75% of the league is completely ineligible to win a championship at game 1 of the regular season. So, the stars of the game are constantly around championships because of super teams and the like...

That was an old eras of the Celtics days or exagerated since, In the 2000s, 17 different NBA teams reached the finals vs 25 for the nhl, 11 vs 13 different winners (by a quick look could have made a mistake), some from small market like Cleveland's won.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Baseball (at least MLB) is a sport for which winning matter the less in ranking talk, players can be avoided by pitcher and are 1/9 or so of an offense.

NFL if you are not a quaterback, does not matter that much, no many talk about Barry Sanders playoff resume in all-time talk.

It goes from being almost all about it in a individual sports, to less and less as the sport get more and more a team sports (in football you rarely play defense and offense and if you are not a quaterback good luck having the kind of impact to turn a mediocre team into a contender).

It is I think, around:
NBA
quaterback-NFL
NHL
non quaterback NFL/MLB

How much winning is used in all times talks

Have heard many say the greatest hitter in baseball history was Ted Williams. Zero championships.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Baseball (at least MLB) is a sport for which winning matter the less in ranking talk, players can be avoided by pitcher and are 1/9 or so of an offense.

NFL if you are not a quaterback, does not matter that much, no many talk about Barry Sanders playoff resume in all-time talk.

It goes from being almost all about it in a individual sports, to less and less as the sport get more and more a team sports (in football you rarely play defense and offense and if you are not a quaterback good luck having the kind of impact to turn a mediocre team into a contender).

It is I think, around:
NBA
quaterback-NFL
NHL
non quaterback NFL/MLB

How much winning is used in all times talks

yeah you make good points I just think its too early to place him there. I thought the same way about Crosby and Ovechkin before they won too. winning does make a difference. imo McDavid needs one otherwise there will always be people like me who will argue he doesnt belong there.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Only for the QB position, Sanders, Jim brown won 0 superbowl, single win pre-SB era I think. Sanders did he ever won a playoff games ?


That was an old eras of the Celtics days or exagerated since, In the 2000s, 17 different NBA teams reached the finals vs 25 for the nhl, 11 vs 13 different winners (by a quick look could have made a mistake), some from small market like Cleveland's.

I've heard Barry Sanders get knocked for his lack of playoff success. But I've heard it go the other way too, that it wasn't his fault.

It's not about teams in the NBA. It's about super teams. The Cavaliers were relevant the second LeBron was there and irrelevant the second he left, right?

 

[MadLuke]

Have heard many say the greatest hitter in baseball history was Ted Williams. Zero championships.

I think Barry Bonds is a good recent example of why, it is virtually impossible to be better than getting your team 1 walk every 8.x at bats (why ever pitch to you if you ever get better than this like Bonds kind of reached), should this be enough to say you need to win a couple of time to be in best of all time talks ?

Peak Bonds in 2002 , SLD 1.294, OPS of 1.994, lost in seven, they gave him 13 walks on 30 PA, he did a lot with only 17 at bats (8hits-4HR-6RBI), but how much can you realistically achieve in that context, they were avoiding him almost 50% of the time in the playoff.

I do not remember during the is Ohtani the best ever at it, the lack of world series being ever brought up, even for Trout that his past is prime by now, the understanding a player cannot pull a team in baseball seem the general consensus.

 

[MadLuke]

It's not about teams in the NBA. It's about super teams. The Cavaliers were relevant the second LeBron was there and irrelevant the second he left, right?

It is a high sample sports where the best team than to win a lot yes, but no one had the Wolves vs Mavericks in the west before the season start (or the Celtics vs the Pacers in the east) and the Mavericks would not be what people would have call a super team (they missed the playoff last year, they add key complementary but not big name this year) and they were a Luka being Luka and Kyrie going Kyrie to be competitive for the title.

7 last champions in the NBA were all different teams, the Raptors did it, it is a strong parity era, you cannot wins with lucky bounce (a game with hot 3s maybe) so there 0, everyone can go and win it all once the playoff start mentality like it exist in the nhl, but in the NHL it is completely overrated, almost all Cinderella type run fall down before lifting the cup.

It is not that common for teams that are not really good to win it all in the NFL, MLB, NHL either.

 

[JackSlater]

Only for the QB position, Sanders, Jim brown won 0 superbowl, single win pre-SB era I think. Sanders did he ever won a playoff games ?


That was an old eras of the Celtics days or exagerated since, In the 2000s, 17 different NBA teams reached the finals vs 25 for the nhl, 11 vs 13 different winners (by a quick look could have made a mistake), some from small market like Cleveland's.

I have to speak up for Jim Brown. He won an NFL championship, not his fault that he retired before the Super Bowl existed. I'd love to see the reaction if McDavid pulled a Jim Brown and retired after next year or something along those lines. Something tells me Hollywood isn't interested in this case though.

It doesn't matter how another sport views championships. That some sports, namely basketball and football when it comes to quarterbacks, have a stupid way of viewing things by ascribing team results to the individual should no impact how anyone views things in hockey. I know in baseball they have a much more reasonable view, and I've seen some interesting writing on historical comparisons in boxing where quality can matter over quantity. Tennis has adopted a strange way to judge players that doesn't really fit with the sport's own history. Soccer opinions can be so bizarre that it's not worth following to me. Of course it exists in hockey as well, that being that some player is judged by what his team did, but if you're going to elevate McDavid if Skinner has a shutout in game 7 against Florida then I don't know what you think you're comparing... doesn't sound like players though.

 

[wetcoast]

This is amazing in that I strongly disagree with every single point @frisco made!

Wrong.

Wrong.

He didn't win the Stanley Cup, but he won the NHL western conference on a club that was sub-.500 and out of the playoffs when he joined it.

