44 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.

      1. 

         Punishing Hasek for being locked behind the iron curtain is laughable. Hasek was drafted by the Hawks in 1983, didn’t get to North America until 1990, played until he was 43 and has the highest save percentage all time. Hasek-Roy-Brodeur, in that order.
         Playing age in NHL
         Hasek 26-43 years old
         Roy 19-37 years old
         Brodeur 19-42 years old – behind a team that stifled other teams offense as it’s modus operendi

         1. 

            Gotta play more games against top competition. You might be willing to pretend that the Czechoslovakian top league is the NHL, but I’m not. Had Hasek even come close to Brodeur’s 1,471 career NHL games played, then we might be having a different conversation. Instead, Hasek only hit 854 career games and needed to join arguably the greatest roster ever assembled just to win a Cup. Brodeur played 70+ games in a season 12 times. Hasek did it once. Hasek was nowhere near the workhorse that Brodeur was. Their resumes are very different from each other, but I’ll go with sustained excellence, longevity, and Cups over an elite peak run.

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.

9. 

   Where is John Buick

   1. 

      Hi Rick,

      Bucyk is on the honorable mention list. He had a great career, but he was named to just one NHL All-Star 1st team, finished in the top 5 in goals and points just once in his career, and never received a single Hart vote. There are just too many superior resumes over the last 100 years for Bucyk to slide into the top 100.

      Honorable Mention

10. 

    Crosby has to be above Ovechkin. Sidney Crosby is the greatest hockey player of his generation. 3 Cups, 2 Olympic Gold Medals, other best on best gold medals. MVPs you name it. All around maestro. Owns Ovechkin in the playoffs and never had home ice either. Ovechkin has been past the 2nd round one time and never won bronze in a best on best tournament. His legacy believe it or not as largely been a can’t get the job done type deal.He’s primarily out there to score, and being that one dimensional hurts his team as the leader and best player on it. but I’d argue Lemeixh and Bossy were better at it. Cups matter more than goals. By passing Orr, Lemieux, and Howe is crazy too. All have 2+ Cups.

    1. 

       Hey Steve,

       The race for the #2 includes a number of flawed candidates. I explain in detail why Ovechkin should be in the #2 slot at the link next to his name on the list. It addresses all of your points among many other things. Comparing resumes and assessing impact should involve a holistic approach. Stanley Cups is just one factor, and if you concentrate too much on that one factor, you end up with a really wonky conclusion like claiming Alexander Ovechkin is only a top 10-12 player. You don’t think Ovechkin would’ve had more playoff success playing with Evgeni Malkin in his prime? Or Marc Andre Fleury or Kris Letang? Or Team Canada? You don’t think Ovechkin would have had more playoff success if he and Crosby switched places? The Capitals “juggernaut” that you speak of was Ovechkin. The franchise won three division titles in its entire 30-year history before Ovechkin. The fact that they were able to win 11 division titles with him despite lackluster rosters is all you need to know about how important he was to winning. It takes more than one great player to routinely compete for Stanley Cup titles which is why it cannot be emphasized enough: Ovechkin led the Washington Capitals–yes, the Washington Capitals–to a Stanley Cup.

       The most important skill in hockey is putting the puck in the net. Ovechkin and Crosby were rookies in the same season, and have played the same number of seasons. Ovechkin has scored 272 more goals, won more Hart trophies, and was named to twice as many NHL All-Star 1st teams. Had Crosby been able to stay healthy–particularly his age 23-25 seasons–we might be having a different conversation.

11. 

