20 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Hockey Players of All-Time”

1. 

   Very disappointed in number 1. While Gretzky was an unbelievable offensive force he couldn’t find the defensive zone with a map. Orr changed the way the game was played. Still the only defenseman to win the scoring title and showed the league the benefit of offense from the blue line. Orr, Gretzky, Lemeuix and Howe was the correct order

2. 

   Ha! Thanks for the correct answer, Grant. To each his own. Orr played 631 games in an incredibly unbalanced league filled with expansion teams. Scoring by the Original Six teams skyrocketed during this time due to the porous defense by the expansion teams. The competitiveness of the league during this time needs to be front and center to provide context. Orr was great, no doubt, but every little thing matters when comparing elite resumes. Howe played 1687 games in the NHL. How can we say Orr was better than Howe given the fact that Howe played at an elite level for nearly three times as many games? That’s a tough argument to make. Gretzky played in a more difficult league, set more records, and was the greatest playoff performer of all-time. He has to be number one, IMO.

3. 

   You don’t have Mats Sundin as a top 200 player ever? You have TWO goalies ahead of Dominik Hasek. Scott Stevens ahead of Zdeno Chara? Duncan Keith that high? At least I’ll give you, you put Malkin in an appropriate place. The NHL didn’t even have him in the top-100 a few years ago.

   1. 

      Hey Bill, thanks for stopping by. Hasek was an elite goaltender and likely had the greatest eight-year stretch by any goaltender ever. However, Roy played nearly 300 more regular-season games and twice as many playoff games. Brodeur played over 500 more regular-season games and four times as many playoff games. Given that longevity plays a significant factor in these rankings, the contrast is just too substantial to rate Hasek ahead of either Roy or Brodeur.

      Duncan Keith is one of only two players who have debuted since 1991 to win multiple Norris Trophies. He is one of only three defensemen in history to win multiple Norris Trophies, a Conn Smythe, and three Stanley Cups. Whether anyone realizes it or not, his place in history is secure.

      Stevens vs. Chara is a close call by any measure. I have Stevens ahead on the count that he has a Conn Smythe, was a lynchpin for three Stanley Cup winners, played 22 seasons without a single negative plus/minus season, and received votes in the Norris voting in 17 seasons.

      I have no problem if someone wants to throw Mats Sundin into the top-200. I have him just on the fringe. He never had a truly elite season. He finished in the top 10 in Hart voting just once and that was an 8th place finish. He also had zero playoff success. There are just too many players with better resumes for me to slide Sundin into the top-200.

4. 

   Cyclone Taylor never played in the NHL….

   1. 

      Great point! I edited the “rules” for the Hockey 100 to also include early leagues that competed against the NHL for the Stanley Cup, since that was my intent.

5. 

   Why put Beliveau ahead of Bobby Hull?

   1. 

      This is a great question, Parker. The margin here is razor-thin, and I would not begrudge anyone who reversed the order. Both were, of course, dynamite players. Hull finished in the top five of the MVP voting 10 times and the top three eight times. Beliveau finished in the top five nine times and the top three seven times. They each won two Hart trophies. However, Beliveau was the best player on a team that won 10 Stanley Cups. He won the Conn Smythe in 1965 and was awarded the retro Smythe for 1956 (the award didn’t exist until 1965, but the Hockey Hall of Fame, the Society for International Hockey Research, and the Hockey News teamed up to name the players who would have won the award had it always existed). In a close race like this one, Beliveau’s 2-0 lead in Conn Smythe trophies is enough to give him the edge.

      FWIW, I think Hull leaving for the WHA after his age-33 season probably cost him 5-7 spots on this list. He likely had some monster NHL seasons left that could’ve distanced himself from Beliveau.

      1. 

         Where can i find that list of retro Smythe winners?

         1. 

            https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/w0ecg7/til_that_the_the_hockey_hall_of_fame_the_society/

      2. 

         Jake, if you are including “early leagues that competed with the NHL” as you state above, why would Bobby Hull not get credit for his time with the WHL?

         1. 

            Hey Stirlo,

            In the Rules section, I have it stated that for player resumes I include “rival leagues eligible for the Stanley Cup.” Is there somewhere else that you’re seeing “early leagues that competed with the NHL”? If so, let me know, because there should be a disclaimer that these leagues needed to compete for the Stanley Cup. This really only applies to pre-1927.

