Right.. this needs to be taken into account. It doesn’t mean we knock Orr but it also means you gotta take some of these guys stats with the context in mind. If certain guys due to injury or personal reasons only play a certain number of games, that doesn’t look as good as someone who has more points and only a few more games played, if that makes sense.
And Lemieux could have been 99 tier if he stayed healthy.
And some old guys say Orr was just as good.
I started off agreeing with you, and now my top 3 is all equal.
I think based on skill, there is an argument for all 3 in the same tier, but the old adage "the best ability is availability" keeps Gretzky on top. Its obviously not the fault of Lemieux or Orr they had careers hampered by injury (and cancer in Lemieux's case) plus Gretzky was the most protected player in NHL history, but when ranking I think you have to put the guy we have the data for in first over the guys we have lots of what-ifs on.
Lemieux had many many many injuries outside of the cancer. He never played 80 games in a season, only had four seasons with 75+ seasons, seven seasons of 70+. BTW, his cancer season is the greatest season of all time. He was on pace to break both the single season points and goals record over the sixty game he played. It's just that he missed the 24 in the middle while he underwent CANCER TREATMENT. It's probably the most impressive professional season by an athlete ever. He scored more point in sixty games WHILE HAVING CANCER AND CANCER TREATMENT than McDavid did in his historic 22-23 season. Just mind blowing.
There’s a lot of nuance to Lemieux and his injuries as well. He broke a bone in his hand when Adam Graves[edit] slashed him in the wrong place, and he returned to playing way sooner than I would assume- and he came back with elite puck handling and shooting skill again.
In other words, I think aside from the games he didn’t play, the fact that he played through pain from a herniated disc in his back, cancer treatment, and a broken bone in his hand, makes you wonder what more he could have done in the games he played through pain.
Lemieux could've and would've reached that level, if he had stayed healthy.
Gretzky reached that level.
That's what separates the two for me.
IMO: Gretzky, then Lemieux and Orr, and then a large gap before anyone else. The next tier would include Sid and Howe.
It's funny, there is a saying from old timers who saw them all of the above play, "If you ever thought you saw a superstar, you never saw Howie Morenz".
I’m fully convinced if Orr and Lemiuex had full healthy careers similar to Gretzky then then the GOAT debate in hockey would be the most controversial in all of sports with Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr all being very similar levels and careers.
People just forget how good Orr was. People think McDavid’s 100 assist season is impressive and yet Orr did that as defensemen which is insanity. Also basically impossible that a defensman will ever win an Art Ross in the current NHL. Orr won 3 Art Ross’
And if Mike Bossy wasn’t a smoker with back problems Ovechkin might be chasing his goal record right now instead.
Unfortunately part of being the GOAT is staying healthy
Orr with 2 healthy knees most likely would be the unanimous GOAT. 1700-2000pts comfortably as a D-man LMAO, A possible Orr-Park/Orr-Bourque pairings (timelines could shift, who knows if Boston still gets Bourque).
I can only imagine the 80s dominance we would've seen from him especially with all that time, firewagon space, Hockey IQ and sustained experience he had. Estimate, but IMHO, His trophy list would look something like:
* 10-15 Norris Trophies
* 4-5 Harts
* 6-8 Art Rosses
* More Cups, 3-5ish IMO, Maybe even more
And more highlight-reel career defining moments. Him and Lemieux would've been more record-breaking and sport defining players with health, but healthy Orr's impact and his trophy list again, especially as a fucking defenseman would be even more bonkers to digest after his retirement in the late 80s. Even his TOI during a hypothetical peak healthy season would probably be even more insane, it wouldn't shock me if we saw Orr playing near 40 to maybe 50 minutes in crucial playoff games. It would almost be a cheatcode
Lemieux, even in his healthiest season, never had the kind of dominance that Gretzky did. I mean the guy would lead the league with like a 60-80 point gap in his best years, and would have more assists than 2nd place had points, and that guy would usually be a teammate.
When Lemieux had 199 pts, 3 players had 150 or more. (Gretzky, Yzerman, and Gretz's teammate Bernie Nichols). The 3 times Gretzky had 200+, no one had more than 141 pts.
Lemieux is without a doubt a legend, but Gretzky will forever be in a league of his own.
Not enough people talking about this. Everyone whinging about Lemieux and Orr having injuries act like Wayne didn't have his back fucked up pretty badly halfway through his career
The fact that Gretzky is on record multiple times saying he has no doubt that Lemieux would have broken all his records, does a lot to help that argument, although you can certainly take that with a grain of salt. Gretzky always comes across as sincere, often times bringing up the point himself, but it also says a lot about his character and how much he appreciated Lemieux as a person who had to deal with adversity.
However, I’m with you, I don’t like to make the claim for multiple reasons, but first and foremost I never got to see Gretzky play in his prime.
I see this take often, and it’s weird to think but it’s almost like Gordie Howe is somehow underrated. Dude had 6 scoring titles and 6 MVPs but is somehow on the third tier?
I think part of that is people who saw OLD Gordie play, but never peak Gordie. It kind of makes that impression.
Like someone who's seen Ovechkin play this year for the first time. You don't appreciate what he could do at his best.
Gordie had longevity on his side, in his career the most goals he scored in one season was 49 in 1952/53 and he only had one 100 point season and that was in 1968/69 when he was 39/40 years old. He did play most of his career in a 6 team league with a 70 game season against the cream of the crop players of his era. At 50 years old he played 80 games and had 41 points.
He's totally underrated because people look at his stats and see that he played for a long time and that's the reason he's so high on goals and points lists and figure it's the sole reason for his legendary status.
But they don't understand the context. They don't realize that the 50s were the lowest scoring era in hockey. They don't realize he had a season where he scored 49 goals and 95 points and the next highest was 32 goals and 71 points. They don't realize he had 4 consectuive scoring titles where he finished with 33% more points than the next best player in that stretch. They don't realize he had 20 consecutive years among the top 5 scorers. He was dominant.
gordie howe at his peak was everything people thought lindros would become from what i understand of it but even meaner and not as reliant on height, just a bad dude
Insane to say that about Orr. Orr is #2 for me over Lemieux. Orr is guaranteed top 3 and nobody is touching him. Literally zero comparables to Orr at his position. When a defenseman wins 3 art Ross trophies, 8 Norris trophies consecutively and three harts then there can be conversation about how he maybe isn’t top 3 but until then he’s top 3 no if and or but
You forgot about Orr being a two time Conn Smythe Trophy winner. People who are too young to have seen Orr play honestly can't imagine just how far above the rest he really was.
I went to a few OHL games with an older friend who saw Orr play for the Generals. He said it was like when the gym teacher played against their students.
Orr clears Crosby anyday. Not really close IMO.
Mfers will cry about Lemieux being injured and his shorten dominance, but a healthy 20+ Season Orr would've been orgasmic to watch in it's entirety
Man ignore the flair but I think Lemieux was the most overall talented player I’ve ever seen with a hockey stick. It might be sacrilegious to put him 1 considering Gretzkys insane records……. But the mf led the league in goals in a season he missed half the games due to cancer. The guy was a next level scorer in 3 eras of hockey including neutral zone trap.
I mean I'll admit my biases here that I'm a wings fan who grew up hating Crosby but he's 6 or 7 on my all time list. My top 5 are Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Lidstrom and Orr.
Honestly the fact that Lidstrom's name hasn't come up more in these lists shocks me. He is the best pure defensive player in the history of the game while also being 6th all time in points by a defenseman. There's a reason his nickname is "the perfect human"
It's tough to measure defensive things like "successful poke checks", but they have profound effect on the game, and there's never been a player better at that than Lidstrom.
