Joe Pelletier's Top 100 all-time

From the Creamery Kings to the Salary Cap....
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Joe Pelletier's Top 100 all-time

Post #1 by Dr_Chimera » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:42 pm

A strong list from a good writer who knows the history of the game well.

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2013/11/top-100-greatest-hockey-players-of-all.html

I have no real beef with any part, even though I probably would have done things differently.

For one thing, I am less keen to reward players based on mystical "reputation." For example, it is believed that Maurice Richard "transcended" the game. But what does this mean? Even though, Richard may still be the fifth best player of all time, perhaps this is not the best way to make the case.

I also think that Messier is somewhat overrated, even if still great. What a great situation he was in while in Edmonton and his numbers look better than they should.

Impressed by the consideration given to European and Russian stars. Even though Kharlamov's reputation is similarly "transcendent" (je ne sais quoi), I guess I can accept seeing him as the top-ranked Russian. Makarov is represented as a sort of a wink-wink to the Hall. Would have been nice to see Firsov, Mikhailov, Petrov and Martinec, but Joe is playing it just a touch safe here. Maybe in 10 years when the world is ready.

Having Crosby and Ovechkin in the top 50 is the right call. Why wait? They are that good.
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #2 by Cao » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:34 pm

Datsyuk at 92 is weird, innit?
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #3 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:42 am

Cao wrote:Datsyuk at 92 is weird, innit?


Why?
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #4 by Cao » Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:07 am

I just figure if you're going to rate active players like Crosby and Ovechkin, putting Datsyuk there is weird when Malkin is around the same age and has comparable hardware.
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #5 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:34 pm

Datsyuk is easily top ten. I have demonstrated this many times.
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #6 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:36 pm

Also, Crosby's better than Yzer--

[RIGHT]"Yzerman is turning, and coming in..." :coley_moley: [/RIGHT]
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #7 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:12 pm

If I'm to nitpick:

- Lafleur is overrated on this list
- Messier and Mikita too
- Jagr should be top 20, with a case for top 10 (how is he worse than Lafleur???)
- Henri Richard is overrated
- Makarov has a case for being the second best forward of the 1980, so underrated
- Lindros shouldn't be here
- Nor should Robitaille
- Cournoyer is a terrible choice for the top 100
- More Euros; Mikhailov is arguably top 50 IMO
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #8 by mcphee » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:24 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:If I'm to nitpick:

- Lafleur is overrated on this list
- Messier and Mikita too
- Jagr should be top 20, with a case for top 10 (how is he worse than Lafleur???)
- Henri Richard is overrated
- Makarov has a case for being the second best forward of the 1980, so underrated
- Lindros shouldn't be here
- Nor should Robitaille
- Cournoyer is a terrible choice for the top 100
- More Euros; Mikhailov is arguably top 50 IMO


I like the exercise of talking about and comparing players but I don't get too excited about validity. If you want to go with longevity and complete game, Henri Richard climbs higher, if you want to go with how good your prime was rather than how long, Lafleur deserves his spot. Stick to a point of view though. Lafleur was unstoppable for 6 years, average for 3 before and 3 after. Yvan Cournoyer was over rated and is the one glory year Hab who gets his due because of the quality of his goals rather than quantity. In a lot of ways he was a very similar player to Bure, and to a degree like Kessel is now.

The Rocket does climb because of 'the man, the legend'. Maybe he should, who he was helped get the league up in people's faces. Fans across the country didn't necessarily go the NHL for their hockey fix. If you can find a coherent 80-90 year old in Canada, depending on where they're from, the local senior league may be the hockey they remember.

I think Brodeur is under rated. I think Roy is over rated as well.
User avatar
Rogers Pancreas
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am
Location: New York
Has given rep: 34 times
Received rep: 87 times

Post #9 by Rogers Pancreas » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:27 am

Beliveau and Hull need to be ahead of Richard, in that order.

Yzerman needs to be lower than Lidstorm, and Potvin.

Bossy needs to be lower than Jagr.

Selanne needs to be lower than the defensemen of his era (Chelios, Pronger, Stevens, etc.)