    Replying to your reply: It defies logic to have Ovechkin anywhere near where you have him. Crosby has stayed healthy. He’s broke Gretzky’s record of 19 seasons of a point per game or more, and he’s got an outside chance at 2000 points. He’s also got 200 playoff points. He didn’t stop playing in 2011 like you make it sound. Every player and coach ever including Capitals will tell you Crosby is over Ovechkin. So I think you’re extremely misguided. A guy who’s gonna finish yes 1st in goals but barely top 10 in points and not even top 30 in assists with one championship and no important medals at the weakest position in the sport. That pretty obvious. What it tells me is he’s a prolific goal scorer but overall player? Top 10-12. He’s hasn’t even hit over 90 points since 2010. That’s the Obama administration. Balancing goals and assists for a pure goal scorer helps you win multiple times or a lot (Bossy for example, Esposito). When it’s one dimensional it’s Bobby Hull (One Cup). He also had Backstrom (HOF), Carlson (Norris Finalist, and Green (Norris winner) and 3 Vezina winning goalies and made it past the 2nd round once. Largely becuase of Crosby standing in the way. Ovechkin isn’t even a point per game player in the playoffs. His resume is so incomplete I think you should revisit. As for the international? He played on Russia the 2nd best hockey country in the world. To not even grab a best on best medal perhaps proves my point further. Russia medaled in 1998 and 2002 without him at the Olympics with NHLers, and I bet will medal after him. Caps have made more Eastern Confrence Finals as an organization without him being rostered. Every great player ever in any sport are always playing deep in the playoffs many a times. Not him it seems and he’s had the teams do it both internationally and in the NHL.

    1. 

       Steve,

       If you read the “why” link for Ovechkin, then you know that Ovechkin at #2 doesn’t defy logic. There isn’t another player whose “why” is more convincing than Ovechkin’s. What defies logic is your assertion that Ovechkin makes teams worse. Again, I lay out the case for Ovechkin at the link on the list, but I’ll respond to what you have written…

       He’s broke Gretzky’s record of 19 seasons of a point per game or more, and he’s got an outside chance at 2000 points.

       True. That’s a nice statistic. However, I doubt you’ll want to start talking about records being broken. Ovechkin has a massive advantage over Crosby there. He has led the NHL in goals a record nine times. There hasn’t been a player to debut since 1979 who has even finished in the top 5 in goals more than six times. That is much more impressive, and there are dozens more just like it.

       He didn’t stop playing in 2011 like you make it sound.

       I think you are attributing something to me that I didn’t write. Had Crosby been healthy for his age 23-25 seasons, it’s possible that he’d have picked up the hardware necessary to get to the #2 spot.

       Every player and coach ever including Capitals will tell you Crosby is over Ovechkin.

       You mean to tell me that most North American coaches favor a North American over a Russian? Shocking! Additionally, there is almost no chance that every Capitals coach and player (or even most) would say this, so I think you are engaging in hyperbole here.

       What it tells me is he’s a prolific goal scorer but overall player? Top 10-12.

       Luc Robitaille and Brendan Shanahan were prolific goal scorers. Ovechkin is, by far, the most prolific goal scorer in history. It’s not even remotely close. Additionally, goals are the most important statistic in hockey. A goal is significantly more important than an assist. Knocking Ovechkin for a lack of assists is like knocking Michael Jordan for a lack of assists. They’re doing the hard part themselves. There is nothing more important than scoring.

       Balancing goals and assists for a pure goal scorer helps you win multiple times or a lot (Bossy for example, Esposito). When it’s one dimensional it’s Bobby Hull (One Cup).

       Playing for dynasties is what helps you win multiple times. Bossy did, Hull didn’t. Do you really think that Bobby Hull wouldn’t have several cups had he played for Montreal? Do you really think Bossy would have won a cup had he played for the Rangers? The importance of balancing goals and assists is much more applicable to a center. Ovechkin’s job was to put the puck in the net, and he did it better than anyone who has ever played the game.

       He also had Backstrom (HOF), Carlson (Norris Finalist, and Green (Norris winner) and 3 Vezina winning goalies and made it past the 2nd round once. Largely becuase of Crosby standing in the way.

       Attempting to fluff up Ovechkin’s supporting class is an argument that you’re gonna want to stay away from if you’re trying to argue for Crosby. Backstrom is not a Hall of Famer, and if he does get in, he would immediately have one of the weakest resumes of anyone in the hockey Hall of Fame. Ovechkin has never played with someone even remotely as strong as Evgeni Malkin. Green stopped being a productive player at 25. Crosby played with 35% more All-Stars than Ovechkin (42-31), and that number jumps to 55% (34-22) if we include prime seasons (through 2018-2019 which was the last time either was named as a 2nd Team All Star or better). Despite playing with far inferior top-end talent, Ovechkin led the Caps to 11 division titles. Crosby led the Pens to 4 division titles. How did the Caps win that many division titles with the Pens having 55% more players named to all star teams? Ovechkin was, more or less, a one man show, which can only take a franchise so far. The fact that he was able to win a Stanley Cup for a team with such a talent deficit is really impressive.