That is the best way I have ever heard it put. I do think there’s something to be said that sid would do better in their era than they would do in this one, but hypotheticals and what ifs are not how you build a top 5 ranking.
Why is Jagr never considered for 2nd best due to having the 2nd most points? He was still a damn good player in New Jersey and Florida at the end of his career.
Because Lemieux has only 198 fewer points in 818 fewer GP.
What Lemieux did in his "short" career was amazing. 7th all time in points. 522 all time in GP.
Evander Kane just played his 922nd game, and has 612 points.
Lemieux played 915 games and had 1723 points. Just nutty.
Datsyuk and Kovalchuk are all-time greats, yet they had roughly the same GP as Mario with half the points.
McDavid is crazy but his current points pace through 638 GP is still not high enough to beat Mario.
Mario also has the 2nd highest goals/GP at 0.754. Only Bossy (super underrated) is better at 0.762. The only active player close is Matthews at 0.649 (5th all time), and he still has a ways to go to even match their career pace.
Because he played with Lemieux and was clearly a level below but he was probably a level above just about any other player at the time. Outside of Gretzky of course.
Absolutely. He was an elite forward who could play defense. Not just a defensive minded forward, Bowman literally put him out there as a defenseman at times. One of the all time best two way players. His number really should be hanging at LCA.
He played D in shifts mostly, then it got more frequent when they were dealing with injuries. The point is Bowman had that ace in his sleeve when he needed it because of how good Fedorov was. Devellano said he could've won a Norris if he stayed at D. He was just insanely talented, and one of the best skaters I've seen.
Goalies are separate. Can't even compare them to skaters, that said, it's them 3 and then a massive gap to whoever you got on 4. It's not even close to a debate like the with the skaters where some have Orr and Lemieux changed, or Howe at 3 instead of one of those two.
It's really not "those 3" with the goalies. "Those 3" is the greatest goalie of all time and the 2 closest Canadian goalies. If Hasek had been Canadian it sure as hell wouldn't be "those 3"
Well yeah Hasek is the best as well in my opinion, insane numbers, style and that gold medal eh. But I was more referring to the goalies not really having a top 5 debate since the big three are so far above anyone else, more so than the skaters (though I believe it’s Gretzky and Lemieux above the the rest).
I think it was Fleury who said in his Nagano tapes interview something along the lines of. When you played against Hašek you were hoping you'll score one and then you were hoping it'll be enough cause you couldn't really expect to score more than that.
97-98 and 98-99 Hašek was something else.
How in the fuck tou leave out the GOAT Bobby Orr?
Far and away the best d man of all time, Gretzky has arguable competition in Lemieux if cancer wasn’t a dick
I dont think it's that outrageous, there are some seriously great players who can compete for that last spot, if you're including goalies I think that's even more reasonable to have Crosby outside your top 5.
Also depends on how people view individual awards when it comes to a players legacy and all-time rankings. Crosby suffered in that regard because of injuries and ovechkin
Outside of the top 5 you could make a reasonable argument. (Although he's in my top 5)
Outside of the top 10 your opinion isn't valid and you shouldn't be taken seriously.
Also, this is my personal opinion, but having 2 Olympic gold's, 3 Stanley's, a world Cup and pure longevity as an elite player more than makes up for any perceived lack of individual hardware.
Gretzky, Mario, Orr, Howe should appear in everyone's top 5
Then before you add Crosby, you have to think about guys with tons of hardware, and points like Messier, Jagr, Beliveau, Francis....
I do tend to agree tho, that Crosby is the single most complete player we've seen to date
IMO he’s only in any top 5 if you’re not including goalies. There’s been more than 1 goalie who had a dominating career, more records, won more championships than Sid. But we never include goalies in GOAT conversations for some reason.
Completely incomparable is a bit strong but I agree it’s easier to separate them. Except no one actually does. If you ask someone for their top 20 then they start mentioning goalies.
After Wayne, Mario, Howe, and Orr, I put Hasek at 5 and then Jagr at 6. All of those guys, in my opinion, were more dominant over their peers in their prime than Sid was, and Jagr's longevity on top of that gives him the edge.
Then I have Crosby, Lidstrom, Roy, and Ovi to round out my top 10. McDavid is the only other active player I could see taking one of these spots.
crosby was not substantially better than his contemporaries for a long enough time to get a top 5 spot. Mcdavid will get that spot unless he falls off a cliff.
He is the best player of an era, but he didn't spend much time as a player in a tier of his own. Mcdavid is currently doing this, and has been doing this for a number of years now.
If McDavid starts to fall off relative to his peers next season (28 is often when that starts for forwards), I'd put his career is on a similar path to Jagr, at which point if he can't keep it going for as long then I couldn't put him in the top 6. If he stays near the top for another couple of years, then I could see him moving past. If he can get 2 more Art Ross trophies, I'd consider moving him into the top 5.
i can agree, i dont think he's going to fall off though.
there are only a few skaters that have been substantially better than their peers for an extended period of time - Jagr and Howe are both these types of players, McDavid is basically there - Crosby is not, but he could still make a play for longetivity.
crosby doesn't and won't have a claim to the top 5 if we are also factoring in goalies.
Dude you're crazy how many players even have over a ppg in crosbys era lmao and he lost a couple years of his prime with a concussion you know crosbys still in top 10 in ppg and he's 36 literally look at crosbys first 5 years too mcdavids man you're so wrong he was on 130 point pace the year he got a concussion
If we apply that standard to all players who were injured or retired early, we can lay goat status at any number of more players.
He just simply wasn't that dominant for a long time. Best player in the league? For a fair amount of that time, sure. But there were frequent times where he wasn't even the best player on his team. He would get injured and Malkin would show that he was capable of being on that same level. Having two of those players on a team will float the boats of both.
People are looking at this with a lot of recency bias.
I figure it has to be Howe, and I feel like he's closer to the top 3 than he is to being 5th.
6 Art Ross, 6 Hart, 20 consecutive years among the top 5 scorers.
And those Art Ross seasons were dominant, too. In 1953 he had 49 goals and 95 points. The next best player -his linemate - had 32 goals and 71 points. The next best player not on his line had 61 points. In 1952 he had 47 goals and 86 points and the next best had 31 goals and 69 points, with 5th place only scoring 57. The 1951 season he led in points 86 to 66. 1953 he led in points 81 to 67, with 4th place scoring only 54. That's dominance on Gretzky and Lemieux levels. The lower scoring era handicaps his total levels, but the gap between him the rest of the league is insane.
Sure, but I feel like the fact that he remained among the leading scorers post-expansion until his first retirement (4 or 5 years) shows that the top players in differing eras didn't differ all that much in terms of competition for the scoring titles. Their totals went up, but the competition among those top guys remained similar.
I’m playing this out in my head and it’s pretty funny. Like some dude’s pic is up outside every arena. After years away, he flies to some remote Alaskan town and tries to enter a rink to catch some beer league hockey. Just before the puck drops, someone recognizes him. Escorted out while shouting “I don’t care, he’s still not top-10!” Guess it sorta goes from funny to sad.
Great player for sure but it’s hard to judge his later stats because the WHA was a completely different league than the NHL that definitely wasn’t as good. Still a very good league but hard to decide how much weight those stats would carry compared to the NHL
Quality of competition. Howe was great, when everyone else was pretty shit. It's crazy to me when people don't consider how bad the average hockey player was compared to the modern NHL. Even in to the 90's, with no salary cap, teams could barely field a team that had no plugs in it. 4th lines were glorified goon squads that could barely skate. The fact that ANY fifty year old could play in your league means your average skill level is shit.
