Except for that little tourney called the Summit Series.
No Orr there. Espo was the best player and leader of the winning team.
What kind of logic is that?
Kharlamov was by far the best player in the series and his team was most certainly on the winning track before Ferguson/Clarke took matters in their own hands.
According to your logic, Kharlamov was the better player than Esposito career-wise too?
What kind of logic is that?
Kharlamov was by far the best player in the series and his team was most certainly on the winning track before Ferguson/Clarke took matters in their own hands.
According to your logic, Kharlamov was the better player than Esposito career-wise too?
Was he really the best player or was Yakushev? I hear a lot of stories but gets a feeling it was much like watching Michael Nylander.
Sorry, but you're going to have to mention them for me. I'm aware of the top 4, but top 5? I don't think there is a consensus.
Richard isn't a consensus top 5 I agree and I'm a huge career guy so some days consistency and actual success even over rides Mario's great offense with the holes that came with his game, injuries, not being as much of as a "winner" as other guys on the top of the list.
HockeyOutsider, the guy who started looking at Hart shares, decided that they weren't comparable between eras because there is generally more consensus in the voting in modern times.
I would tend to agree with this and will add that Harts shares might say something about how great a player was but it might also say how weak their competition was overall (sometimes in terms of injuries and timing not just in pure talent and performance).
An example many here would agree with is Lidstrom Norris dominance in the 2000's as an argument of this.
because, IMHO, Richard is a clear top 5 player. He is 4 or 5, interchangeable with Mario.
the top 5 guys have 1. the highest level of career achievements 2. were the best in the game, by a wide margin, for a decade. 3. impacted/changed the course of the game going forward (you might say Lemieux doesn't fit this bill and a guy like Morenz does).
I simple believe his career was more important and impactful to the game of hockey, not just during but going forward, then Jagr's. But, i do think Jagr is beyond Espo, an in the conversation with Hull, and getting near Beliveau. Look at Jagr's total points; if he hadn't gone to Russia he would be 2nd all-time and approaching 2000. He was the clear best player in the world for a decade. he is the greatest Euro ever (along with Lidstrom). that's gotta get you into top 10, no?
the top 5 guys have 1. the highest level of career achievements 2. were the best in the game, by a wide margin, for a decade. 3. impacted/changed the course of the game going forward (you might say Lemieux doesn't fit this bill and a guy like Morenz does).
2. and 3. don't apply to Richard and 1. is debatable, depending on what you mean by career achievments?
Béliveau is extremely hard to pass on an all-time list.Béliveau was basically flawless and a very dominant player in every facets of hockey , on and off the ice.
because, IMHO, Richard is a clear top 5 player. He is 4 or 5, interchangeable with Mario.
the top 5 guys have 1. the highest level of career achievements 2. were the best in the game, by a wide margin, for a decade. 3. impacted/changed the course of the game going forward (you might say Lemieux doesn't fit this bill and a guy like Morenz does).
I simple believe his career was more important and impactful to the game of hockey, not just during but going forward, then Jagr's. But, i do think Jagr is beyond Espo, an in the conversation with Hull, and getting near Beliveau. Look at Jagr's total points; if he hadn't gone to Russia he would be 2nd all-time and approaching 2000. He was the clear best player in the world for a decade. he is the greatest Euro ever (along with Lidstrom). that's gotta get you into top 10, no?
Depends on who you ask.
Jagr at ES was pretty much as good as Mario. However, Mario was much more effective on PP. Both of them are pretty weak defensively (not that it matters when their offense is so overwhelmingly good).
But it took quite a long time for Jagr to mature as a human being and as a hockey player. He always had good intentions, but did not pick the right words all the time. So he was a burden at times.
In any case, when you're talking about the top10 players ever, the small things need to be considered as well.
Jagr vs. Lidstrom - imho Jagr at his best was better than Lidstrom at his best, and quite comfortably. But I'd still take Lidstrom first if I were building a team, just because he was such a low maintenance player.
But then again, people like Eddie Shore (goes into super crazy mode at times), Maurice Richard (also goes crazy at times, one dimensional player), Bobby Hull (one dimensional, went after money over team) are regularly listed in top 10, so I don't know. For me, after the big four it gets blurry and there's at least 15 players competing for the six remaining spots in the elite top 10 list..and the differences are so small that you can make a case for any one of them.