Lindros is appropriately ranked.
His Satanic Majestic Request
User avatar
Rogers Pancreas
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am
Location: New York
Has given rep: 34 times
Received rep: 87 times

Post #10 by Rogers Pancreas » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:23 am

mcphee wrote:I think Brodeur is under rated. I think Roy is over rated as well.
I'm not sure I share the same opinion.

I can't exactly explain the comfort level I have when the Flyers plays Brodeur, (a notorious Flyers' killer.) I just know I don't have the same healthy fear/respect for him as a player post-Stevens; he's been that human for the better part of a decade.
His Satanic Majestic Request
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #11 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:40 am

I just remembered that Ciccarelli is in the Hall.

[RIGHT]Image[/RIGHT]
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #12 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:00 pm

Now that I look at this again, Selanne is extremely overrated on this list.

Seems a bit odd to have him here, but not Malkin. But I've never been much for longevity-type arguments.

Selanne has been excellent, but not truly great, for a long time.
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #13 by Cao » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:28 pm

Selanne's odd. He seems to have benefited greatly from the lockout changes. How many players have done what he's done in their 35+ seasons? But yeah, I don't think he's been particularly dangerous since his first stint in Anaheim.

And I wouldn't rate him above Chris Pronger for that matter, who I think is underrated everywhere. Probably because he's an asshole.
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #14 by Cao » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:34 pm

Big#D wrote:doesn't your longevity argument contradict your lindros shouldn't be there argument? are you saying that when lindros was dominating that he wasn't good enough to be there? or are you saying that selanne' peak performance when he was younger wasn't good enough to include him in the list.


i'd go with a selanne, but not lindros argument and then argue that malkin hasn't done enough yet to be on the list. he's essentially at lindros' level when lindros was good.


crosby: all-rookie team, art ross, hart, 2 first all-star team selections, second all-star team selection, richard trophy, stanley cup

ovechkin: all-rookie team, calder, art ross, 3 hart trophies, 6 first all-star team selections, 2 second all-star team selections, 3 richard trophies

malkin: all-rookie team, calder, 2 art ross trophies, hart, 3 first-all star team selections, conn smythe, stanley cup



he's pretty comparable to crosby and ovechkin
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #15 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:46 pm

Big#D wrote:doesn't your longevity argument contradict your lindros shouldn't be there argument? are you saying that when lindros was dominating that he wasn't good enough to be there? or are you saying that selanne' peak performance when he was younger wasn't good enough to include him in the list.


Maybe it's arbitrary, but I like to see a healthy decade of domination from a player in order to rate that player really high.

Lindros didn't dominate long enough for me. Lafleur also burned out pretty quickly. And Selanne was pretty much never dominant.

If Lindros is here, Malkin should be very close - probably even higher.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #16 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:59 pm

Big#D wrote:if that were the case, none of crosby, ovechkin, malkin, lindros, or selanne would fit the description.




edit: posted before adding the second and lines.


i see lindros similar to crosby, ovechkin and malkin at this stage in their careers. it's assumed the latter three will continue to improve, but if they all died tomorrow :crossfingers: there wouldn't be much difference in their careers.


They're already better than Lindros. Much better careers; more great seasons.

I don't really want to argue about Lindros's placement, because he's not that high on the list anyway.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #17 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:00 pm

Cao wrote:crosby: all-rookie team, art ross, hart, 2 first all-star team selections, second all-star team selection, richard trophy, stanley cup

ovechkin: all-rookie team, calder, art ross, 3 hart trophies, 6 first all-star team selections, 2 second all-star team selections, 3 richard trophies

malkin: all-rookie team, calder, 2 art ross trophies, hart, 3 first-all star team selections, conn smythe, stanley cup


Lindros not close.
User avatar
Rogers Pancreas
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am
Location: New York
Has given rep: 34 times
Received rep: 87 times

Post #18 by Rogers Pancreas » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:08 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:Maybe it's arbitrary, but I like to see a healthy decade of domination from a player in order to rate that player really high.

Lindros didn't dominate long enough for me. Lafleur also burned out pretty quickly. And Selanne was pretty much never dominant.