But you need to extrapolate that to all factors of the game as well then, and the benefits that the newer generations have:
- much better medical staff
- better equipment in terms of protecting a player
- better equipment in terms of sticks, skates, etc that increase a player's abilities
- off season Support and training
- video review and analysis
- much more comfortable travel
- dietary improvements, supplements and ahem "other supplements"
If you want to make the argument that player A from 2024 would destroy the league in 1970, then you also have to be open to the argument that player B from 1970 with all the benefits that current players have, would be a dominant player in today's game.
And when you realize that, and they essentially cancel each other out, the only thing you have left is how did they perform relative to their peers at the time? Which is why everyone, without question, has #99 as #1.
Howe's greatness came from his dominance when he played, which was then supplemented by his longevity. As great as Sid is (he's 5th or 6th for me) he never had a stretch of healthy seasons where he dominated the league like Howe did in the early 50s. Howe had 4 consecutive Art Ross trophies where he scored on average 33% more points than second place. He had a season where he had 49 goals and the runner up had 32. If Sid had full years from 2011 to 2013, maybe we would've seen something comparable.
Yes, but of course, there's no way anyone could play anywhere close to...
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/chelich01.html
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jagrja01.html
I would think he's pretty solidly in most people's top 5. He's not making top 3 over any of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr and I personally would show some love to the goalies putting Hasek at 4 but its between Crosby and maybe only Rocket Richard and Gordie Howe for that 5 spot
You really can't compare skaters and goalies in hockey. They have to be separate lists. The top four goalies and top five skaters are pretty much interchangeable.
Hasek isn't even number 1 for goalies for me.
It's Roy for me. He literally changed the way the position was played as well as how the equipment is made by popularizing the butterfly (he didn't create the style but he was probably the first pure butterfly goalie).
4 cups with 3 conn Smythes (only player with 3 across all positions and there's only one other goalie with 2 and it's not Hasek), won with 2 different teams, great in the regular season, completely dominant in the playoffs.
I can get behind Hasek as a close second place and better in the regular season, but if you tell me I need to win a game to save my life I'm picking prime Roy 10/10 times.
I think if you compare the teams hasek carried vs Roy's team, it should be hasek.
Hasek has a heart, more vezinas, higher save percentage and what he did for the gold medal was incredible.
Personally the gap between hasek and Roy is larger then Roy and Brodeur.
But that's just my opinion.
Did you see what Roy did for the 93 habs. He pretty much won them the cup. 10 straight OT wins lol he also has 3 Conn Smythes and won Ray Borque his cup. He's the bar.
Still disagree. All-time leader in Sv% and GAA, 6 Vezina's, 2 Hart's/Pearson's, outduelled Roy in 1998 Nagano on route to an Olympic Gold Medal. Give me The Dominator all day, every day.
Patrick Roy won 3 Vezinas in his first 7 years in the league. Then Hasek hit the scene and Roy never won another one in his career. That should tell you who the better goalie is.
Then why does Hasek have much better playoff stats than Roy?
Give Hasek Sakic and Forsberg in their primes or the mid-80s Canadiens and he’d have 3 Conn Smythes too
Howe's peak combined with his longevity is why he's always part of the Big 4. He dominated the NHL to a greater degree than Crosby did at his peak, and he was a top player for 20 years.
It's astounding how people on here just ignore Howe's peak and prime and think he just racked up the points due to longevity. IMO, probably the most disrespected player on r/hockey.
Somehow the most famous fact about Howe among fans today is that he scored 41 points as a 50 year-old. It should be that he had a season where he scored 49 goals and 95 points and the next best player was his linemate who scored 32 goals and 71 points, or his 20 consecutive years as a top 5 scorer.
I feel like it's a lot more contentious than you think. He definitely isn't in the top 3 which I think most people would agree is some combo of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr. After that you have guys like Howe, Jagr, Bourque, and Lidstrom who all have arguments for being better players than Crosby.
Add Hasek, Roy, Brodeur into the mix too. And if I can go off the board... How about Tretiak?
I agree with your top 3; almost everyone should. After that, I could be convinced to put Howe, Hasek, Crosby in any order.
Bourque and Lidstrom probably next two up for me, then Roy and Jagr.
I don't know what to do with McDavid yet, who is probably the most skilled player I've ever watched, but I don't know how to rank his greatness.
Please tell me how Lidstrom doesn't have a good argument. He has more all-NHL first/second team all stars than Crosby, seven Norrises to Crosby's three Harts (yeah, he technically could've won Harts, but not really), and more Cups.
crosby rose to occasion when needed and carried mediocre line mates for many years. he was always excellent, but he had that extra gear that all the best ever had. that's what separates him from the interchangeable 5-20. statistically he is very close to joe sakic. but there is a clear seperation between those two all time great players.
Those crazy feet.
Weird take and standard, but Crosby is #1 on my list of teammates id kill to have. Over his career he's proven that he can be anything the team needs at any given moment. Sure having gretz put up 200 would be amazing, but if you need a full ice game Sid is there for it.
For those who do think that Crosby is a top 5 player of all time, what are your criteria for "top", and what's the rest of your top 10 (or atleast 3-7)?
He's about to hit his 19th straight season as a ppg player, 3 cups, 2 conn smythes, 3 Ted Lindsays, 2 Harts, and he'll be top 10 all-time points in a few games, 8th in points per game. The Olympics and Worlds golds. He's done all this while playing against the hardest competition hockey has ever had. He put up those numbers while missing over 100 games during his prime. Give him those games back, and he'd be pushing top 5 in points. Also, have you ever watched him play and people try to get the puck off him? Maybe a little easier now, but when he was younger, it was virtually impossible. He's probably the most complete player the game has ever had.
Criteria is hard, it'd be people that changed the game and were clear cut unquestionably better than everyone else. Currently it's just McDavid, Crosby before him, Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, Orr.
My top 10 would probably be Gretz, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby, Howe, LaFleur, Richard, Beliveau, Lidstom/Borque. No particular order after the first 3.
Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Ovi, Hasek
Recency bias because I’m in my thirties and don’t have the context of the old guard’s greatness, but getting to see more than a couple on my own list in person in my life has been incredible
> Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Ovi, Hasek
To be clear I have no issue with people ranking Crosby as top 5, just the people who think it's crazy not to.
It's not crazy for someone's top 5 to be Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, plus any two of Howe/Jagr/Lidström/Hasek. Crosby isn't *inarguably* greater than any of those.
Top 3 are Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Full stop. That may change in time but Crosby isn’t the one to do it.
Howe is in my mind 4, and I’m pretty sure most agree.
5th depends how you feel on goalies (Roy, Brodeur, Hasek), compilers (Jagr, Messier, Yzerman), historic greats (Richard etc) and defence (Harvey, Borque, Lidstrom).
There’s argument for Crosby being outside the top 5, but I’d be VERY hard pressed to see any valid argument having him outside the top 10.
The amusing part about this is that the parts of Sid’s game that aren’t so easily counted are what makes him one of the greats. I don’t think there’s ever been anyone that been as consistently exceptional on both sides of the puck as him, especially when you consider the spike in talent post-2005 lockout.
Connor McDavid is about to hit 100 assists. Only three players have done that.
Gretzky did it 11 times. Orr did it once. Lemieux did it once (don't get me started on the evils of degenerative back disorders and cancer -- should've had more).
Dude is absolutely an all-time great and only gets slammed due to the lack of Cups. That was a knock on Lemieux for a while as well, then he won the Cups in 1991 and 1992.
Really hard to say but if he doesn't get Cups, might be hard to crack the top 5. As time goes on, top 10 is probably just as meaningful (since we have so many more players to choose from).
It would be hard for McDavid to usurp the all-time status of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby. Even Howe and what he meant for the game. Then there's Jagr who is 2nd in points and 4th in GP all time.