My top ten would be: (not the greatest players list, but rather a list of players I would pick if I were building a team)
1. Gordie Howe
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Bobby Orr
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Jean Beliveau
6. Nicklas Lidstrom
7. Ray Bourque
8. Dominik Hasek
9. Patrick Roy
10. Doug Harvey
11. Jaromir Jagr
12. Bobby Hull
13. Maurice Richard
14. Eddie Shore
15. Jacques Plante
Any ideas what he could have meant be that anybody? Lafleur had more assists than goals is one observation, are Jagr a good comparison in this way? Also, are centers always more defensively aware then wingers?
I don't recall if Bowman elaborated. My guess is that center-men, in general, generate more assists than goals. Despite being a goal scorer, Lafleur played a pass first game once he got to the NHL. In Junior he had far more goals than assists, but at the NHL level it reversed. Jagr plays a similar game.
In any case, when you're talking about the top10 players ever, the small things need to be considered as well.
Jagr vs. Lidstrom - imho Jagr at his best was better than Lidstrom at his best, and quite comfortably. But I'd still take Lidstrom first if I were building a team, just because he was such a low maintenance player.
But then again, people like Eddie Shore (goes into super crazy mode at times), Maurice Richard (also goes crazy at times, one dimensional player), Bobby Hull (one dimensional, went after money over team) are regularly listed in top 10, so I don't know. For me, after the big four it gets blurry and there's at least 15 players competing for the six remaining spots in the elite top 10 list..and the differences are so small that you can make a case for any one of them.
My top ten would be: (not the greatest players list, but rather a list of players I would pick if I were building a team)
1. Gordie Howe
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Bobby Orr
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Jean Beliveau
6. Nicklas Lidstrom
7. Ray Bourque
8. Dominik Hasek
9. Patrick Roy
10. Doug Harvey
11. Jaromir Jagr
12. Bobby Hull
13. Maurice Richard
14. Eddie Shore
15. Jacques Plante
Here's my top fifteen:
1. Gordie Howe
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Mario Lemieux
4. Bobby Orr
5. Steve Yzerman
6. Bobby Hull
7. Dominik Hasek.
8. Jean Beliveau.
9. Jaromir Jagr
10. Nicklas Lidstrom
11. Doug Harvey
12. Ray Bourque
13. Jacques Plante
14. Maurice Richard
15. Patrick Roy
1. Gordie Howe
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Mario Lemieux
4. Bobby Orr
5. Steve Yzerman
6. Bobby Hull
7. Dominik Hasek.
8. Jean Beliveau.
9. Jaromir Jagr
10. Nicklas Lidstrom
11. Doug Harvey
12. Ray Bourque
13. Jacques Plante
14. Maurice Richard
15. Patrick Roy
Here is mine
Peter Forsberg
Sidney Crosby
Jevgani Malkin
...
...
...
But the point is, a toplist has no legitemcy unless it has a good formula it's following. I mean why is Yzerman ahead of Jagr i may ask, and i suppose your answer would be "captain clutch", "defense", "intangibles", and other stuff you have to believe in that you can't really point out with statistic. But why then is not Messier also a top 10 player, or is intangibles etc only for certain players, because Yzerman is so out of place on that list that i completly lost it trying to follow your reasoning.
I think Jagr has a case against any player not in the top four btw.
Jagr has surpassed Lafleur because of his longevity and his peak is slightly longer too, but really they are the best comparison. Both were wingers with multiple seasons of 50+ goals 70+ assists, with assists being the key stat. There are very few wingers in the history of the game with 70+ assists in a season, never mind multiple times. Off the top of my head, the only other wingers I can think of with over 70 assists in a season are Bossy and Recchi. Jagr and Lafleur were both wingers who played like center-men.
It got me thinking, surely Kurri cracked 70 assists at least once right? Nope. Career high 64. The aforementioned Juneau is the all-time leader in single season assists for a LW. What an obscure record. So in checking, only Bossy, Recchi, Jagr, Lafleur and Bob MacMillan are wingers with at least one 70 assist season. Hard to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar
Béliveau is extremely hard to pass on an all-time list.Béliveau was basically flawless and a very dominant player in every facets of hockey , on and off the ice.
Jagr doesn't make the cut.
Yes, about as close to a perfect hockey player as you can get, and I mean all around. I think you have to look at it this way, knowing what we know now and you are a GM picking your team, do you draft Beliveau or Jagr? I couldn't imagine a GM passing up Beliveau in that circumstance. No disrespect to Jagr, but once you get in the top 10 category you are peeled down layer to layer like an onion.