       As for the international? He played on Russia the 2nd best hockey country in the world. To not even grab a best on best medal perhaps proves my point further. Russia medaled in 1998 and 2002 without him at the Olympics with NHLers, and I bet will medal after him. Caps have made more Eastern Confrence Finals as an organization without him being rostered.

       There’s so much to unpack here. First, it’s the 21st century. Russia is not the clear 2nd best hockey country in the world, and hasn’t been. Canada is–and has been– #1. Then there is a cluster with the US, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and the Czech Republic. Second, Ovechkin did win a best-on-best medal at the 2005 World Championship. He’s played in only 26 best-on-best games in his entire career, which is such a paltry sample size that it represents just 1% of the number of NHL games he’s played. Even still, Ovechkin has done just fine. Aside from medaling at the 2005 World Championship, he eliminated Canada with the game-winner at the 2006 Olympics, and was the only player not in the gold medal game to be named to the all-tournament team. Third, you have implied here that Ovechkin makes teams worse. This is not an argument made in good faith.

       I will reiterate that there are several worthy candidates for the second spot (Ovechkin, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Roy, and Crosby). However, they all have flaws. A good argument for the second spot can be made for each. However, the best argument can be made for Ovechkin.

12. 

    I read what you wrote, I read the why. I disagree with your opinion.

    Last thing I’ll say on this just a few points:

    The IIHF World Championships are not best on best. World Juniors is hardly best on best but you can qualify it as that for that level of play. I’m telling you there is no coincidence that Ovechkin has been past the round once and has almost no best on best international success.

    The Caps had all those one seeds and division titles they should’ve advanced farther. If they were great in the regular season there’s no reason they couldn’t carry that over year after year. That’s the most confusing thing about the ranking. He’s the face of most of that failure. I promise you no all time great as high as you have a Ovechkin ranked or even a few spots lower is making past his 2nd round only once despite the consistent times of entering the playoffs as either the top seed or close to it. I’d love for you to find me another example.

    As for where Crosby ranks I don’t know if 2 was a possibility.

    I’d argue it’s possible but I think most would put Wayne and Orr ahead. I’d put Crosby with Mario just under Gretzky and Orr who both fundamentally changed the game. Howe I rounds out the top 5. I just can’t justify putting Ovechkin over those guys. I didn’t mean he makes teams worse. Perhaps I meant his influence his limited in terms of an all around game as much as those other guys.

    As for the age 23-25 seasons I’m not really sure what you mean, I assume it’s when Crosby was out a lot, but I vividly remember Crosby being head and shoulders above every one when he was healthy. Ovechkin was never head and shoulders above the way Crosby was and my Rangers played them both often in the playoffs. And it’s certainly easier to make an all star team a winger than it is a center due to the depth of center icemen in the league.

    Anyways… it’s your opinion. Take care.

    1. 

       Hey Steve,

       I appreciate your perspective.

       “The IIHF World Championships are not best on best.”

       The NHL had a lockout in 2005. The best players in the world were at the 2005 World Championship.

       “As for the age 23-25 seasons I’m not really sure what you mean, I assume it’s when Crosby was out a lot,”

       Crosby’s concussion issues started in his age 23 season and robbed him of two prime years in which he potentially could’ve won the Hart, Ross, and another Cup or two. Had he been healthy for those seasons, there might not be a debate at #2.

       “I promise you no all time great as high as you have a Ovechkin ranked or even a few spots lower is making past his 2nd round only once despite the consistent times of entering the playoffs as either the top seed or close to it. I’d love for you to find me another example.”

       RE: “…find me another example.” Can you find me an example of an all-time player who had less support than Ovechkin? There is nobody close. Instead of solely lamenting the lack of deep runs, it might be prudent to also laud him for what he did in Washington with a meager supporting cast. 11 division titles and a Stanley Cup for a previously moribund franchise like the Caps is a hell of a legacy.