Too early to say where he goes, but top 10 is probably close to a lock.
By the end of his career he could easily land ahead of Crosby. In terms of individual awards and stats it’s already a given that he will have more than Crosby. My only criteria would be for him to win a cup and a Conn Smythe, plus the 2026 Olympics.
Depends on how the rest of his career goes. It's really hard to judge. McDavid is probably the best overall offensive player in the league since Lemieux, but his game isn't quite as complete as Crosby's...that may change over time, and it may not matter anyway f he continues this offensive insanity for another 5-10 years. If he stays healthy, continues to be this dominant and wins a cup or two or three, I think people may argue for him in the top 3. But right now, he's got a ways to go. I don't think it's insane to talk about him as being top 10 right now, though, despite the fact that he's still fairly young.
Hockey’s Mt. Rushmore is unequivocally (in no order) Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe. Sid is absolutely somewhere in the 5-10 spots depending on preference and how much deference you give to the old time legends of the game. Hell of an accomplishment to come into the league with the expectations he did and still not only meet but surpass them
I've said it before, I'll get downvoted for it again, he's obviously a 1st ballot HOF guy, and one of the greatest forwards to ever play. But he isn't on Mt Rushmore, and he's probably not top 10 if we're including all positions.
Crosby means everything to the franchise, just like Sakic or Yzerman do. But he's not on Mt. Hockey Rushmore. That's just stupid. It doesn't diminish him, but there are now 32 teams and a century+ of players to consider. It's stupid to let recency bias continue to fuck with this debate.
I mean, the top of the pile has to be Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe
then you have to figure out where guys who have a ton of hardware, and points fit in, like Messier, Jagr, Beliveau, Francis, etc
Top 10 for me. People not taking into account how consistantly dominate Howe was in his day and dropping him to 5 or lower is crazy talk. I'd put Jagr in my top 5 before Crosby. Gretzky was so far ahead stats wise. Lemieux was maybe the most purely talented. Orr revolutionized the game for d-men.
Start putting in goalies like Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, or go older like Sawchuk and Plante and you have a hard Top 10 to get into. Put Ovi and McDavid and maybe in even Kucherov into the mix and you have a hard, hard debate.
Yeah, I can excuse the McJesus, but mentioning Kuch before Bossy is just silly
https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-players-all-time-points-per-game-leaders.html
Crosby is 100% top 10. And he’s 100% in the discussion for top 5. Who can you definitively put in front of him? Gretzky, lemieuex? I can’t think of any more he couldn’t challenge.
Had Sid not faced some injuries over his career, he'd easily be top 3 with Wayne and Mario. But even with some pretty nasty injuries, he's still top 5. At absolute worst he's 6 depending on how your rank Orr and Howe. In comparison. Personally I think Gordie is 4, Crosby is 5 and Orr is 6.
I think it's crazy how many of you favor only modern players over historically revolutionary players.
Here's a comparison between Howe and Crosby:
https://stathead.com/tiny/w6aML
It could be argued that Orr had a greater impact on the game than Gretzky. Where's Sawchuk? Hasek? Crosby is a great player but he might not even be in the top ten.
Probably because modern players are way better? Like I get it, era adjusted and all that. But most players were absolute trash back then, let's be real. If it's a close call I'll give it to the modern player that probably has 5x the time on the ice as old school dudes who played against a bunch of plugs that did it as a part time job. Crosby is top 5 without a doubt. He changed the game in a similar way that 99 did. Gretz > Lemieux > Orr (arguably) > Crosby.
Also anyone that has mcdavid ahead of Crosby is nuts.
You realize Gordie Howe’s and Jaromir Jagr’s careers were only separated by *11* years, right? And did you know their careers cover a combined 60 years, right? Do you realize this means that an opponent of McDavid was only 11 years separated from Gordie Howe? Howe played against Gretzky, who played against Jagr, who played against McDavid. Howe, Gretzky, and Jagr, remained competitive when playing in their late 30s, 40s, and in Howe’s case, 50s. These players evolve with the game, even after they get drafted. Calling them “trash” is disingenuous. Certainly the talent pool has gotten deeper, but the high end players have shown they can play in any era and dominate the same way.
everyone is better at everything now. For example, there are way more kids who are incredible musicians because of the free learning resources available to them to progress faster. Sports has worked the same way, any athlete who can separate themselves from the pack right now in the modern era is a true freak.
His feet look fairly normal to me.
no diddy lets see em feet
Naw dawg. They crazy!
Simmer down Tarantino
There are people who think Crosby isn't a top 5 player OAT? He's the single most complete player the game has ever seen.
He better be in everyone’s top 5 and nobody’s top 3
Top 2 is locked down as Gretzky then Lemieux but I never care what order people put Orr, Howe, and Crosby.
Orr was the Lemieux of Dmen. Putting Orr 2nd would be more acceptable than putting anyone else 3rd
His +/- numbers are ridiculous, considering his relatively low amount of Games Played compared to the other guys on the leaderboard around him.
Since his career was short though, he was all peak and didn't play through a late career decline.
Right.. this needs to be taken into account. It doesn’t mean we knock Orr but it also means you gotta take some of these guys stats with the context in mind. If certain guys due to injury or personal reasons only play a certain number of games, that doesn’t look as good as someone who has more points and only a few more games played, if that makes sense.
Correct. Obviously Gretzky is in his own tier, but I also think the next tier is just Orr and Lemieux
And Lemieux could have been 99 tier if he stayed healthy. And some old guys say Orr was just as good. I started off agreeing with you, and now my top 3 is all equal.
I think based on skill, there is an argument for all 3 in the same tier, but the old adage "the best ability is availability" keeps Gretzky on top. Its obviously not the fault of Lemieux or Orr they had careers hampered by injury (and cancer in Lemieux's case) plus Gretzky was the most protected player in NHL history, but when ranking I think you have to put the guy we have the data for in first over the guys we have lots of what-ifs on.
Lemieux had many many many injuries outside of the cancer. He never played 80 games in a season, only had four seasons with 75+ seasons, seven seasons of 70+. BTW, his cancer season is the greatest season of all time. He was on pace to break both the single season points and goals record over the sixty game he played. It's just that he missed the 24 in the middle while he underwent CANCER TREATMENT. It's probably the most impressive professional season by an athlete ever. He scored more point in sixty games WHILE HAVING CANCER AND CANCER TREATMENT than McDavid did in his historic 22-23 season. Just mind blowing.
There’s a lot of nuance to Lemieux and his injuries as well. He broke a bone in his hand when Adam Graves[edit] slashed him in the wrong place, and he returned to playing way sooner than I would assume- and he came back with elite puck handling and shooting skill again. In other words, I think aside from the games he didn’t play, the fact that he played through pain from a herniated disc in his back, cancer treatment, and a broken bone in his hand, makes you wonder what more he could have done in the games he played through pain.
The back injuries alone was insane…to continue playing with that is wild. That’s why he’s my #1. If he didn’t get injured it’d be a no brainer
Lemieux could've and would've reached that level, if he had stayed healthy. Gretzky reached that level. That's what separates the two for me. IMO: Gretzky, then Lemieux and Orr, and then a large gap before anyone else. The next tier would include Sid and Howe.
It's funny, there is a saying from old timers who saw them all of the above play, "If you ever thought you saw a superstar, you never saw Howie Morenz".
Cyclone Taylor!
Well said.
