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

[K1900L]

There should be some psychological research done on how these Mt. Rushmore guys appear and are never to be judged, compared or criticized afterwards, not just in hockey, but basically any sport.

I remember watching peak playoff-Malkin with my grandfather, and his reaction was something like: 'I have not seen a player dominate playoff-games like this since Lemieux', and somewhere around that time some 'expert'-rankings were published which had Malkin just, if at all, cracking the top 100.
This year, Draisaitl became the 3rd fastest player to reach 100 points in NHL playoff-history. Can't wait for experts to argue that he wasn't a top 50 player, being beaten by some guy named Dick McFlick, who played in the 40s and put up 7 goals against one-legged Todd Thotbreaker, a veteran from the Pacific-theater.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

There should be some psychological research done on how these Mt. Rushmore guys appear and are never to be judged, compared or criticized afterwards, not just in hockey, but basically any sport.

I remember watching peak playoff-Malkin with my grandfather, and his reaction was something like: 'I have not seen a player dominate playoff-games like this since Lemieux', and somewhere around that time some 'expert'-rankings were published which had Malkin just, if at all, cracking the top 100.
This year, Draisaitl became the 3rd fastest player to reach 100 points in NHL playoff-history. Can't wait for experts to argue that he wasn't a top 50 player, being beaten by some guy named Dick McFlick, who played in the 40s and put up 7 goals against one-legged Todd Thotbreaker, a veteran from the Pacific-theater.

Well, if your grandfather thought that it must be true.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, if your grandfather thought that it must be true.

The only expert rankings you need to look at are the one's post here on The History of Hockey.

Last time it was done Malkin was ranked number 52.

I consider my expertise the equal to your grandfather's and I had him at number 44 then.

A little bit. That's one of the things that comes with dealing with Lindros.

Games missed are games missed. If it HAS to be an injury, call it a headache...

*ashes cigar*

I like that.

 

[wetcoast]

You could run the same methodology for Kharlamov and would end up with similarly odd placings. I'll show you Kharlamov's league numbers between 68/69 and 75/76 (his entire prime)

68/69 - 3rd (Assists are missing all together for the vast majority of players so I'll use goals only)
69/70 - 5th (Assists are missing all together for the vast majority of players so I'll use goals only)
70/71 - 2nd
71/72 - 1st
72/73 - 10th
73/74 - 10th
74/75 - 5th
75/76 - 13th

Yet he was still considered the best player in the USSR in the latter part of this period. He also likely was. His incredible performance against NYR and the Habs happened in the 75/76 season for example. His prime would likely continue if he didn't end up in a massive car crash which happened in summer 76. Some players just do much better against crap competition but they struggle once the opponents get strong. Unfortunately the NHL skews this a lot because most teams are quite equal in strength (especially nowadays) and there is no international hockey either. In fact even back then players like Clarke and Dionne had much higher drop offs in scoring when in playoffs or while engaged in international hockey. In reality they just weren't as good as some people think. Esposito for example didn't have this problem at all.

Just looking at "points" or "goals" can be misleading. Especially when it comes down to the Soviet league where more than half of all assists are missing all together.

I think that Kharlamov and Firsov have completely different type of resumes though, one guy really got up to speed much quicker and we do have some evidence of him playing against stronger international competition and the Soviet league became much better in the 60s compared to the 70s.

Same could be argued for other countries like Sweden, Finland, United States and the Czechs.

 

[wetcoast]

Well, if your grandfather thought that it must be true.

Well only if it's on facebook eh?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I used him as an example as many use the hart voting results for propping up Clarke, Shore and then the hart results for Moore suddenly disappear.

Don't think anyone is putting Dickie Moore on the same level as Shore & Clarke.

At least they shouldn't.

Moore still has a very short peak/prime and being on 6 cup winners kind of indicates that if he had played on the Bruins then he wouldn't be in the top 100.

You can say that for a lot of players.