He won the Memorial Cup.

He won the Canada Cup.

He won an Olympic Gold medal.

He won the Hart Trophy.

He tied for a scoring title.

"Finishes" are one thing, but how about looking at how he did relative to peers? In most of his prime seasons with Philly, he was playing 75%-90% of the games (1997 and'2000 are the exceptions, when he played about 66% of the games). That's why the seasonal totals you're looking for aren't there.

PPG:
1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4

(remove Gretzky / Lemieux):
1, 1, 2 (1st if we discounted Neely's 49 games), 2, 4, 4

Point-scoring pace for 82 games:
129, 125, 125, 122, 107, 101 (rookie year)

I would say it is his fault, or at least his family's fault. They were promoting him to high heaven, publishing his autobiography before he'd played a shift in the NHL. Most of the backlash to follow they brought on themselves.

No, there isn't. From 1992 to 2000, he was one of the highest-performing NHL players of all time.

Great points and you know it really makes me wonder if in an alternate universe that you know both guys will be normally healthy would they take Jagr or Lindros?

Even if one has the gut instinct with Jagr, upon reflection even that person can see that's it's close.

That's how good Lindros actually was.

Also for the lack of a SC thing, he most certainly would have won the Conn smythe that year had the Flyers won and he was in on 50% of Philly's 6 SC goals.

Maybe the Flyers beat the Avs, wouldn't that have been a series for the ages, if they somehow didn't end up playing the Dynasty Red Wings.

 

[wetcoast]

He won the Eastern Conference championship in his 5th year and was swept in Finals where he had three points in four games and was minus 5. This was his one trip to the Finals.

Funny thing was that an under rated guy (especially until his first Norris) Lidstrom was what Lindros was up against, as well as the detroit machine.

He won the Memorial Cup.

He won the Canada Cup but was a leader on Canadian teams which were considered failures in 1996 and 1998. I forgot he won the gold medal in 2002. His contributions were one point in six games and a minus 3.

He won the Hart and tied for the scoring lead (technically 2nd).

Relative to his peers, he was 2nd, 6th and 7th as his only and best top 10 scoring years.

What he could have done if he wasn't injured, fighting with management, holding out, etc., is speculation. But I stand by my statement of the chasm between his concrete accomplishments vs. the woulda, coulda, shoulda was huge.

My Best-Carey

I think that a lot of people just plain don't like Lindros and enver would due to non playing reasons, his family, entitlement however one wants to phrase it they just don't like the guy so it's easier for them to see what wasn't there instead of what he was.

Imagine giving up Lidstrom and Fedorov for Lindros ? !

Add those two to Sakic, Roy, Forsberg, and the Avs/Nordiques would win 3 or 4 extra Cups.

I like your post but the thing is that in the piece you quoted Lidstrom doesn't come up in either Detroit offer or Flyers ask.

 

[sr edler]

Overrated for me are absolutely Kovalev and Iginla. Both were really good players at their best, but the way some people talk about them here on this board you would think if they were teleported to a Biblical setting they would be Jesus and Moses respectively.

With Kovalev it's the ”he didn't care” nonsense, and with Iginla tons of people seem to pretend that he carried a super complete game only because he fought guys.

As for underrated, I don't even care. All the players I love are probably underrated.

 

[SealsFan]

Underrated: two guys who toiled for the mediocre Penguins teams of the 70's and didn't get the big media attention -- Jean Pronovost and Ron Stackhouse.

 

[Crosby2010]

Mount Rushmore of underrated:
Claude Giroux, J-C Tremblay, Elmer Lach, Turk Broda

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Mount Rushmore of underrated:
Claude Giroux, J-C Tremblay, Elmer Lach, Turk Broda

Broda and Lach are both in the Hall of Fame.

How underrated can they be?

 

[Voight]

Have heard many say the greatest hitter in baseball history was Ted Williams. Zero championships.

Baseball players pre 1960s get a lot of slack when it comes to lack of playoff success because for the longest time, the best teams in each league played each other for the World Series and that was it. There was no bracket. So if your team didn't finish 1st, well, you weren't going to play in the playoffs that year.

Evan after they started doing a small bracket (two teams from each league), for 24 years there were only 4 playoff teams any given year.

 

[Crosby2010]

Broda and Lach are both in the Hall of Fame.

How underrated can they be?

Sometimes they are forgotten gems.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Baseball players pre 1960s get a lot of slack when it comes to lack of playoff success because for the longest time, the best teams in each league played each other for the World Series and that was it. There was no bracket. So if your team didn't finish 1st, well, you weren't going to play in the playoffs that year.

Evan after they started doing a small bracket (two teams from each league), for 24 years there were only 4 playoff teams any given year.

Williams also only played on one pennant winner in 19 seasons.

 

[MXD]

Broda and Lach are both in the Hall of Fame.

How underrated can they be?

I mean... Lets say the poster sees Turk Broda as the 10th-ish best netminder of alltime, and Lach as a the 20th-ish best center off all-time.

Both positions :
- Are absolutely reasonable (keyword "ish" for both players, 20th feels high for Lach in 2024)
- Would be more favorable to both players than the general consensus

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I mean... Lets say the poster sees Turk Broda as the 10th-ish best netminder of alltime, and Lach as a the 20th-ish best center off all-time.

Both positions :
- Are absolutely reasonable (keyword "ish" for both players, 20th feels high for Lach in 2024)
- Would be more favorable to both players than the general consensus

So that would be underrated-ish.

Not really Mount Rushmore of underrated.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So that would be underrated-ish.

Not really Mount Rushmore of underrated.

What if the poster also happens to think that Mount Rushmore is overrated?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What if the poster also happens to think that Mount Rushmore is overrated?

Excellent question.