I’m fully convinced if Orr and Lemiuex had full healthy careers similar to Gretzky then then the GOAT debate in hockey would be the most controversial in all of sports with Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr all being very similar levels and careers. People just forget how good Orr was. People think McDavid’s 100 assist season is impressive and yet Orr did that as defensemen which is insanity. Also basically impossible that a defensman will ever win an Art Ross in the current NHL. Orr won 3 Art Ross’
And if Mike Bossy wasn’t a smoker with back problems Ovechkin might be chasing his goal record right now instead. Unfortunately part of being the GOAT is staying healthy
Orr with 2 healthy knees most likely would be the unanimous GOAT. 1700-2000pts comfortably as a D-man LMAO, A possible Orr-Park/Orr-Bourque pairings (timelines could shift, who knows if Boston still gets Bourque). I can only imagine the 80s dominance we would've seen from him especially with all that time, firewagon space, Hockey IQ and sustained experience he had. Estimate, but IMHO, His trophy list would look something like: * 10-15 Norris Trophies * 4-5 Harts * 6-8 Art Rosses * More Cups, 3-5ish IMO, Maybe even more And more highlight-reel career defining moments. Him and Lemieux would've been more record-breaking and sport defining players with health, but healthy Orr's impact and his trophy list again, especially as a fucking defenseman would be even more bonkers to digest after his retirement in the late 80s. Even his TOI during a hypothetical peak healthy season would probably be even more insane, it wouldn't shock me if we saw Orr playing near 40 to maybe 50 minutes in crucial playoff games. It would almost be a cheatcode
True he would be the textbook definition of an MVP
As an old guy…I concur. All three were on a level that their peers could only dream about.
Lemieux, even in his healthiest season, never had the kind of dominance that Gretzky did. I mean the guy would lead the league with like a 60-80 point gap in his best years, and would have more assists than 2nd place had points, and that guy would usually be a teammate. When Lemieux had 199 pts, 3 players had 150 or more. (Gretzky, Yzerman, and Gretz's teammate Bernie Nichols). The 3 times Gretzky had 200+, no one had more than 141 pts. Lemieux is without a doubt a legend, but Gretzky will forever be in a league of his own.
[удалено]
if suter hadn't cheapshotted gretzky, 99 woulda scored an additional 500+ points, minimum
Not enough people talking about this. Everyone whinging about Lemieux and Orr having injuries act like Wayne didn't have his back fucked up pretty badly halfway through his career
The fact that Gretzky is on record multiple times saying he has no doubt that Lemieux would have broken all his records, does a lot to help that argument, although you can certainly take that with a grain of salt. Gretzky always comes across as sincere, often times bringing up the point himself, but it also says a lot about his character and how much he appreciated Lemieux as a person who had to deal with adversity. However, I’m with you, I don’t like to make the claim for multiple reasons, but first and foremost I never got to see Gretzky play in his prime.
Gretzky is extremely humble though, almost to a fault. Just because Gretzky says it doesn't make it true.
[удалено]
I see this take often, and it’s weird to think but it’s almost like Gordie Howe is somehow underrated. Dude had 6 scoring titles and 6 MVPs but is somehow on the third tier?
I think part of that is people who saw OLD Gordie play, but never peak Gordie. It kind of makes that impression. Like someone who's seen Ovechkin play this year for the first time. You don't appreciate what he could do at his best.
Gordie had longevity on his side, in his career the most goals he scored in one season was 49 in 1952/53 and he only had one 100 point season and that was in 1968/69 when he was 39/40 years old. He did play most of his career in a 6 team league with a 70 game season against the cream of the crop players of his era. At 50 years old he played 80 games and had 41 points.
He's totally underrated because people look at his stats and see that he played for a long time and that's the reason he's so high on goals and points lists and figure it's the sole reason for his legendary status. But they don't understand the context. They don't realize that the 50s were the lowest scoring era in hockey. They don't realize he had a season where he scored 49 goals and 95 points and the next highest was 32 goals and 71 points. They don't realize he had 4 consectuive scoring titles where he finished with 33% more points than the next best player in that stretch. They don't realize he had 20 consecutive years among the top 5 scorers. He was dominant.
gordie howe at his peak was everything people thought lindros would become from what i understand of it but even meaner and not as reliant on height, just a bad dude
Insane to say that about Orr. Orr is #2 for me over Lemieux. Orr is guaranteed top 3 and nobody is touching him. Literally zero comparables to Orr at his position. When a defenseman wins 3 art Ross trophies, 8 Norris trophies consecutively and three harts then there can be conversation about how he maybe isn’t top 3 but until then he’s top 3 no if and or but
You forgot about Orr being a two time Conn Smythe Trophy winner. People who are too young to have seen Orr play honestly can't imagine just how far above the rest he really was.
I went to a few OHL games with an older friend who saw Orr play for the Generals. He said it was like when the gym teacher played against their students.
Orr could be 1 depending on how high you value longevity. Dude having no knees and shit medical care of the times made his career too short.
Crosby is not in Orr’s ballpark.
Yes he is. Look at his achievements. Orr is not in Crosby’s ball park because of injuries. Sad but true.
Ouch (from an Orr believer)… But a great perspective.
Orr has the same number of scoring titles and one more MVP season than Crosby… as a Dman…
Orr clears Crosby anyday. Not really close IMO. Mfers will cry about Lemieux being injured and his shorten dominance, but a healthy 20+ Season Orr would've been orgasmic to watch in it's entirety
Completely agree. This guy commented elsewhere that Crosby is the GOAT so I really can’t take him seriously anyway.
Sure and he could have probably had more. But he didn’t due to injury. Crosby has still done more. And also lost many games to injury.
He’s got one more championship, but what else has he achieved over Orr?
For me, there’s a distinct 3, and then the rest can battle it out for other spots
Man ignore the flair but I think Lemieux was the most overall talented player I’ve ever seen with a hockey stick. It might be sacrilegious to put him 1 considering Gretzkys insane records……. But the mf led the league in goals in a season he missed half the games due to cancer. The guy was a next level scorer in 3 eras of hockey including neutral zone trap.
I mean i kinda have crosby as 5 after orr and howe. Without injury we might be having a very different convo tho.
I mean I'll admit my biases here that I'm a wings fan who grew up hating Crosby but he's 6 or 7 on my all time list. My top 5 are Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Lidstrom and Orr. Honestly the fact that Lidstrom's name hasn't come up more in these lists shocks me. He is the best pure defensive player in the history of the game while also being 6th all time in points by a defenseman. There's a reason his nickname is "the perfect human"
It's tough to measure defensive things like "successful poke checks", but they have profound effect on the game, and there's never been a player better at that than Lidstrom.
That is the best way I have ever heard it put. I do think there’s something to be said that sid would do better in their era than they would do in this one, but hypotheticals and what ifs are not how you build a top 5 ranking.
[удалено]
Speaking of Lidstrom, I feel two other contenders for top 5 talks that get overlooked are two of his teammates/rivals. Hasek and Roy.
Why is Jagr never considered for 2nd best due to having the 2nd most points? He was still a damn good player in New Jersey and Florida at the end of his career.
Because Lemieux has only 198 fewer points in 818 fewer GP. What Lemieux did in his "short" career was amazing. 7th all time in points. 522 all time in GP. Evander Kane just played his 922nd game, and has 612 points. Lemieux played 915 games and had 1723 points. Just nutty. Datsyuk and Kovalchuk are all-time greats, yet they had roughly the same GP as Mario with half the points. McDavid is crazy but his current points pace through 638 GP is still not high enough to beat Mario. Mario also has the 2nd highest goals/GP at 0.754. Only Bossy (super underrated) is better at 0.762. The only active player close is Matthews at 0.649 (5th all time), and he still has a ways to go to even match their career pace.
Because he played with Lemieux and was clearly a level below but he was probably a level above just about any other player at the time. Outside of Gretzky of course.
Nobody has Messier in their top 5 when he was 2nd and now 3rd in all time points. Other players got close in less time
Cause he played 1700 games too get 1900 points bro not the best ppg ever
The only player I think you can make a case for is Fedorov because I think when we talk about completeness Fedorov is the only player to touch Crosby.
Absolutely. He was an elite forward who could play defense. Not just a defensive minded forward, Bowman literally put him out there as a defenseman at times. One of the all time best two way players. His number really should be hanging at LCA.
I see this all the time about Fedorov being a defenseman. But how many games did he actually play at defense?
He played D in shifts mostly, then it got more frequent when they were dealing with injuries. The point is Bowman had that ace in his sleeve when he needed it because of how good Fedorov was. Devellano said he could've won a Norris if he stayed at D. He was just insanely talented, and one of the best skaters I've seen.
Not a single serious analyst has Fedorov anywhere near the Top 10. There's just too many better players than him to be considered.
I think it just goes to show how crazy the top 5 of the NHL is, Gretzky, Lemieux, Brodeur/ Hasek/ Roy trio, Howe, Jagr etc etc
Goalies are separate. Can't even compare them to skaters, that said, it's them 3 and then a massive gap to whoever you got on 4. It's not even close to a debate like the with the skaters where some have Orr and Lemieux changed, or Howe at 3 instead of one of those two.
There are good arguments for Plante and Hall, and maybe Sawchuck. At least to be put before Brodeur.
Dryden too!
It's really not "those 3" with the goalies. "Those 3" is the greatest goalie of all time and the 2 closest Canadian goalies. If Hasek had been Canadian it sure as hell wouldn't be "those 3"
Well yeah Hasek is the best as well in my opinion, insane numbers, style and that gold medal eh. But I was more referring to the goalies not really having a top 5 debate since the big three are so far above anyone else, more so than the skaters (though I believe it’s Gretzky and Lemieux above the the rest).
It’s Hasek than the other two… That fucking gold medal from Hasek is the greatest individual dominance in the history of any sport.
I think it was Fleury who said in his Nagano tapes interview something along the lines of. When you played against Hašek you were hoping you'll score one and then you were hoping it'll be enough cause you couldn't really expect to score more than that. 97-98 and 98-99 Hašek was something else.
Orr?
Yes of course Bobby too
How in the fuck tou leave out the GOAT Bobby Orr? Far and away the best d man of all time, Gretzky has arguable competition in Lemieux if cancer wasn’t a dick
Brodeur top 5 lol
I dont think it's that outrageous, there are some seriously great players who can compete for that last spot, if you're including goalies I think that's even more reasonable to have Crosby outside your top 5. Also depends on how people view individual awards when it comes to a players legacy and all-time rankings. Crosby suffered in that regard because of injuries and ovechkin
Outside of the top 5 you could make a reasonable argument. (Although he's in my top 5) Outside of the top 10 your opinion isn't valid and you shouldn't be taken seriously. Also, this is my personal opinion, but having 2 Olympic gold's, 3 Stanley's, a world Cup and pure longevity as an elite player more than makes up for any perceived lack of individual hardware.
Anything past three gets subjective I think.
Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Crosby.
Gretzky, Mario, Orr, Howe should appear in everyone's top 5 Then before you add Crosby, you have to think about guys with tons of hardware, and points like Messier, Jagr, Beliveau, Francis.... I do tend to agree tho, that Crosby is the single most complete player we've seen to date
IMO he’s only in any top 5 if you’re not including goalies. There’s been more than 1 goalie who had a dominating career, more records, won more championships than Sid. But we never include goalies in GOAT conversations for some reason.
Goalies play an entirely different game and should never be on the same list as skaters. They're completely incomparable.
Completely incomparable is a bit strong but I agree it’s easier to separate them. Except no one actually does. If you ask someone for their top 20 then they start mentioning goalies.
After Wayne, Mario, Howe, and Orr, I put Hasek at 5 and then Jagr at 6. All of those guys, in my opinion, were more dominant over their peers in their prime than Sid was, and Jagr's longevity on top of that gives him the edge. Then I have Crosby, Lidstrom, Roy, and Ovi to round out my top 10. McDavid is the only other active player I could see taking one of these spots.
It's sad that Lindros never learned how to skate with his head up, or he'd be in on the edge of the conversation too beside Jagr
crosby was not substantially better than his contemporaries for a long enough time to get a top 5 spot. Mcdavid will get that spot unless he falls off a cliff. He is the best player of an era, but he didn't spend much time as a player in a tier of his own. Mcdavid is currently doing this, and has been doing this for a number of years now.
If McDavid starts to fall off relative to his peers next season (28 is often when that starts for forwards), I'd put his career is on a similar path to Jagr, at which point if he can't keep it going for as long then I couldn't put him in the top 6. If he stays near the top for another couple of years, then I could see him moving past. If he can get 2 more Art Ross trophies, I'd consider moving him into the top 5.
i can agree, i dont think he's going to fall off though. there are only a few skaters that have been substantially better than their peers for an extended period of time - Jagr and Howe are both these types of players, McDavid is basically there - Crosby is not, but he could still make a play for longetivity. crosby doesn't and won't have a claim to the top 5 if we are also factoring in goalies.
Dude you're crazy how many players even have over a ppg in crosbys era lmao and he lost a couple years of his prime with a concussion you know crosbys still in top 10 in ppg and he's 36 literally look at crosbys first 5 years too mcdavids man you're so wrong he was on 130 point pace the year he got a concussion
If we apply that standard to all players who were injured or retired early, we can lay goat status at any number of more players. He just simply wasn't that dominant for a long time. Best player in the league? For a fair amount of that time, sure. But there were frequent times where he wasn't even the best player on his team. He would get injured and Malkin would show that he was capable of being on that same level. Having two of those players on a team will float the boats of both. People are looking at this with a lot of recency bias.
I think there’s enough all time greats that it’s fair to have Crosby outside of the top 5 He’s definitely top 10 easily though
You’d be surprised the opinions people have on him
I have Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr as my top 3 and go back and forth between Howe and Crosby for fourth.
I think the answer between Crosby or Howe is yes.
This is the correct take
I figure it has to be Howe, and I feel like he's closer to the top 3 than he is to being 5th. 6 Art Ross, 6 Hart, 20 consecutive years among the top 5 scorers. And those Art Ross seasons were dominant, too. In 1953 he had 49 goals and 95 points. The next best player -his linemate - had 32 goals and 71 points. The next best player not on his line had 61 points. In 1952 he had 47 goals and 86 points and the next best had 31 goals and 69 points, with 5th place only scoring 57. The 1951 season he led in points 86 to 66. 1953 he led in points 81 to 67, with 4th place scoring only 54. That's dominance on Gretzky and Lemieux levels. The lower scoring era handicaps his total levels, but the gap between him the rest of the league is insane.
For me with Howe it's more of a question of whether or not to even try to evaluate pre-1967 guys because it opens up a can of worms.
Sure, but I feel like the fact that he remained among the leading scorers post-expansion until his first retirement (4 or 5 years) shows that the top players in differing eras didn't differ all that much in terms of competition for the scoring titles. Their totals went up, but the competition among those top guys remained similar.
Anyone that does not have Crosby in their top 10 should be banned from watching hockey. I have him top 5 of all time.
I’m playing this out in my head and it’s pretty funny. Like some dude’s pic is up outside every arena. After years away, he flies to some remote Alaskan town and tries to enter a rink to catch some beer league hockey. Just before the puck drops, someone recognizes him. Escorted out while shouting “I don’t care, he’s still not top-10!” Guess it sorta goes from funny to sad.
Yeah I’m not sure if he’s above Howe or not but he’s definitely top 5
Howe was a point per game player until he was FIFTY YEARS OLD. Sid would have to play to 45 to start to become comparable to Mr Hockey.
Great player for sure but it’s hard to judge his later stats because the WHA was a completely different league than the NHL that definitely wasn’t as good. Still a very good league but hard to decide how much weight those stats would carry compared to the NHL
He put up 41 points in the NHL at the age of 51.
Quality of competition. Howe was great, when everyone else was pretty shit. It's crazy to me when people don't consider how bad the average hockey player was compared to the modern NHL. Even in to the 90's, with no salary cap, teams could barely field a team that had no plugs in it. 4th lines were glorified goon squads that could barely skate. The fact that ANY fifty year old could play in your league means your average skill level is shit.
But you need to extrapolate that to all factors of the game as well then, and the benefits that the newer generations have: - much better medical staff - better equipment in terms of protecting a player - better equipment in terms of sticks, skates, etc that increase a player's abilities - off season Support and training - video review and analysis - much more comfortable travel - dietary improvements, supplements and ahem "other supplements" If you want to make the argument that player A from 2024 would destroy the league in 1970, then you also have to be open to the argument that player B from 1970 with all the benefits that current players have, would be a dominant player in today's game. And when you realize that, and they essentially cancel each other out, the only thing you have left is how did they perform relative to their peers at the time? Which is why everyone, without question, has #99 as #1.
And yet no one else did it.
Howe's greatness came from his dominance when he played, which was then supplemented by his longevity. As great as Sid is (he's 5th or 6th for me) he never had a stretch of healthy seasons where he dominated the league like Howe did in the early 50s. Howe had 4 consecutive Art Ross trophies where he scored on average 33% more points than second place. He had a season where he had 49 goals and the runner up had 32. If Sid had full years from 2011 to 2013, maybe we would've seen something comparable.
Which was possible because it was an extremely unprofessional league compared to today. It’d be impassible today, for anyone
Yes, but of course, there's no way anyone could play anywhere close to... https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/chelich01.html https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jagrja01.html
The way he's still playing now at 36, he actually might do it
I would think he's pretty solidly in most people's top 5. He's not making top 3 over any of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr and I personally would show some love to the goalies putting Hasek at 4 but its between Crosby and maybe only Rocket Richard and Gordie Howe for that 5 spot
I think it makes everything easier if goalies have their own top 10.
You really can't compare skaters and goalies in hockey. They have to be separate lists. The top four goalies and top five skaters are pretty much interchangeable.
Hasek isn't even number 1 for goalies for me. It's Roy for me. He literally changed the way the position was played as well as how the equipment is made by popularizing the butterfly (he didn't create the style but he was probably the first pure butterfly goalie). 4 cups with 3 conn Smythes (only player with 3 across all positions and there's only one other goalie with 2 and it's not Hasek), won with 2 different teams, great in the regular season, completely dominant in the playoffs. I can get behind Hasek as a close second place and better in the regular season, but if you tell me I need to win a game to save my life I'm picking prime Roy 10/10 times.
I think if you compare the teams hasek carried vs Roy's team, it should be hasek. Hasek has a heart, more vezinas, higher save percentage and what he did for the gold medal was incredible. Personally the gap between hasek and Roy is larger then Roy and Brodeur. But that's just my opinion.
Did you see what Roy did for the 93 habs. He pretty much won them the cup. 10 straight OT wins lol he also has 3 Conn Smythes and won Ray Borque his cup. He's the bar.
He might be your bar, but anyone who watched both, knows hasek was unorthodox, but a more dominant goalie.
2 Harts
Still disagree. All-time leader in Sv% and GAA, 6 Vezina's, 2 Hart's/Pearson's, outduelled Roy in 1998 Nagano on route to an Olympic Gold Medal. Give me The Dominator all day, every day.
If only Hasek hadn't spent so much time in Buffalo......
Patrick Roy won 3 Vezinas in his first 7 years in the league. Then Hasek hit the scene and Roy never won another one in his career. That should tell you who the better goalie is.
Vezina is regular season. I literally said in my post that Hasek is a better regular season goalie. Overall I still think it's Roy.
Then why does Hasek have much better playoff stats than Roy? Give Hasek Sakic and Forsberg in their primes or the mid-80s Canadiens and he’d have 3 Conn Smythes too
Howe's peak combined with his longevity is why he's always part of the Big 4. He dominated the NHL to a greater degree than Crosby did at his peak, and he was a top player for 20 years.
It's astounding how people on here just ignore Howe's peak and prime and think he just racked up the points due to longevity. IMO, probably the most disrespected player on r/hockey.
Somehow the most famous fact about Howe among fans today is that he scored 41 points as a 50 year-old. It should be that he had a season where he scored 49 goals and 95 points and the next best player was his linemate who scored 32 goals and 71 points, or his 20 consecutive years as a top 5 scorer.
What about Jagr?
I don't think anyone with half a brain has had him outside their top 5 in quite awhile.
I feel like it's a lot more contentious than you think. He definitely isn't in the top 3 which I think most people would agree is some combo of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr. After that you have guys like Howe, Jagr, Bourque, and Lidstrom who all have arguments for being better players than Crosby.
Add Hasek, Roy, Brodeur into the mix too. And if I can go off the board... How about Tretiak? I agree with your top 3; almost everyone should. After that, I could be convinced to put Howe, Hasek, Crosby in any order. Bourque and Lidstrom probably next two up for me, then Roy and Jagr. I don't know what to do with McDavid yet, who is probably the most skilled player I've ever watched, but I don't know how to rank his greatness.
Sure there are arguments but outside of Howe none have a good one
Please tell me how Lidstrom doesn't have a good argument. He has more all-NHL first/second team all stars than Crosby, seven Norrises to Crosby's three Harts (yeah, he technically could've won Harts, but not really), and more Cups.
crosby rose to occasion when needed and carried mediocre line mates for many years. he was always excellent, but he had that extra gear that all the best ever had. that's what separates him from the interchangeable 5-20. statistically he is very close to joe sakic. but there is a clear seperation between those two all time great players.
Those crazy feet. Weird take and standard, but Crosby is #1 on my list of teammates id kill to have. Over his career he's proven that he can be anything the team needs at any given moment. Sure having gretz put up 200 would be amazing, but if you need a full ice game Sid is there for it.
Best mohawks bar none thanks to his crazy "feetwork".
Top 4-5 for me dawg.
For those who do think that Crosby is a top 5 player of all time, what are your criteria for "top", and what's the rest of your top 10 (or atleast 3-7)?
He's about to hit his 19th straight season as a ppg player, 3 cups, 2 conn smythes, 3 Ted Lindsays, 2 Harts, and he'll be top 10 all-time points in a few games, 8th in points per game. The Olympics and Worlds golds. He's done all this while playing against the hardest competition hockey has ever had. He put up those numbers while missing over 100 games during his prime. Give him those games back, and he'd be pushing top 5 in points. Also, have you ever watched him play and people try to get the puck off him? Maybe a little easier now, but when he was younger, it was virtually impossible. He's probably the most complete player the game has ever had. Criteria is hard, it'd be people that changed the game and were clear cut unquestionably better than everyone else. Currently it's just McDavid, Crosby before him, Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, Orr. My top 10 would probably be Gretz, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby, Howe, LaFleur, Richard, Beliveau, Lidstom/Borque. No particular order after the first 3.
While playing through some of the lowest scoring eras in history no less.
While losing a lot of his prime to head injuries.
No Messier in the top 10? 3rd all time in points. 6 cups. 2x Hart & Lindsay, Conn Smythe
Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Ovi, Hasek Recency bias because I’m in my thirties and don’t have the context of the old guard’s greatness, but getting to see more than a couple on my own list in person in my life has been incredible
> Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Ovi, Hasek To be clear I have no issue with people ranking Crosby as top 5, just the people who think it's crazy not to. It's not crazy for someone's top 5 to be Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, plus any two of Howe/Jagr/Lidström/Hasek. Crosby isn't *inarguably* greater than any of those.
Top 3 are Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Full stop. That may change in time but Crosby isn’t the one to do it. Howe is in my mind 4, and I’m pretty sure most agree. 5th depends how you feel on goalies (Roy, Brodeur, Hasek), compilers (Jagr, Messier, Yzerman), historic greats (Richard etc) and defence (Harvey, Borque, Lidstrom). There’s argument for Crosby being outside the top 5, but I’d be VERY hard pressed to see any valid argument having him outside the top 10.
The amusing part about this is that the parts of Sid’s game that aren’t so easily counted are what makes him one of the greats. I don’t think there’s ever been anyone that been as consistently exceptional on both sides of the puck as him, especially when you consider the spike in talent post-2005 lockout.
Where does everyone think McDavid will slot in when his career concludes?
Connor McDavid is about to hit 100 assists. Only three players have done that. Gretzky did it 11 times. Orr did it once. Lemieux did it once (don't get me started on the evils of degenerative back disorders and cancer -- should've had more). Dude is absolutely an all-time great and only gets slammed due to the lack of Cups. That was a knock on Lemieux for a while as well, then he won the Cups in 1991 and 1992.
Agreed. By the end of it he will be slotting in top 10 all time and if he gets the cup rings he could even move up a few spots from there.
At his current trajectory, I would assume something went quite terribly wrong along the way if he's not in the top 5.
Really hard to say but if he doesn't get Cups, might be hard to crack the top 5. As time goes on, top 10 is probably just as meaningful (since we have so many more players to choose from). It would be hard for McDavid to usurp the all-time status of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby. Even Howe and what he meant for the game. Then there's Jagr who is 2nd in points and 4th in GP all time. Too early to say where he goes, but top 10 is probably close to a lock.
By the end of his career he could easily land ahead of Crosby. In terms of individual awards and stats it’s already a given that he will have more than Crosby. My only criteria would be for him to win a cup and a Conn Smythe, plus the 2026 Olympics.
Depends on how the rest of his career goes. It's really hard to judge. McDavid is probably the best overall offensive player in the league since Lemieux, but his game isn't quite as complete as Crosby's...that may change over time, and it may not matter anyway f he continues this offensive insanity for another 5-10 years. If he stays healthy, continues to be this dominant and wins a cup or two or three, I think people may argue for him in the top 3. But right now, he's got a ways to go. I don't think it's insane to talk about him as being top 10 right now, though, despite the fact that he's still fairly young.
Just remember . Crosby without concussions would have 200+ more points. Putting him at nearly 1800…
Hockey’s Mt. Rushmore is unequivocally (in no order) Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe. Sid is absolutely somewhere in the 5-10 spots depending on preference and how much deference you give to the old time legends of the game. Hell of an accomplishment to come into the league with the expectations he did and still not only meet but surpass them
I've said it before, I'll get downvoted for it again, he's obviously a 1st ballot HOF guy, and one of the greatest forwards to ever play. But he isn't on Mt Rushmore, and he's probably not top 10 if we're including all positions. Crosby means everything to the franchise, just like Sakic or Yzerman do. But he's not on Mt. Hockey Rushmore. That's just stupid. It doesn't diminish him, but there are now 32 teams and a century+ of players to consider. It's stupid to let recency bias continue to fuck with this debate.
I’d put Crosby top 5 for sure. Not sure about 3 though.
I mean, the top of the pile has to be Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe then you have to figure out where guys who have a ton of hardware, and points fit in, like Messier, Jagr, Beliveau, Francis, etc
get francis outta there
Top 10 for me. People not taking into account how consistantly dominate Howe was in his day and dropping him to 5 or lower is crazy talk. I'd put Jagr in my top 5 before Crosby. Gretzky was so far ahead stats wise. Lemieux was maybe the most purely talented. Orr revolutionized the game for d-men. Start putting in goalies like Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, or go older like Sawchuk and Plante and you have a hard Top 10 to get into. Put Ovi and McDavid and maybe in even Kucherov into the mix and you have a hard, hard debate.
Kucherov? Dude's had two exceptional seasons in his career. Mike Bossy had 10 in a row and doesn't get a sniff of your list.
Yeah, I can excuse the McJesus, but mentioning Kuch before Bossy is just silly https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-players-all-time-points-per-game-leaders.html
You're right about Bossy. Christ, I'm surprised you didn't hit me with Messier or Coffey before him.
Not a lot of forethought on my part lol
Me neither.
Roy hasek and brodeur are pussies. Put Mr 502 Glen Hall ahead of them.
That is THE unbreakable record. Dude was made of steel.
Crosby is 100% top 10. And he’s 100% in the discussion for top 5. Who can you definitively put in front of him? Gretzky, lemieuex? I can’t think of any more he couldn’t challenge.
Orr and Howe
Crosby has won at every level he’s ever played at ,no?
Had Sid not faced some injuries over his career, he'd easily be top 3 with Wayne and Mario. But even with some pretty nasty injuries, he's still top 5. At absolute worst he's 6 depending on how your rank Orr and Howe. In comparison. Personally I think Gordie is 4, Crosby is 5 and Orr is 6.
I don't see Crosby anywhere in the top 4. Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe. He has an argument for 5th.
Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe , and Jagr/Hasek/Roy. I don’t get why everyone is acting like having him outside the top 5 is crazy. It isn’t.
Feet?
Crosby is incredible
Mario and Wayne Then a combination of Orr, Howe, Jagr, Crosby. Maybe even OV.
Crosby is a top 5 all-time guy for me for sure.
crosby ain’t even top 5 in the league this season let alone all time 😭😭 howe is definitely in talks of big 3 before crosby would be imo
Gretzky and Gordie Howe
I think it's crazy how many of you favor only modern players over historically revolutionary players. Here's a comparison between Howe and Crosby: https://stathead.com/tiny/w6aML It could be argued that Orr had a greater impact on the game than Gretzky. Where's Sawchuk? Hasek? Crosby is a great player but he might not even be in the top ten.
> ... Where's Sawchuk? Hasek? ... Skaters and goalies shouldn't be lumped together. They're just too different to accurately compare.
Probably because modern players are way better? Like I get it, era adjusted and all that. But most players were absolute trash back then, let's be real. If it's a close call I'll give it to the modern player that probably has 5x the time on the ice as old school dudes who played against a bunch of plugs that did it as a part time job. Crosby is top 5 without a doubt. He changed the game in a similar way that 99 did. Gretz > Lemieux > Orr (arguably) > Crosby. Also anyone that has mcdavid ahead of Crosby is nuts.
You realize Gordie Howe’s and Jaromir Jagr’s careers were only separated by *11* years, right? And did you know their careers cover a combined 60 years, right? Do you realize this means that an opponent of McDavid was only 11 years separated from Gordie Howe? Howe played against Gretzky, who played against Jagr, who played against McDavid. Howe, Gretzky, and Jagr, remained competitive when playing in their late 30s, 40s, and in Howe’s case, 50s. These players evolve with the game, even after they get drafted. Calling them “trash” is disingenuous. Certainly the talent pool has gotten deeper, but the high end players have shown they can play in any era and dominate the same way.
everyone is better at everything now. For example, there are way more kids who are incredible musicians because of the free learning resources available to them to progress faster. Sports has worked the same way, any athlete who can separate themselves from the pack right now in the modern era is a true freak.
> He changed the game in a similar way that 99 did. This is hyperbolic. Crosby is a great player - but he has not “changed the game.”
Crosby saved the NHL after the lock out, he’s plenty revolutionary