NHL Top 100 Players

[cshea]

As part of the 100 year celebration, the league put together a list of the top 100 players in league history. They aren't numbered, they are just listed alphabetically. Might be a fun discussion. I didn't think it was a particularly great list.

https://www.nhl.com/news/100-greatest-nhl-players-of-all-time/c-286030052?tid=282169076

The Bruins had Orr, Bourque, Schmidt, Shore, Bucyk, Park, Esposito, Oates as guys who played here for a while, plus Parent, Ratelle, Sawchuk, Jagr, Coffey, Leetch who came through at some point.

Six active players made it- Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, Toews, Keith, Jagr.

I think Toews and Keith are ridiculous inclusions. Joe Thornton not making is a joke too, the guy is like inside the top 25 all time in scoring. But grit. And false playoff narratives. Something like that.

On the Bruins, the homer in me thinks Neely should've been on there, and probably Chara too. Especially if they think Keith is worthy. Bergy is better than Toews too, but hey, Captain Serious.

 

[Ale Xander]

I don't think the Toews inclusion is a bad one if you consider defense from a center and the fact that probably 50-60 should be centers and look in a vacuum (ignoring comparisons to Thornton who should be in 100%)
I'd probably have Toews in first over both Oates and Modano but maybe that's recency bias

It's not horrible at first glance

I would remove Keith and either Kane and maybe one of the M's like Morenz and add Neely and Thornton.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

Marian Hossa maybe?

 

[cshea]

Hossa is a good one. Very underrated, if he played center he would have like 10 Selke's.

Another active player that probably deserves to be on there- Jarome Iginla.

 

[Ale Xander]

If I was building a team, either to play hockey or to be Boy Scouts, I'd also probably choose Hossa over Kane

If Ilya stayed in NHL, Kovalchuk too.
Malkin when he retires too.

 

[twothousandone]

Had they simply decided to exclude anyone currently in the NHL. they could have had 6 more spots. Given that debating 100 vs. 101 is not all that dissimilar from debating 10 vs. 11, it may not have really helped (if Oates is in, Thornton needs to be in!), but it would avoid the exact debate from above. I'd put Keith in over Toews, but since McDavid should eventually crack the top 100, they could have made it easier on everyone.

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

No Glenn Anderson-maybe over Mike Gartner?

 

[reggiecleveland]

Esposito's write up is weak. He held the single season goals record, lead Canada to summit series

 

[veritas]

Toews/Keith over a bunch of forwards and Chara is pretty egregious.

It's hard not to be cynical about the lack of recognition Chara gets. He had ~5 years of being the best defenseman in the league, another ~5 of being in the top 3-4, and 5 seasons of still being a very good player. He's loved by advanced stats and his game should be popular among old school hockey types. He's been great ES/PP/PK throughout his career. Maybe he gets penalized because of all the great players the Bruins have had? I hope it's that and not where he's from but the list definitely seems to have a bit of a bias there.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Morenz is probably the best player of the first 25 years of the NHL, unless you'd prefer Eddie Shore. In a list that's pretty scarce on pre-war guys, he's a must.

I only remember him at the very end of his career, but Phil Gartner racking up 30 goal seasons in the 80s isn't really as impressive as it sounds. He was top 5 in goals once in his career. I'd happily give up Toe Blake's spot for Jerome Iginla too.

 

[burstnbloom]

Iginla's omission is glaring, especially with Toews on the list. I agree Chara should be there and I think Malkin belongs on there. I have a hard time with these exercises though because I can't imagine how easy it would be for Chara to never give up a goal for a whole season in the 40's. Ovechkin would score 100 goals a year in the 60's. I can't wrap my head around it.

 

[johnmd20]

Lindros being on that list is insane.

 

[reggiecleveland]

The equipment was way different, no helmets, etc. Tough to project into that past.

 

[SumnerH]

I don't think the Toews inclusion is a bad one if you consider defense from a center and the fact that probably 50-60 should be centers

Show your work. Include the value of a great goalie in your calculus. 60 centers means if they're twice as many as goalies then there should be 10 combined defensemen + other forwards; if there are much less than twice as many, basically nothing else.

 

[burstnbloom]

The equipment was way different, no helmets, etc. Tough to project into that past.

I agree, thats why I have a hard time with it. I just know a 250lb dude that is as fast and physical as Ovechkin would kill people in the 60's. Who knows how much the equipment effects his shot. I just have a hard time with the exercise as a whole.

 

[veritas]

If you literally transported players back and forth in time, Riley Nash would be an all star in the 60's and Bobby Orr wouldn't right now. Players and people in general are so much bigger faster and stronger today. I don't even know if Gretzky would be a top 5 player right now.

The only way to compare players is relative to their peers at the time, and I think everyone does that for the most part. Which is why I think Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux are in a completely different stratosphere than anyone else who's ever played the game. And there are non-ridiculous arguments for any of them being the best, as has been discussed on this board in the past

 

[shaggydog2000]

If you literally transported players back and forth in time, Riley Nash would be an all star in the 60's and Bobby Orr wouldn't right now. Players and people in general are so much bigger faster and stronger today. I don't even know if Gretzky would be a top 5 player right now.

The only way to compare players is relative to their peers at the time, and I think everyone does that for the most part. Which is why I think Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux are in a completely different stratosphere than anyone else who's ever played the game. And there are non-ridiculous arguments for any of them being the best, as has been discussed on this board in the past

Yes, and training being different in different eras means you don't know which players would have physically translated to different eras. Maybe Orr would have put on enough muscle and explosiveness to still be a top player. Maybe he wouldn't react as well as some others to the same training and diet. Maybe some average players of the past would have been pretty good at modern training and been physical beasts today. Can't know so I just compare players in all sports to their own era.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Orr would be one of the fastest skaters in any generation. If you bring him to the future before he hurt his knee he would end up great.

99 like Bird and Magic is destined to be under appreciated by future generations. The analysis of his size, etc holding him back were made back then too.

My view is the cleaner game would help the 3 discussed be great. I also think Howe would be great too. There are tons of stories of really strong guys in their prime recoiling after shaking hands with 70 year old Howe.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

Neely and Chara not being on there is sick. Neely is one of the dominant players of his era and redefined a position. Chara is the best defenseman of the last 10 years and it might not be close. If you want to ding Neely for a short career, fine, but Chara's omission is inexcusable.

It's obviously political- too many Leafs and Habs, and the Kane/Toews/Keith inclusions are just silly.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I'm certainly no expert or historian, but can someone tell me what possible rationale there could be for Keith over Chara?

 

[kenneycb]

Rings, basically.

 

[timlinin8th]

Yes, and training being different in different eras means you don't know which players would have physically translated to different eras. Maybe Orr would have put on enough muscle and explosiveness to still be a top player. Maybe he wouldn't react as well as some others to the same training and diet. Maybe some average players of the past would have been pretty good at modern training and been physical beasts today. Can't know so I just compare players in all sports to their own era.

On top of training, it is tough to compare eras due to modern medicine being vastly superior to past years. Imagine if Orr had access to today's doctors and didn't have to retire at age 30?

 

[burstnbloom]

Here is why this list is stupid.

Player 1 - Games - 712 G - 268 A - 447 P- 715 Cups - 3
Player 2 - Games - 691 G- 317 A - 497 P- 814 Cups - 2

Player 1 - Patrick Kane
Player 2 - Evgeni Malkin

Reason one is on the list over the other?

Reason Joe Niewendyk is on the list over Malkin?