       “I’d argue it’s possible but I think most would put Wayne and Orr ahead. I’d put Crosby with Mario just under Gretzky and Orr who both fundamentally changed the game.”

       Orr was great, obviously, but there are three reasons why he isn’t as strong of a candidate at #2 as the others:

       1). Orr played only 657 games. Howe played nearly triple Orr’s total. Ovechkin and Crosby are more than double and counting. It just doesn’t make sense to rate him ahead of similarly accomplished players whose careers lasted more than twice as long.

       2). Orr played in a small, homogenized league. The pool of players in the NHL was nearly 100% Canadian during his career. The talent pool that he played against isn’t in the same stratosphere as what Ovechkin and Crosby have faced in a fully globalized NHL. Not only has the NHL talent pool expanded across the globe, Orr didn’t have to compete against many of the best players who did exist at the time. The Red Army teams were world class. Modern players play against all of the best players. Additionally, Orr had to beat out far fewer players for Hart, Norris, and All-NHL consideration in 6, 12, and 14 team leagues. Ovechkin and Crosby have had to beat out 2-3 times the number of players to win awards and lead the league in categories like goals and points. They’ve also had to beat out 2-3 times the number of teams to win Stanley Cups. The degree of difficulty that they have faced is standard deviations away from what Orr faced.

       3). Orr also played in the most inflated offensive era in league history. The NHL added six teams in 1967 and two more three years later. Goal scoring by the Original Six teams went through the roof as they clobbered the new franchises for the better part of a decade. This doesn’t mean Orr wasn’t an elite player, it’s just another degree of difficulty factor that absolutely needs to part of all inter-era comparisons.

       Again, I appreciate the discussion.

13. 

    Bobby Orr is the GOAT of hockey. he revolutionized the game. Steve Yzerman is rated too low. Conner McDavid is a great player but he hasn’t been around long enough to put him that high.

    1. 

       Orr played 657 games and stopped being serviceable at age 27. No chance that’s a GOAT resume. McDavid already has 5 Art Ross Trophies, 3 Hart Trophies, and a Conn Smythe. The only players in history to do that are Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid. He’s been around plenty long enough to be in the top 10. I love Yzerman, but he finished as a 1st or 2nd team NHL All-Star once in his career.

14. 

    Hey Jake
    What’s your analysis of Kevin Stevens’ career. I’m well aware he’s not a top 100 player but I’d just like to here more about him.

    1. 

       Strong four year run playing with Mario Lemieux which included the Pens back-to-back Cups. Those four seasons were outliers over his career, however, which limits his ceiling in the all-time discussion. I don’t have a problem with him in the honorable mention discussion. Though, his with-Mario, without-Mario splits and the brief run he had as a top flight player give other candidates an edge. For instance, Mats Sundin is a player not currently on the overflow list who has a superior resume to Stevens’s. If the overflow were to expand by 50 players, I think Stevens would be a serious contender for that.

15. 

    I watched Yzerman and Kane throughout their careers. Yzerman is a much better player than Kane. Yzerman was a prolific scorer and passer prior to changing his game to become a better defender. His puck handling skills and shooting were far better than Kane. Kane may be equal in passing ability with equal vision as to teammate positioning on the ice. However, Yzerman was a much stronger defender. And Yzerman could handle himself in a fight when necessary. Yzerman was much tougher than Kane. Yzerman was an incredible leader and great captain. He should be much higher on your list.

    1. 

       Hey G!

       Great defense of Yzerman. He was a fantastic player. Yzerman and Kane are unquestionably in the same tier. They’re resumes are eerily similar. I won’t begrudge anyone who wants to make the argument for Yzerman. However, there are just too many factors to Kane’s advantage for me to give Yzerman the edge. Kane was a 1st Team All-NHL center three times and had four selections on the top-2 teams. Yzerman was a 1st Team All-NHL center once and that was his only selection on the top-2 teams. Kane won a Hart and Ross trophy. Yzerman never did. Kane also won his three cups in the cap era which is a major degree of difficulty advantage. Yzerman became a strong defender later in his career as you mentioned, but Kane was consistently strong defensively throughout his career and has more defensive point shares than Yzerman despite playing roughly 170 fewer games. Kane even has an advantage in adjusted career points per game (1.14 to 1.08). Yzerman was the more prolific goal scorer for a bout early in his career, but there are just too many advantages for Kane to ignore.

