I am still fairly new to this site, but I have noticed that when ranking players there is almost always discussion of peak vs. career. I would like to see some of your lists of the top 20 or 25 players of all time based on peak only.
I think for this to work there has to be a set time period otherwise we'll see discussions of one guys peak being longer than anothers, which is bordering on the whole career aspect. Therefore, let's say we are looking at a 5-year time period.
I am not going to attempt to make a list of my own, because I feel I am not qualified (at least on this forum I'm not), but I am very interested to see how these lists differ from the HOH Top 100.
Thanks to all that respond, I have been learning a lot from all of you so far and look forward to more...
I am not qualified either but I think a peak can be a shorter period of time. Say 3 years. I say this because it is rare that a player has a span of 5 years where he is near is career highs. 3 seems more appropriate
I'll take a stab at it. I'm not putting much thought into it.
1. Bobby Orr
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Doug Harvey
7. Dominik Hasek (+)
8. Terry Sawchuk (++)
9. Guy Lafleur (++)
10. Eddie Shore
11. Howie Morenz
12. Maurice Richard (-)
13. Jean Beliveau (--)
14. Phil Esposito (+)
15. Jaromir Jagr (+)
16. Denis Potvin
17. Jacques Plante
18. Patrick Roy
19. Bobby Clarke (+)
20. Red Kelly
Pluses are guys with better peak than career value, minuses are the reverse.
I think ranking by peak really hurts a guy like Beliveau who did so much to cement his legacy late in his career. Lidstrom, Mikita, and Messier are also hurt by ignoring their career value.
Edit: I forgot Ray Bourque. Oops. His peak is somewhere close to Kelly and Potvin. Definitely another guy hurt by ignoring the rest of his career.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-15-2009 at 06:30 PM.
- Dominik Hasek is significantly higher on these peak lists than most career lists, when he played dominant hockey for over 20 years (save for a 2 year adjustment period to North America), and didn't lose his game until he was in his early 40s.
Pnep, what if you just looked at a player's three best years, period, whether or not they were consecutive? Lemieux's peak, for instance, was arguably spread out over a couple years--1989, '93, '96--with injuries in between.
charlie conacher never won the hart, but he was a close runner up twice. i think under modern standards, he almost certainly would have won at least one.
in '34, he led the NHL in points by 13%, and in goals by 18.5%.
in '35, he led the NHL in points by 21%, and in goals by 44%.
TML finished 1st both seasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine
2 things surprising me here:
- Dominik Hasek is significantly higher on these peak lists than most career lists, when he played dominant hockey for over 20 years (save for a 2 year adjustment period to North America), and didn't lose his game until he was in his early 40s.
- Eric Lindros is nowhere to be found.
agreed on hasek. he had an extremely high peak, and great longevity. i did not seen him before the NHL, but he was the best goalie in europe for a long time.
a few weeks ago, the poster "overpass" posted something from an '80s newspaper in which the writer said hasek may be the best goalie in the world.
i mentioned lindros. at his peak, he was so dominant and intimidating. sort of like neely crossed with messier.
agreed on hasek. he had an extremely high peak, and great longevity. i did not seen him before the NHL, but he was the best goalie in europe for a long time.
a few weeks ago, the poster "overpass" posted something from an '80s newspaper in which the writer said hasek may be the best goalie in the world.
Here's the quote, from William Houston in the Globe and Mail on the day of the Canada-Czechoslovakia semifinal in the 1987 Canada Cup.
"In the eyes of many hockey people, either Grant Fuhr or Dominik Hasek will have emerged not only as the dominant netminder in this tournament, but, at the moment, the best in the world.
Craig Patrick, the former New York Ranger general manager who scouted for the U.S. team, believes the 22-year-old to be the world’s best goaltender."
Last edited by overpass: 10-15-2009 at 04:02 PM.
Reason: wrong Globe sportswriter
How come Jagr's last peak season in here is 1999-00? He won the Art Ross the following year with a 121 points and also finished runner up for all major awards in 205-06 with a 123 points. Those seasons would have to be included when talking about Jagr's peak value. Then he would also place higher on the list.
Jagr had longevity and peak value on his side. He had a long and very productive career, and a very impressive peak; a peak if taking eras and competition into consideration would only be behind Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky.
I am not qualified either but I think a peak can be a shorter period of time. Say 3 years. I say this because it is rare that a player has a span of 5 years where he is near is career highs. 3 seems more appropriate
That is why some argue Jagr should belong in the talk of the top greatest players ever because only Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Lafleur, Dionne, Hull and Esposito had more than 3 seasons which they were at equal value of their best season.
The difference between Dionne and Jagr is that Dionne was very much a point getter while Jagr was a proven winner.
Jagr was also the best player on his team for a long stretch while Esposito was playing second fiddle to Orr for most of his tenure with Boston.
Loot at Jagr's best 5 seasons. 149 points (1995-96), 127 points (1998-99), 123 points (2005-06), 121 points (2000-01), 102 points in 1997-98) but his 96 points in only 63 games was a pace of 125 points over 82 games (1999-00).
Jagr's top 8 seasons including pace over 82 games
As you can see, Jagr's top 8 seasons are actually good enough to be considered all peak value. That's 5 seasons in which his points per game was equal or higher than 1.5 PPG and 7 total seasons in which his pace over 82 games was 120 points or more. Considering 6 of those 8 seasons happened during the low scoring era prove his peak value is top 5. In those eight seasons, Jagr won 5 Art Ross trophies, finished 2nd twice and finished 5th another time.
How come Jagr's last peak season in here is 1999-00? He won the Art Ross the following year with a 121 points and also finished runner up for all major awards in 205-06 with a 123 points. Those seasons would have to be included when talking about Jagr's peak value. Then he would also place higher on the list.
Jagr had longevity and peak value on his side. He had a long and very productive career, and a very impressive peak; a peak if taking eras and competition into consideration would only be behind Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky.