6. 

   Would you consider moving Ovechkin above Howe when he breaks the goal record and/or adds another Stanley Cup to his resume?

   1. 

      Hey Ethan!

      If Ovechkin is instrumental in another Cup for the Caps (even if it’s not a Conn Smythe performance), then that would certainly be enough. However, I’m not sure he would even need that. As you mentioned, it’s looking pretty clear that he’ll break Gretzky’s goal mark. Howe put up some massive points and award totals, but he did it in a 6-team league. Given how much more difficult it is to win awards and be a statistical leader in a league with 32 teams, it would be pretty hard to keep him behind Howe with a resume that boasts 9 Richard trophies and the all-time goal record. I’d say it’s quite likely Ovi eventually takes over the #2 spot.

7. 

   Tremendous effort and a very interesting list. I don’t think I’ve seen Ovechkin ranked as high as second before but you make some good arguments. I think the counter argument would be that while he’s been a great goal scorer, his all around game has perhaps not been a match for some others – notably Crosby who made more assists, scored more points and was better defensively. Ovechkin’s scoring prowess is obviously exceptional but it seems to be his rating relies almost exclusively on those scoring exploits. There’s nothing wrong with that argument but then it’s tough to justify far lower ratings for other exceptional scorers like Bret Hull or Marcel Dionne.

   1. 

      Stirlo,

      I really appreciate the kind words and comments, and I respect the counter argument. FYI, your comment inspired me to start writing the “Why” for Ovechkin on the top-100 list so you’ll probably see a lot of the same ideas in that post as you’ll read in this comment. I apologize for the length here; I wanted to give your counter argument the proper attention it deserves. No worries if it’s TLDR. With respect to Ovi not being higher in other places, it takes the general public in all sports (including fans/pundits/national writers/list-makers etc.) way longer than it should to properly rate active players. The Sporting News came out with the top 100 baseball players of all-time in 1998 and didn’t have a single player ranked in the top-25 who had debuted in the previous 31 years. It has always been this way. That’s one of the major reasons this site exists. I wouldn’t expect to see Ovechkin rated properly until he retires, or several years after, if ever. There will likely be a subsection of people who consciously or subconsciously hold it against him that he’s not Canadian or American. Biases show up in all kinds of ways in these sorts of discussions. I’m not 100% convinced that Ovi will get his proper due.

      For what it’s worth, I think there’s a good chance that Crosby would’ve ended up #2 on just about every list without the concussion issues. He had three seasons in his prime torpedoed, not to mention whatever lingering effects existed throughout the remainder of his career. For all his exploits, Crosby led the league in points just twice, and finished in the top-5 in goals just twice. Ovechkin has an identical .51 Goals Created per game, which attempts to better measure point contributions than simply taking raw points. That *should* be a stat that Crosby wins convincingly over Ovechkin. Crosby’s career has been spectacular as it is, but it could have been even more so. I’ll also add that everyone behind Gretzky has significant flaws (relatively speaking, of course). If I were giving a player rating (NHL 25 video game style) of the resumes (not as a player in the video game) in the top 10, it would go something like:

      99 Gretzky (No flaws)
      91 Ovechkin (Just 1 Stanley Cup, not a huge assist man, poor defensive rep)
      90 Lemieux (Played 65 games just six times, just 2 playoff successes)
      90 Howe (Way easier to win awards and lead the league with just six teams)
      89 Orr (Expansion era weakest in history of the NHL, done by the age of 27)
      89 Crosby (Just 2 seasons top-5 in goals, led the league in points just twice)
      88 Roy (3 Vezinas lowest of the Roy/Brodeur/Hasek trio, most wins twice)
      86 McDavid (No Stanley Cups)
      86 Jagr (1 Hart, No Conn Smythe, little playoff success outside of Lemieux)
      86 Messier (Zero top-5 finishes in goals, lacked monster point totals)

      The difference between Gretzky and Ovechkin is larger than the difference between Ovechkin and Messier. I appreciate the reference to “all-around game” when it comes to Ovechkin, however, of all of the important things in hockey–and there are many–scoring goals is, by far, the most important, and Ovechkin is, far and away, the greatest there ever was. To be so much better than everyone else at the most important skill in hockey usurps deficiencies in other areas, IMO. Keep in mind, it’s not just goal totals that matter, since it has been harder to score goals in some eras vs. others. It’s what a player did relative to what other players were doing from the same era. Nobody is even close to Ovechkin in this area. Hull and Dionne were solid goal scorers, but their resumes fall well short across the board. Dionne played in the most inflated scoring era in history, never led the league in goals, and has virtually no playoff record to speak of. Hull–a step up from Dionne–led the league in goals three times, but only finished in the top-5 one other time, and he didn’t find playoff success until he joined Cup-ready teams as a veteran late in his career. Mike Bossy probably supports your counterargument better than Dionne and Hull, so I’ll add him to the comparison below.

      Hart Trophies:

      Ovechkin 3
      Hull 0
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 0

      Richard Trophies (led the league in goals)

      Ovechkin 9
      Hull 3
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 2

      Top-5 in Goals

      Ovechkin 15
      Hull 4
      Dionne 6
      Bossy 8

      Conn Smythe Trophies

      Ovechkin 1
      Hull 0
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 1

      Ross Trophies (league scoring leader)

      Ovechkin 1
      Hull 0
      Dionne 1
      Bossy 0

      First Team All-Star Selections

      Ovechkin 8
      Hull 3
      Dionne 2
      Bossy 5

      First or Second Team All-Star Selections

      Ovechkin 12
      Hull 3
      Dionne 4
      Bossy 8

      Adjusted goals

      Ovechkin 999
      Hull 738
      Dionne 610
      Bossy 461

      Adjusted goals per game

      Ovechkin .67
      Hull .58
      Dionne .45
      Bossy .61

      Adjusted points

      Ovechkin 1778
      Hull 1390
      Dionne 1493
      Bossy 906

      Adjusted points per game

      Ovechkin 1.19
      Hull 1.10
      Dionne 1.10
      Bossy 1.20

      Bossy comes in at an impressive 1.20 adjusted points per game over his career, but Ovechkin held on to essentially the same pace as Bossy for 738 more games! The fact that Ovechkin is, by far, the greatest goal scorer (way ahead when adjusted for era) and has done it for as long as he has is what puts him above all of the other elite, but flawed, resumes. I’ll end with a remarkable Ovechkin stat: Post-Original Six, Ovechkin led the NHL in goals 9 times. No other player has even finished in the top-5 more than 8 times. These are epic feats not just relative to the players from his era, but in any era. This all really comes down to who can I make the best argument for at each spot. Nobody touches Gretzky at #1. There are several worthy contenders for the #2 spot, but if it’s a debate, give me Ovi’s side. Cheers!

8. 

   That’s a really great response Jake. You have me convinced – or almost! I think ultimately it’s the winning or lack thereof which is my main concern. As you say it’s very close after Gretzky. I tend to value peak a little more than longevity and so for me Lennie’s is number 2, but it could go anyway.
   I take your point about current players being underrated and you are absolutely right. But I do think caution is sometimes warranted. I don’t think you e done it here, but there is a danger with current players that we start to project what they are going to do rather than what they’ve done. Take Tiger Woods for example. A few years ago people were all too ready to give him the number 1 spot. Now it’s apparent he won’t catch Jack in major wins and his career has collapsed folks are pulling back from Tiger as top dog.

   1. 

      Totally fair and love the dialogue. No doubt that caution is warranted when ranking active athletes. The only way to do it is to be deliberate about treating athletes as if their career ended today. Since everything I do is a resume comparison, that mindset helps avoid the temptation to project. FYI–You probably don’t want to read the Golf 100 and the “Why?” at the top of the list (it was much easier to win a major in the 60s and 70s than the 2000s). Although, given your penchant for peak, I’m a little surprised you aren’t more impressed with Tiger’s resume. That peak is ludicrous!

      1. 

         The argument about the internationalization of the game, and how that has made things more competitive is obviously legitimate. But it’s interesting that despite the trend, the game is still very much dominated by Canadians in terms of great players. By my rough count there are 6 Russians, 6 Americans, 3 Swedes, 2 Czechs, 2 Finns, a Slovak and a Slovenian on your list. That leaves 79 Canadians. That might be more than there would be Americans on an NBA list (I need to look at your version) and certainly more than Americans on a baseball list.

         1. 

            Hey Stirlo,

            I think that’s a function of the fact that the NHL existed for 70 years before the game went full (relatively speaking) global. If you look at the players on the list who began their careers since 1990, 18 of the 36 are from Europe.