16. 

    I’m the biggest Caps fan ever, and read the Ovechkin why page, but I’m telling you Mario Lemieux is so far and away the 2nd (maybe 1st) greatest player ever. I’d reconsider that one. Why is Crosby so low? (He’s above Ovechkin for me (sigh……) and why is Messier only 10?

    I’d go 1. Gretzky, 2. Lemieux, 3. Howe, 4. Crosby, 5. Orr, 6. Jagr (hated him as a Cap), 7. Messier, 8. Ovechkin, 9. Lidstrom, 10. McDavid/Roy. As a pure goal scorer Ovechkin is 1 or 2.

    It’s interesting how you pushed the points system. I think 2nd assists is a clear indicator of driving offense, despite goals being a huge currency. I noticed that most of your 1 and 2 in each sport are either all around statistical aliens or championship juggernauts which is why I was confused as to why Ovechkin was too despite his longevity and the amount of regular season goals scored. I’m a huge fan of his, but we had so many great teams that didn’t exceed expectations largely due to him taking a few nights off. Backstrom, Carlson are gonna be the in hockey hall of fame HAHA. They are two of my favorite players, please give them more credit. Jagr is reviled in DC but I’ll never forget how helped Czech win gold in Nagano and that’s why as a Russian myself he’s above Ovechkin for me. I went to the Cap Centre in 1988 saw Mario and thought I was seeing Michael Jordan on skates but with LeBron’s agility and size. He should be 2!

    Cheers!

    1. 

       Hey Jordan!

       I love hearing these perspectives. I can get behind Mario at #2. That’s an easy argument to make, although I have Ovi ahead due to the fact that he won the same # of Hart Trophies in a more difficult era, led the league in goals a ludicrous 9 times, and played 635 more games than Lemieux. Bobby Orr’s entire career lasted just 657 games. It’s also hard to punish Ovechkin for not being a “championship juggernaut” when Lemieux won just one more Cup. Ovi is the alien in this conversation. He isn’t just the greatest goal scorer of all-time by total goals, he is by far the leader in years leading the league in goals. Mario was great, and I’m not going to hate on anyone who places him #2. However, Ovi at 8 is not something I can get behind. He played ~ 900 more games than Orr and Orr played in the most inflated statistical era in NHL history. Howe played in a league with only six teams. It was so much easier to win league awards and championships. Lidstrom was great, but I don’t have the greatest winger of all-time behind a defenseman. Jagr never won a Cup after the age of 19 and certainly would never have won the Cups he did win had he not had the good fortune of playing with Mario Lemieux. Not sure how you can fault Ovechkin for his playoff record and then prop up Jagr who never won a cup as the best player on his own team and didn’t win a Smythe. Ovechkin won 3 Harts to Jagr’s 1. Ovi’s resume is far superior to Jagr’s, IMO. The Nagano gold is a great feather in Jagr’s cap, but six games is six games. I don’t know many who have Messier rated as high as I do, so I’m not sure how to answer why Messier is only 10. What’s missing are the monster offensive seasons, so I’d start there. The entire premise of my “Why” write-up on Messier is that he has been historically underrated on lists.

       There are three players in history who have 3 Harts, 3 Pearsons, a Conn Smythe, and a Stanley Cup. Those are the three greatest players of all-time. Gretzky, Ovechkin, and Lemieux. They are also the only three players with at least 3 Harts and at least 2 second place finishes since the Original Six.

       Ovechkin is an easy target for fans. Nobody is going to pound the sand for a Russian player who played his entire career for a historically downtrodden franchise and never had a Robin to his Batman like every other forward in the top 20. Citing Nicklas Backstrom only supports Ovechkin’s case. It’s rare that a player is so far and away the best player at his position, your support of Jagr notwithstanding. Great centers post-Original Six seem to grow on trees (Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, Messier). Wingers? It’s Ovechkin and then everyone else. I suspect time will be much kinder to him, though.