Yet Forsberg played a hell of alot more than Moore did and I think forsberg played more prime games than Clarke did, clarke had some icing added to his cake but when we look at overall impact Foppa had more impact IMO, especially in the playoffs and internationally.

Forsberg played 708 regular season games, 151 playoff games.

Moore played 719 regular season games, 135 playoff games.

Clarke didn't break out until age 22 and it was post expansion has a 7 year prime then a noticeable drop off. Foppa was an impact player in his age 21 season and was an impact player until the age of 32.

Even in their 20 year old seasons it's hard to argue that Foppa wasn't better, he just chose to stay in Sweden for the Olympics that year.

I know that you really value peak and can understand why you might have Clarke ahead quite a bit but for most other people the prime of forsberg and playoffs/international should have them really close one would think and personally I see some arguments for Foppa here.

I also think that if we imagine a fully integrated NHL for Clarke, like the state of the league that foppa played in then clarke doesn't even stand out as much in his peak.

I ranked Clarke 22, Forsberg 38.

 

[Overrated]

I think that Kharlamov and Firsov have completely different type of resumes though, one guy really got up to speed much quicker and we do have some evidence of him playing against stronger international competition and the Soviet league became much better in the 60s compared to the 70s.

Same could be argued for other countries like Sweden, Finland, United States and the Czechs.

I am not sure about CSSR and Sweden. Sweden definitely got stronger as time went on but since more and more Swedish players got siphoned off into the NHL they effectively never got to field better teams. CSSR was the strongest from the late 60s to the late 70s. The two greatest Czech defensemen of the Iron Curtain era were Suchy (1944) and Pospisil (1944). The best forwards were Nedomansky (1944) and Martinec (1949). Firsov got to play against all of them.

Even though in the early 1960s Canadian amateurs were still able to beat most of the European competition things changed heavily in the mid 60s. These are the GF and GA in international hockey starting from 1967 to the boycott in 1969.

Let's not pretend that Canadian or better yet American amateurs (you cherry picked one guy who happened to have a lucky tournament from the American team which won 2 games out of 10) were on the levels of the top European nations in the late 1960s.

 

[wetcoast]

Don't think anyone is putting Dickie Moore on the same level as Shore & Clarke.

At least they shouldn't.

we are in agreement there.

You can say that for a lot of players.

Forsberg played 708 regular season games, 151 playoff games.

Moore played 719 regular season games, 135 playoff games.

Sure but Foppa has almost all of those games playing at a really high level, Moore elss so and Moore was more a passenger on a great team while foppa was driving the bus more often in Colorado.

Also in his 2 Hart wins voters' didn't think very highly of Moore in Hart voting and that certainly needs to be looked at if we are talking about top 100 players all time and dickie is around 70th going off memory on the HOH list which seems to give him more leeway than most other players given the short prime and Hart voting.

I ranked Clarke 22, Forsberg 38.

Okay that's fair and that would make them probably within 5 spots on a centers list.

 

[wetcoast]

I am not sure about CSSR and Sweden. Sweden definitely got stronger as time went on but since more and more Swedish players got siphoned off into the NHL they effectively never got to field better teams. CSSR was the strongest from the late 60s to the late 70s. The two greatest Czech defensemen of the Iron Curtain era were Suchy (1944) and Pospisil (1944). The best forwards were Nedomansky (1944) and Martinec (1949). Firsov got to play against all of them.

Most of the national teams got better and had more star power in the 70s than in the 60s what you are saying above doesn't change any of this.

Even though in the early 1960s Canadian amateurs were still able to beat most of the European competition things changed heavily in the mid 60s. These are the GF and GA in international hockey starting from 1967 to the boycott in 1969.

Yes that doesn't refute my point that in the 70s is when the nations in question started producing better star players.

Let's not pretend that Canadian or better yet American amateurs (you cherry picked one guy who happened to have a lucky tournament from the American team which won 2 games out of 10) were on the levels of the top European nations in the late 1960s.