If Lindros is here, Malkin should be very close - probably even higher.
I can understand not wanting to champion a player like Dany Heatley or Jonathan Cheechoo, but this line of reasoning is so flawed it hurts.

We're celebrating players that enjoyed long careers largely in part because they abstained from physical play (e.g. Sakic, Recchi, Francis, Lidstrom, etc.), panning players that didn't bring much to the ice outside of scoring (i.e. Kariya, Selanne, Andreychuk, Robitaille, Brett Hull, etc.), downplaying the contributions of those that sacrificed their bodies, playing the game with reckless abandon (e.g. Forsberg, Lindros, Potvin, etc.), and then we universally acknowledge the value of great all-around players by ranking Orr ahead of Lemieux. It doesn't make sense.
His Satanic Majestic Request
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #19 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:16 pm

Rogers Pancreas wrote:I can understand not wanting to champion a player like Dany Heatley or Jonathan Cheechoo, but this line of reasoning is so flawed it hurts.

We're celebrating players that enjoyed long careers largely in part because they abstained from physical play (e.g. Sakic, Recchi, Francis, Lidstrom, etc.), panning players that didn't bring much to the ice outside of scoring (i.e. Kariya, Selanne, Andreychuk, Robitaille, Brett Hull, etc.), downplaying the contributions of those that sacrificed their bodies, playing the game with reckless abandon (e.g. Forsberg, Lindros, Potvin, etc.), and then we universally acknowledge the value of great all-around players by ranking Orr ahead of Lemieux. It doesn't make sense.


Orr put in right about a full decade of exceptional, elite-level hockey. As did Forsberg.

What doesn't make sense here?
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #20 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:21 pm

I'm probably underrating Lindros. I just can't get the last few seasons of his career out of my head and this might be the selectiveness of my memory holding sway.

I don't remember Forsberg ever sucking. But I do remember Lindros and Selanne both sucking hard, even though neither of them were old.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #21 by Paper Jam Dipper » Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:13 pm

Hasek should be higher than Roy.
User avatar
Rogers Pancreas
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am
Location: New York
Has given rep: 34 times
Received rep: 87 times

Post #22 by Rogers Pancreas » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:20 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:Orr put in right about a full decade of exceptional, elite-level hockey. As did Forsberg.

What doesn't make sense here?
It's all too arbitrary.

Messier's play was underwhelming in Vancouver, and he did nothing to establish himself as a Hall of Famer during his second stint with the Rangers. Jagr upstaged Messier's disappointing performance in Washington, and similarly did nothing to separate himself during his second stint in the NHL. Chelios missed his swan song by a full decade, and the same applies to Brodeur. These are players that hung around forever, watching their legacies grow.

Then, you have players like Ace Bailey, Cy Denneny, Nels Stewart, Frank Nighbor, and George Boucher who were lucky to play 500 games due to the era. Yet, no one who takes the game's history seriously takes into consideration a statistic as basic as games missed relative to games played, when discussing longevity. It's an after-thought for players of the NHL pre-expansion, and a metric for players of the modern NHL who, 70 years ago, could have survived on in-game performance alone (no matter how modest the sample size.)
His Satanic Majestic Request
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #23 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Rogers Pancreas wrote:It's all too arbitrary.

Messier's play was underwhelming in Vancouver, and he did nothing to establish himself as a Hall of Famer during his second stint with the Rangers. Jagr upstaged Messier's disappointing performance in Washington, and similarly did nothing to separate himself during his second stint in the NHL. Chelios missed his swan song by a full decade, and the same applies to Brodeur. These are players that hung around forever, watching their legacies grow.


Nah. None of these guys were ever terrible in their prime years. Disappointing, yes. Terrible, no.

Lindros was terrible and he was 30, 31? I wouldn't call this arbitrary. It's my opinion, but it bugs me when a player is done at 30. Likewise with Goulet, but he's not on the list.

Yet, no one who takes the game's history seriously takes into consideration a statistic as basic as games missed relative to games played, when discussing longevity.


I don't either.

It's not really an issue of longevity. Orr didn't have longevity, but he was never terrible. On one knee he was still the best player in hockey.