       Thanks again for the thoughts!

17. 

    I appreciate the reply. I suspect you’re young although I’m not trying age you in any way haha! I just don’t think you’ll ever find anyone ever put Ovechkin at 2 and I’m Russian, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think Crosby should be higher as her probably the greatest player of the modern era. McDavid is more talented no doubt but lacks some intangibles. Kucherov is up there for too as a Russian fan of his. You should watch highlights of Le Magnifquiqe. It’s mind bending how good he was. He wouldn’t have broken every Gretzky record as I believe Bossy and Hull would’ve made goals even too much for Gretzky to even get. Howe is the greatest winger of all time bar none, followed by Jagr then Ovechkin probably, but you seem to disagree. The Caps were not a downtrotten franchise before Ovechkin got there. We had deep playoff runs without him in 1990 and 1998 and were a playoff team right before he got there. Bondra and Langway and Hunter were my heroes. He brought the Cup home, but we never got close any other time which sucks. Hopefully Ryan Leonard is that dude you know what I mean. Again I think you should look Mario. If not for Cancer he wins 2 more Harts probably. He simply just couldn’t be denied!

    1. 

       Ha! Not even close to young, unfortunately. Lemieux is my all-time favorite hockey player. Every injury killed me and every comeback was like Christmas morning, until he got sick/hurt again. It would’ve been so fun to watch him have a full career. This isn’t that list, though, nor is it a list of the most talented players. It’s a list of the greatest resumes of all-time. That makes moot all of the “would’ve, could’ve, should’ves” that come with injuries. The degree of difficulty in dominating a 32-team league with a global talent pool vs. doing the same in a 6-team league comprised from a Canadian talent pool is so far apart that I’m not interested in lists where league strength and league size aren’t even remote considerations. Ovi has to be ahead of Howe for these lists to make sense. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the Caps. They were the very definition of a downtrodden franchise prior to Ovi. Getting clobbered by Detroit after a fortuitous run to the finals as a 4th seed after avoiding New Jersey in 1998 doesn’t change that. Certainly there were playoff appearances, but there’s no question that the Caps were a bottom third franchise over the first 30 years as a franchise. Hopefully, Ryan Leonard can be that dude as soon as the next three months. It’d be great to see Ovi get in one last run. Cheers!

18. 

    I just don’t know what you mean by that “isn’t that list”. Ovechkin…again as a Caps fan… Ovechkin doesn’t have the 2nd best resume ever. Alex has missed almost just 70 some games yet still trails Mario in all time points. We won the presidents trophy 3 times and had one deep playoff run. He is under a point per game in the playoffs, he hasn’t driven his own offense in years. Crosby, Howe, Orr, Mario, Gretzky all have significantly higher per game point stats in the playoffs His time with Russia has been more than lackluster, where all the European stars have medals to show for it. As a Russian that has always bothered me. As a goal scorer his resume is number 1. But hockey is so much more than who scores the most goals or leads the league in goals the most. If it were that, than Bobby Hull’s legacy would have been so much greater. Sidney Crosby for example has always been a better player than Alex, take his concussion away and he wins 4-5 MVPs, but because he only has like 1 MVP and one scoring title that doesn’t mean when he wasn’t healthy that he blew Ovi out of the water and I hate Sid. It just seems like a lot of revisionist history. Which brings me back to Mario who I actually believe is the greatest goal guy ever. Mario has the most what ifs ever (arguably) but to dominate the open puck era, sit out 3 years treatments and rest come back in 2001 in the dead puck era and score 73 points in 44 games and 36 goals is far more impressive than Alex scoring 50 goals and racking up 20 assists some years. Again, perhaps you’re older than I think, and while I agree I’m not sure Gordie could do the things he did in the Stone Age, today. I know Gretzky, Orr, and especially Mario can. I want you to get this right I guess. As far as the Caps being a down ridded franchise, they were a perennial playoff team every single year almost since David Poille. The fact we went to more semi final rounds without Ovi than with him in our history is concerning. Again I’m a Caps fan, but I disagree with the assertion that he’s 2nd. I’d would’ve traded 1 Cup, 9 rockets and 3 harts, no gold medals, for Sid’s 3 Cups, 1 hart, and 2 gold medals, and just better all around play every day. I’m 56 years old, and I’ve seen a lot, but im not a curmeudeog if McDavid won a Cup he should slide in at 2 cause he actually had bad teams and with almost no home ice advantage in most rounds, around unlike Sasha. I do agree with you on Gordie though he’s a weird case, but as a pure winger he definitely has the best resume on paper for a winger. Again, your list, but the 2 slot seems more like an overthinking it form of decision making rather than just picking the more deserved guy. If someone ranks (not in order), Gretzky, Mario, Orr, Then like, Howe, Crosby, Jagr , Ovechkin
    whoever lol…that’s defensible. Putting Ovechkin at #2 all-time requires: Heavy weighting of goal scoring, Discounting playoff/international dominance, Discounting peak two-way impact, Most lists don’t do that. Obviously you weigh differently, but it’s very out there. Cheers!