No they absolutely weren't at that level and I have expressed how poor the international competition was for Frisov already.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

we are in agreement there.



Sure but Foppa has almost all of those games playing at a really high level, Moore elss so and Moore was more a passenger on a great team while foppa was driving the bus more often in Colorado.

Also in his 2 Hart wins voters' didn't think very highly of Moore in Hart voting and that certainly needs to be looked at if we are talking about top 100 players all time and dickie is around 70th going off memory on the HOH list which seems to give him more leeway than most other players given the short prime and Hart voting.

Okay that's fair and that would make them probably within 5 spots on a centers list.

I had Moore at 94th on my list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Moore was a really talented player.

 

[Overrated]

Most of the national teams got better and had more star power in the 70s than in the 60s what you are saying above doesn't change any of this.

Yes that doesn't refute my point that in the 70s is when the nations in question started producing better star players.

No they absolutely weren't at that level and I have expressed how poor the international competition was for Frisov already.

Firsov wasn't that much older than the other guys. The prime of all of the great 1970s Soviet players already started in the late 60s. He might have had slightly worse scoring numbers than these guys in his last few seasons (68/69 --> 72/73) and he still ended up 7th overall (Eliteprospects has his assists missing for two whole seasons so I am only looking at goals)

while internationally against better opposition he blew everyone out the water in the very same period

and when isolating against CSSR/Sweden

Anatoli Firsov: 13 GP / 10 G / 7A / 1.31 PPG
Valeri Kharlamov: 14 GP / 7G / 6A / 0.93 PPG
Boris Mikhailov: 13 GP / 7G / 3A / 0.77 PPG
Vladimir Petrov: 14 GP / 6G / 4A / 0.71 PPG
Alexander Maltsev: 14 GP / 4G / 5A / 0.64 PPG

The better the opposition the better he performed despite being in his late 20s and early 30s while all of these other guys were in their very prime.

He also passes the eye test. In the games I've seen from him from that period he even looked the best.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This is probably the absolute worst rankings list I've ever seen. Mario Lemieux at number 12 (lmao), Toews ahead of Crosby, no Ovechkin in the Top 100 (but Stamkos is included), Wendel Clark and Linden in the Top 100 but no Lindros. Absolute garbage.

I know a lot of people on the main boards claim that HOH is biased against "modern" players. I think this list is a much better example.

Only two players in their top ten peaked after 1980. The HOH list (which was done only 3-4 years later) had four (and it's not because of what Crosby or Ovechkin added during that period - neither was in our top ten at the time).

On this list, Lidstrom ranks 35th. Jagr is 40th. Hasek is 89th! Our list had all of them in the top twenty.

If I've counted correctly, only six players in the top 25 player a non-trivial portion of their career in the 1990's (or beyond). On the HOH list, there were eleven.

On the other hand - it's not like he's particularly favourable to pre-WWII hockey. Nighbor isn't on the list at all. Neither are Cook or Boucher.

There are some ridiculously inflated rankings for some Leafs players. Sittler is 28th (on par with Bossy, Sakic, and Brodeur). Wendel Clark is 72nd (he has no business being anywhere close to this list - casually ranked a few spots ahead of some true Leafs legend like Salming, Broda and Bower). Kennedy is missing entirely.

Three time Norris winner Pilote is missing. So are modern greats like Pronger, Stevens and Chara. Chelios ranks behind Lapointe.

I'm not trying to be too critical of what I assume was a good faith effort by a random fan. But there's a difference between "HOH's list is too harsh towards my favourite (current) player" and "yikes, this list is systematically biased against post-1980 hockey".

 

[VanIslander]

HO... shooting fish in a barrel.

(Edit: it needed to be done. Maybe 'taking it behind the woodshed' would be a more apt comp.)

 

[Davenport]

My final selection for the under-rated monument is Ted Lindsay. Like Phil Esposito - who played and had his most productive seasons with Bobby Orr - Lindsay, who had his most productive seasons on the Production Line in Detroit, is seen by too many hockey fans as someone who rode Gordie Howe's suspenders. Nope. Ted led the Wings in points for three straight seasons before #9 emerged as the most productive player in Detroit, and in the entire NHL. It could be argued that Howe benefitted from playing on a line with Ted Lindsay and Sid Abel.

Lindsay finished in the Top Ten in goals scored ten times, in assists eight times, and in points eight times. This while finishing in the Top Ten in PIM 14 times. Selected to First All Star team eight times, and to the second team once.

Detroit reached the Stanley Cup Final eight times while Lindsay was with the Wings, and hoisted the Cup four times. The Hawks - who had made the playoffs just twice since WW2 - participated in the postseason twice in the three seasons Ted was there. His production in 1958-59 was especially impressive: 70 games, 22 goals, 36 assists, 58 points and 184 PIM (most in the NHL). In six playoff games he had 2 goals, 4 assists, 6 points and 13 PIM.

 

[VanIslander]

My Mount Rushmore of Underrated:

1. Marty Barry. The HHOFer who in 1937 won his second straight Stanley Cup, leading the league in playoff goals, assists and points. And winning the Lady Byng. Who ever utters his name? ..... Bueller.... Bueller...

2. Igor Larionov. He is honored officially, praised by his peers, but pissed on by everyone i communicate with! Wha? ... i saw him work magic at the Joe (i was a student across the Detroit river for a couple of years), i researched and saw several Soviet games... he is "the Professor",... think Adam Oates. .. but more so... a tactical genius, positionally, with the pass, ... he is one of those you appreciate MUCH more by going to games (unlike a Bure or Ronning - vultures who circle center ice like Coffey... embarrassing to those in the building but heroes on TV news later).

3. Dmitri Yushkevich. He went back to Russia and won awards, biatching about how the NHL limited his powerplay time and offensive tactics. But man,... he stopped rush after rush after rush after rush,... a clinic he put on. I went to a few of his games and was in awe at every effective shift. In 1996 i went to the Montreal Forum and saw Benoit Brunet own every shift. Yet i went to watch TV news of others ... not him? Defense doesn't make news without big hits or injuries or something other than a flashy defensive play.

4. Dick Irvin, the center from the Western leagues who became the first Chicago Blackhawk captain ever, his wingman George Hay more heralded yet a lesser light. Irvin was better several history books agree. Onliners don't.

 

[SML2]

I'll pitch one name for now:

Underrated:

Eric Lindros: He seems to be considered a fringe top 100 player at this point. I feel a lot of people have forgotten or don't realize how good he was in his prime and punish him too much for games missed in an era where a lot of the most talented players were often banged up and out of the line-up. I wasn't a huge fan of his growing up, but he was the real deal. He was dominant. There is data that indicates that he impacted goal differential at even strength positively to a degree very few ever have. People hold his lack of playoff success against him as well. I think he showed in '97 that he could be a force in the post season. He wasn't quite McDavid 2024 good, but he played at a level one would expect from the best player in the League. He really only had one more opportunity in the playoffs during his prime.

I'd say he became underrated due to how hyped he was in his early years and for years after his prime ended. I think a lot of people who didn't follow or did not pay close attention when he was in his prime looked at his career on paper expecting a lot of top two, top three type scoring finishes (ala Crosby/McDavid) and were disappointed when they saw he was a top ten scorer just three times and a top five scorer only once. However, if you look at PPG numbers, he was consistently in the top five during his prime and this was with guys like Lemieux and Jagr in the League.

I do think he left a lot to be desired and you can give him some criticism for not playing with more precaution at times ; however, I feel his prime and peak have become underrated by many.