Of course if he was hurt all the time and barely put a complete season together it would hurt his legacy.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #24 by Paper Jam Dipper » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:19 pm

Lindros turned 30 in the 2002-2003 season.

2002-2003 to 2006-2007: 202 games, 133 points.

Was that really terrible?
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #25 by mcphee » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:54 pm

Rogers Pancreas wrote:I'm not sure I share the same opinion.

I can't exactly explain the comfort level I have when the Flyers plays Brodeur, (a notorious Flyers' killer.) I just know I don't have the same healthy fear/respect for him as a player post-Stevens; he's been that human for the better part of a decade.


To me, Roy is over rated because his highs obscure his lows. While he had historic performances, people discount years whe he was just a good goalie. They also go over board with the 1 man team stuff in 86 and 93. Maybe being very good for a long time is 'great' when measuring goalies.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #26 by Paper Jam Dipper » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:38 am

mcphee wrote:To me, Roy is over rated because his highs obscure his lows. While he had historic performances, people discount years whe he was just a good goalie. They also go over board with the 1 man team stuff in 86 and 93. Maybe being very good for a long time is 'great' when measuring goalies.


Roy had pretty much the perfect elements to a great career:

- Fast start with the Cup and Conn Smythe
- Several years on a good team with patience to see him take the starter role (there were a few times he lost it to Hayward but it's forgotten in time)
- Trophy years that masked poor playoff performances against Boston
- Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe the year people were noticing his poor playoff performances
- Dumping from original team turns into another Stanley Cup on a powerhouse team
- Years on a powerhouse team
- Twilight of career with another Cup
- Numbers didn't falter too hard like contemporaries (Joseph, Belfour, etc.) in his final years

Very few players have as many rings as him in his era and playoff performances lead to legend status. It shouldn't be ignored that the butterfly revolution and the evolution of goaltending can be traced to Roy, even if other goalies played the style beforehand. He helped usher a new level of goaltending that is now prevalent in the league today. I'd say he's as important to the position as Bobby Orr was to defence.

All that said, if you ignore the numbers and look at raw skill in the net, Dominik Hasek was better. Individual performance Hasek was better. Hasek deserves to be top three all-time and over anyone from the 80s, 90s and 00s.
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #27 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:44 pm

The Final Word

1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Mario
4. Crosby
5. Hasek
6. Béliveau
7. Datsyuk
8. Harvey
9. Howe
10. Forsberg
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #28 by mcphee » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:30 pm

Paper Jam Dipper wrote:Roy had pretty much the perfect elements to a great career:

- Fast start with the Cup and Conn Smythe
- Several years on a good team with patience to see him take the starter role (there were a few times he lost it to Hayward but it's forgotten in time)
- Trophy years that masked poor playoff performances against Boston
- Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe the year people were noticing his poor playoff performances
- Dumping from original team turns into another Stanley Cup on a powerhouse team
- Years on a powerhouse team
- Twilight of career with another Cup
- Numbers didn't falter too hard like contemporaries (Joseph, Belfour, etc.) in his final years

Very few players have as many rings as him in his era and playoff performances lead to legend status. It shouldn't be ignored that the butterfly revolution and the evolution of goaltending can be traced to Roy, even if other goalies played the style beforehand. He helped usher a new level of goaltending that is now prevalent in the league today. I'd say he's as important to the position as Bobby Orr was to defence.

All that said, if you ignore the numbers and look at raw skill in the net, Dominik Hasek was better. Individual performance Hasek was better. Hasek deserves to be top three all-time and over anyone from the 80s, 90s and 00s.


Roy's 2 wins in Mtl were dramatic. The rookie in 86, the ot wins in 93 and he had influence because he became a hero, popularizing the position for a generation of kids starting out. He did have a great career, disputing it would be stupidity. MY thinking that he was a tad over rated is that he didn't have a long stretch of clearly being the best in the game. Seasons on end where he was why you won, it wasn't really like that. You can take Hasek, Brodeur, Plante , Sawchuk, Roy, shake their names in a bag, let me draw one, and argue that the name was the best ever. Goalies are a hard call to me. I just think Roy's legend is a bit distorted.
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #29 by mcphee » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:31 pm