    1. 

       Hey Jordan! We’re going to have no choice but to agree to disagree on a lot of things. The revisionist history is to cite what would’ve happened had Mario and Crosby been healthy. That’s not this list. It’s about what did happen. It also isn’t surprising that you’d trade Ovi’s success for Crosby’s. Of course you would. I’m sure Ovi would trade his teammates for Crosby’s. The supporting casts have not been close. This has been well-covered here, and I’m sure you know this as a Caps fan. The overthinking with respect to Ovi is coming from dismissing the obvious. He is not a popular player. He never has been, but he has the 2nd greatest resume of all-time. The evidence is everywhere. By almost any standard. It’s not perfect, of course, and part of the reason he has the 2nd greatest resume of all time is because everyone has major flaws.

       Mario was great, but comparing his point totals to Ovi’s is very misleading. Adjusted points are a much more appropriate statistic since Mario played in an ultra-inflated offensive era, and Ovi did not. Ovi has 1840 career adjusted points while Mario has 1540. That’s not close. Ovi has 1028 adjusted goals while Mario has 616. Although adjusted stats are a much better barometer, they still don’t account for the fact that Mario had virtually no competition from European players in the race for the points, goals, and MVP crowns. I’m sure Ovi would’ve appreciated the luxury of that dynamic. Ovi has 218 career point shares while Mario has 167.9. Ovi’s total is the most point shares by a non-Gretzky forward in NHL history, including Jagr who played in 182 more games, and point shares equalize for era and competition level. If you’re going to call Ovi a one-dimensional player (he’s not), then you have to roast Mario for being nowhere in the same ballpark as Ovi as a defensive player. Ovi has 34.8 defensive point shares to Mario’s 15.4. If you’re going to call Ovi a one-dimensional player, then you have to hammer Mario for being exceedingly unreliable, only managing to reach 65 games played in a season six times in his career. That is an eye-opening number. It would be impossible for a one-dimensional player to have the most point shares among non-Gretzky forwards in NHL history. It is a statistic that measures the total contributions of a hockey player.

       Ovi is a winger. His responsibilities are not the same as Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid etc. Ovi has been an extremely physical player. He’s 3rd in the history of the NHL in hits. He has close to 3,000 more hits than Crosby. He very likely has more career hits than Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, and Jagr combined. Hockey is and should be a very physical game. Those five players had the luxury of offloading the responsibility of physicality to their teammates. Again, I’m sure Ovi would’ve appreciated the luxury of having his teammates handle the physicality part of hockey on his behalf. Ovi is not only the greatest goal-scorer of all-time, but he’s also one of the most physical forwards ever. The one-dimensional tag doesn’t come close to fitting.