1. Gordie Howe
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Mario Lemieux
4. Bobby Orr
5. Steve Yzerman
6. Bobby Hull
7. Dominik Hasek.
8. Jean Beliveau.
9. Jaromir Jagr
10. Nicklas Lidstrom
11. Doug Harvey
12. Ray Bourque
13. Jacques Plante
14. Maurice Richard
15. Patrick Roy
What kind of logic is that? Kharlamov was by far the best player in the series and his team was most certainly on the winning track before Ferguson/Clarke took matters in their own hands.
According to your logic, Kharlamov was the better player than Esposito career-wise too?
What kind of logic bring you to that conclusion? Kharlamov wasn't even the best player on his own team.
My point was Esposito excelled on the big stage without Bobby Orr. How do you translate my response into Kharlamov vs. Espo career-wise?
What kind of logic is that?
Kharlamov was by far the best player in the series and his team was most certainly on the winning track before Ferguson/Clarke took matters in their own hands.
According to your logic, Kharlamov was the better player than Esposito career-wise too?
Until Game 6 of the series when Kharlamov got slashed:
Esposito 3 G, 4 A
Kharlamov 3 G, 3 A
Even before Esposito's monster game in Game 8, he was already outscoring Kharlamov.
Defensemen are slightly underrepresented, but it's pretty close to even distribution among positions. Amusingly, I wasn't even thinking about that when I made the list.
Just goes to show that ultimately for every three forwards you'll have two equivalent defensemen and one equivalent goalie, more or less.
Peter Forsberg
Sidney Crosby
Jevgani Malkin
...
...
...
But the point is, a toplist has no legitemcy unless it has a good formula it's following. I mean why is Yzerman ahead of Jagr i may ask, and i suppose your answer would be "captain clutch", "defense", "intangibles", and other stuff you have to believe in that you can't really point out with statistic. But why then is not Messier also a top 10 player, or is intangibles etc only for certain players, because Yzerman is so out of place on that list that i completly lost it trying to follow your reasoning.
I think Jagr has a case against any player not in the top four btw.
I rank Yzerman higher because yes, Yzerman was a great defensive player. And unlike the late 90s and post-2000 commentary, it didn't happen suddenly and overnight in 1994. He was very good defensively in the early 90s, and he was very good in the 80s. So good in fact, that in 1988-89, when he scored 155 points, he also received a first-place vote and a second-place vote for the Selke, finishing 11th overall in Selke voting.
More than that, though. Yzerman in his offensive prime didn't just score. He double-shifted just like Jagr, Lemieux, Gretzky, etc. Except Yzerman double-shifted as the team's primary checking center. While being a 60-goal scorer (on-pace in 87-88, hit the mark in 88-89 and 89-90) he was double-shifting as the third-line shut-down guy. He matched prime Lemieux and Gretzky in even-strength offensive output in 88-89. What Yzerman did offensively during his prime, Jagr probably would have been capable of. But Yzerman did it with no help (he didn't have Ron Francis, or Martin Straka, or Alexei Kovalev, or a post-retirement-second-comeback Lemieux) and Yzerman did it while also taking on heavy defensive duties.
Defensemen are slightly underrepresented, but it's pretty close to even distribution among positions. Amusingly, I wasn't even thinking about that when I made the list.
Just goes to show that ultimately for every three forwards you'll have two equivalent defensemen and one equivalent goalie, more or less.
Yeah i was more thinking about that the defensemen as a clear pattern ended up at the bottom. I dont think that many forwards on top falls within the margin of fault.
Yeah i was more thinking about that the defensemen as a clear pattern ended up at the bottom. I dont think that many forwards on top falls within the margin of fault.
The top ten by itself is forward-heavy perhaps, with seven of the eight listed forwards. But that group has such a slim margin from 5th (Yzerman) to 15th (Roy) that re-arranging them based on positional distribution wouldn't necessarily be that far "out of order". Using my provided 15, you'd get something like the following for a top-12 (since there are only 4 defensemen); I've broken it up into 3-2-1 units and ordered them based on how my original list was.
The top ten by itself is forward-heavy perhaps, with seven of the eight listed forwards. But that group has such a slim margin from 5th (Yzerman) to 15th (Roy) that re-arranging them based on positional distribution wouldn't necessarily be that far "out of order". Using my provided 15, you'd get something like the following for a top-12 (since there are only 4 defensemen); I've broken it up into 3-2-1 units and ordered them based on how my original list was.
Bowman did try him at center, I believe, early in Lafleur's career. However, Bowman was also the one that stated that Lafleur was a winger who played like a center.
canadiens1958 would probably know, but i am fairly sure lafleur played C in junior and started in NHL at C.