Can someone put my post before _ed's ? I don't want to appear after The Final Word. Poor form.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #30 by Paper Jam Dipper » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:39 pm

I can't vouch for guys like Hall, Lindberg, Dryden, Sawchuk, Plante, etc. because my viewing of them is limited to a few games. But Hasek in the net was better than any other goalie when he played from 1994 until maybe 2003. By a fair margin. People like to assume that the 1993 Canadiens team wasn't very good. It was very good. It just didn't look great like the Penguins. But the Buffalo Sabres team that Hasek took to the finals? That team was mediocre by a fair margin. Remove Hasek and you had a top five draft pick. It was that bad. And he gave them not just a chance to win but an inside track. Hasek frustrated forwards because he stopped sure goals. That's different to just stopping pucks.

It isn't for this thread but I'd also like to submit the 1994-1995 New Jersey Devils as the worst Stanley Cup winner of all time.
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #31 by Cao » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:23 pm

i think there's usually a separate tier of 7 goalies who are always rated above others: hasek, roy, plante, sawchuk, dryden, hall, and brodeur.

i'd go with hasek at the top every time, and brodeur last every time (because luongo should've won the vezina in 2007 and i'm petty).
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #32 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:50 pm

1. Hasek
2. Sawchuk
3. Roy
4. Plante
5. Price
6. Dryden
7. Hall
8. Brodeur
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #33 by Sturminator » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:34 am

Agree with you on Mikhailov, doc. He is borderline top-50 all-time, imo. Was actually the Soviet's best IIHF player of all-time, including Kharlamov.

One thing that disturbs me about his list is how low he has Frank Nighbor, who was the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. Nighbor is arguably a top-20ish player of all-time, and belongs solidly in the top-30, at the very least. Pelletier simply doesn't know enough about the guy's career.

Teemu Selanne's regular season accomplishments are actually quite similar to Mike Bossy's. No joke. Selanne doesn't have a Conn Smythe and was no Bossy, but they aren't that far apart. The flash definitely belongs in the top-100.

Ron Francis in the top-50?! gtfo

Crosby in the top-30 at this point is simply moronic. He is a great talent, but his actual career accomplishments simply do not justify that ranking. I'm not sure he should even be in the top-100 at this point, let alone the top-30.

His last ten are brutal. Datsyuk is a trainwreck in the top-100, but Cournoyer is at least as bad and Gainey is ten times worse.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #34 by mcphee » Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:48 am

If you're drafting a team from scratch, and ask anyone who has watched the game from the early 70's through the present where and when they would draft Guy Lapointe, he's ahead of many of those players. If you asked them if they would select Luc Robitaille ahead of him, I'd imagine that they'd start giggling building to loud laughter.
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36693
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 380 times

Post #35 by mcphee » Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:54 am

Sturminator wrote:Agree with you on Mikhailov, doc. He is borderline top-50 all-time, imo. Was actually the Soviet's best IIHF player of all-time, including Kharlamov.

One thing that disturbs me about his list is how low he has Frank Nighbor, who was the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. Nighbor is arguably a top-20ish player of all-time, and belongs solidly in the top-30, at the very least. Pelletier simply doesn't know enough about the guy's career.

Teemu Selanne's regular season accomplishments are actually quite similar to Mike Bossy's. No joke. Selanne doesn't have a Conn Smythe and was no Bossy, but they aren't that far apart. The flash definitely belongs in the top-100.

Ron Francis in the top-50?! gtfo

Crosby in the top-30 at this point is simply moronic. He is a great talent, but his actual career accomplishments simply do not justify that ranking. I'm not sure he should even be in the top-100 at this point, let alone the top-30.

His last ten are brutal. Datsyuk is a trainwreck in the top-100, but Cournoyer is at least as bad and Gainey is ten times worse.


How do you arrive at Mikhailov and Kharmalov's rankings ? Meaning yours. I'm not being a smart ass, I'm always genuinely curious, about this because I don't know how to compare from such a limited sample. Tournament play vs. long season play are so different and I've never known what to think of accomplishments on their club teams. I've always thought that Makarov was 'the guy' just in that his talent level was the most eye catching, but ranking NA players includes the luxury of looking at longevity, judging competition etc.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #36 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:35 am

Sturminator wrote:Agree with you on Mikhailov, doc. He is borderline top-50 all-time, imo. Was actually the Soviet's best IIHF player of all-time, including Kharlamov.