       Suggesting that it’s a black mark on Ovi that the Caps went to more conference finals before his career with the Caps is interesting since that would be expected. They existed 30 years before Ovi and only 21 with him of which only 10-15 years were in his prime. What is interesting, though, is that in the entire 30 years before Ovi showed up, the Caps won their division just three times, while in the 21 years with Ovi, they won it 11 times, including Washington’s only three Presidents’ Trophies. In fact, the Caps have the 3rd highest winning percentage in the NHL over the last 21 years. That’s out of 32 teams! That is a remarkable achievement in its own right, but even more so given Washington had just a .480 winning percentage over its first 30 years as a franchise. It is an easy argument to make that no other player in NHL history has done more to change the reputation of a franchise than Ovechkin with the Caps. There is no question that Caps fans wanted to win more, but that’s being greedy in the cap era, especially in a sport that can be as random as hockey. Giannis Antetokounmpo and Nikola Jokic led Milwaukee and Denver to NBA Championships after 40-year + droughts, and they are revered for it. The Caps are every bit in the same tier as the Bucks and Nuggets in terms of franchise hierarchy. Instead of being revered, though, everyone wants to point out Ovi’s flaws in a sport filled with flawed resumes.

       The most important skill in the game of hockey, by far, is putting the puck in the net. We can talk about all of the important parts of the game. The aforementioned physicality. Defense. Backchecking. Agility. Forechecking. Puck movement. Penalty-killing. Grit. Health. Intelligence. There has been no shortage of players who bring several of those qualities to the game. The shortage exists with the guys who put the puck in the net at a disproportionately high rate. It is the one quality/characteristic/attribute that *should* preclude someone from saying “yeah, but…” It should be impossible, in good faith, to “yeah, but” Ovi’s 9 goal-scoring titles and the fact that he has over 100 more adjusted goals than anyone else who has ever played the game, over 250 more adjusted goals than Gretsky, and over 400 more than Mario. No two players in the last 53 years combined have led the league in goals as often as Ovi’s record total, and no three players in the last 40 years combined equal Ovi’s total. Rating Ovi 8th requires a monumental amount of looking away. This site exists because of how often top-100 lists have historically overvalued players from weak leagues, undervalued the present, and completely avoided what a statistically sound distribution of the greatest players of all-time should look like based on league strength, league size, and the percentage of the global talent pool that the league pulls from. Ovechkin and Crosby have played in the most difficult era to have success in the history of the NHL. 32 teams. Salary Cap. Total global immersion of the sport. They have a massive advantage in degree of difficulty. If Ovi’s resume wasn’t enough at face value (I believe it is), the degree of difficulty factor would rocket him past whoever’s left aside from Gretzky. In other words, I don’t care where others rate Ovechkin. If I had confidence that the zeitgeist would get it right, I never would’ve started the site.

       Other notes:

       1). I can’t imagine how Bobby Hull’s legacy could have been greater. He is often considered to be the second greatest player from the Original Six era. He is appropriately valued in large part because of how often he led the league in goals and for leading the moribund Chicago Blackhawks to a Stanley Cup. The reason he isn’t in the top-ten discussion is because the Original Six era can’t be taken at face value vs. a 32-team league filled with global talent, and because he was lured to the far less competitive WHA at the age of 33, which allowed for significant separation between his resume and Howe’s.

       2). Points per game (in the playoffs or not in the playoffs) is a statistic that naturally favors a center. Assists aren’t goals, and it’s even more true for 2nd assists. Ovi averaged .91 points in the playoffs, where the competition is more difficult, which isn’t far off from his career 1.07 average. Crosby also saw his points per game total drop in the playoffs by a similar margin (1.24 to 1.11). Certainly, having a more talented supporting cast in an environment where star performance drops by 10-20%, like in the playoffs, is quite a luxury. It might even lead to more Stanley Cups.

       3). Ovi vs. Lemieux and Ovi vs. Crosby are compelling arguments, and I honestly don’t fault anyone who rates Lemieux and/or Crosby ahead of Ovi. I obviously believe that Ovi’s resume is strong enough for all of the reasons I’ve laid out. Anything outside of that and it’s Ovi by a landslide based on the combination of accolades, longevity, and league strength. Crosby is *likely* destined for the 4th spot in the next update. That is a move that was close to being made in the last update.

19. 

    You lost my confidence with the entire list at your #2 selection.

    1. 

       Because I disagree with you disagreeing with me, I don’t value your opinion on anything.

       Did I do that right?