Pre-concussion Lindros was unlike any other player ever. Any player over 6'3" who played in his era should have to make payments to him monthly. The entire league went into panic mode and drafted size in response.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Underrated:

Alexei Kovalev
Peter Stastny
Brian Leetch
Sigmund Palfy
Theo Fleury
Curtis Joseph
Ron Francis

Overrated:

Scott Niedermayer
Slava Fetisov
Peter Forsberg
Paul Kariya
Chris Pronger
Vladislav Tretiak
Andy Moog

 

[VanIslander]

Underrated:

Alexei Kovalev
Peter Stastny
Brian Leetch
Sigmund Palfy
Theo Fleury
Curtis Joseph
Ron Francis

Overrated:

Scott Niedermayer
Slava Fetisov
Peter Forsberg
Paul Kariya
Chris Pronger
Vladislav Tretiak
Andy Moog

Which ones will you put your foot down and carve a bust of? .... Kovalev as underrated? Fetisov as overrated?

You gotta throw the glove down before you run the gauntlet.

 

[carjackmalone]

Most overrated is HHOF player Dick Duff

 

[wetcoast]

Moore was a really talented player.

He was, it's just that his resume and body of work is quite small for a guy ranked so high by many.

I mean Lindros was a really talented guy and brought an incredible package but........

 

[The Panther]

With Lindros (and I swear I am not a big fan of the guy!), it's easy to forget how targetted he was in that 90s' era.

Sure, he lived and died by the sword, but things like this you would just never see with a superstar player today, needless to say:

 

[tabness]

With Lindros (and I swear I am not a big fan of the guy!), it's easy to forget how targetted he was in that 90s' era.

Sure, he lived and died by the sword, but things like this you would just never see with a superstar player today, needless to say:

biggest flattery right?

i mean GMs in the league were literally changing what they valued in scouting and drafting and team building all the way down to the players who went after the big dog in the yard, they don't care to step and size up against others like that

(ofc who could actually step to Lindros toe to toe? so you gotta come with the sneak attack)

what an unbelievable player, what the hell happened to the NHL after lol?

 

[frisco]

Pre-concussion Lindros was unlike any other player ever. Any player over 6'3" who played in his era should have to make payments to him monthly. The entire league went into panic mode and drafted size in response.

Lindros was more unique than actually great. When you look at his career there's obviously a lot of holes. No Stanley Cup. One top 5 scoring finish (in a shortened season). Zero 50-goal years. One 100-point campaign.

And he was hyped beyond belief. Not his fault but no player ever had the pre-NHL buzz than Lindros did. There's quite a chasm between what he could have done and actually did.

My Best-Carey

 

[Dale53130]

Lindros was basically at a 50-goal, 100 point pace his first 5 years in the league.

I'm from Winnipeg, and I was clearly rooting for Selanne that season (Calder), but honestly, I was always worried about Lindros. Had he played the full season, and let's say he finished with 55 goals, ~105 points, and the Flyers make the playoffs, I think he would have won it.

biggest flattery right?

i mean GMs in the league were literally changing what they valued in scouting and drafting and team building all the way down to the players who went after the big dog in the yard, they don't care to step and size up against others like that

(ofc who could actually step to Lindros toe to toe? so you gotta come with the sneak attack)

what an unbelievable player, what the hell happened to the NHL after lol?

Reading about the teams (1991, 1992) that seemed to be in the running for trading for Lindros (Flyers, Rangers, Kings, etc), I only thought that the Red Wings made sense. If he had been surrounded with the players on that 1992-93 team, having guys like Probert and Kocur around, coupled with one of Yzerman or Fedorov (though he was the one likely to be traded), and all of that depth in juniors and with Adirondack at the time, that would have been an ideal landing spot for him.

I was very big on those early '90 teams, when they had Jimmy Carson and Paul Ysebaert playing on the 2nd and 3rd lines (or wherever they needed to be), both reaching 30 goals in back-to-back years. They were my favorite team to chose when playing the first two EA NHL games ('92 and '93), because they had enough depth to roll out 4 relatively strong lines.