One thing that disturbs me about his list is how low he has Frank Nighbor, who was the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. Nighbor is arguably a top-20ish player of all-time, and belongs solidly in the top-30, at the very least. Pelletier simply doesn't know enough about the guy's career.

Teemu Selanne's regular season accomplishments are actually quite similar to Mike Bossy's. No joke. Selanne doesn't have a Conn Smythe and was no Bossy, but they aren't that far apart. The flash definitely belongs in the top-100.

Ron Francis in the top-50?! gtfo

Crosby in the top-30 at this point is simply moronic. He is a great talent, but his actual career accomplishments simply do not justify that ranking. I'm not sure he should even be in the top-100 at this point, let alone the top-30.

His last ten are brutal. Datsyuk is a trainwreck in the top-100, but Cournoyer is at least as bad and Gainey is ten times worse.


I figure Crosby will be around there eventually anyway. It's a bold pick, and I don't altogether hate it, even though I'd probably drop him about 20 spots myself.

Regarding Selanne, I just can't get over that one terrible year he had in Colorado. Is Bossy a little overrated in history? He was never MVP.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #37 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:38 am

Cao wrote:crosby: all-rookie team, art ross, hart, 2 first all-star team selections, second all-star team selection, richard trophy, stanley cup

ovechkin: all-rookie team, calder, art ross, 3 hart trophies, 6 first all-star team selections, 2 second all-star team selections, 3 richard trophies

malkin: all-rookie team, calder, 2 art ross trophies, hart, 3 first-all star team selections, conn smythe, stanley cup


I forgot Malkin has two art rosses. Wow.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #38 by Sturminator » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:18 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Is Bossy a little overrated in history? He was never MVP.


Yes, he is a little overrated.

Crosby's placement in this list is simply projection. Will he get there? Maybe, maybe not. If he gets his melon cracked again tomorrow, this placement will look really foolish ten years from now. I don't believe in judging players for things they haven't done yet.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #39 by Paper Jam Dipper » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:52 am

Mike Bossy is not overrated.

I consider the most important statistic when talking about this stuff and just offensive production to be average point per game. Gretzky and Lemieux sit at the top. Next is Bossy. Fourth? Crosby. 11th? Ovechkin.

Now, they might not stay there. Lemieux was the leader until his last comeback. But that's a testament to career production. Nobody in the Top 25 are undeserving of HOF status*.

*Except Eric Lindros
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37715
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 510 times
Received rep: 673 times

Post #40 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:55 am

Foppa is eighth. Image
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #41 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:58 am

Paper Jam Dipper wrote:I consider the most important statistic when talking about this stuff and just offensive production to be average point per game.


Please tell me you're kidding.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #42 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:59 am

My posts about Lindros in this thread don't make much sense. But they at least got the discussion going.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21942
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 125 times
Received rep: 358 times

Post #43 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:33 am

Big#D wrote:as for bossy, i loved his game. he was my favourite player growing up. one of the best snipers ever. where that ranks in a list of centres and defencemen and goalies, who, by my definition are naturally more important to the game than wingers, is up to interpretation. as with everything in underrated/overrated discussions, it depends on how an individual is rated in the first place. putting a number to a guy doesn't really explain how they got there.


Bossy is great, but the 80s made a lot of scorers look really good.
User avatar
Paper Jam Dipper
Registered Broad
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:55 pm

Post #44 by Paper Jam Dipper » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:59 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Bossy is great, but the 80s made a lot of scorers look really good.


His second best season of production came in the 70s.
User avatar
VLoo
Posts: 9459
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:33 am
Has given rep: 81 times
Received rep: 101 times

Post #45 by VLoo » Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:29 pm

Paper Jam Dipper wrote:His second best season of production came in the 70s.


78-79 was the year of the dead puck was it? Just seems like nitpicking, it was still a high scoring year at the beginning of a high scoring era.

Return to “Hockey's Past”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests