The 5th best player ever is a goalie.

[Dingo]

I think expansion in Orr's peak seasons provided a high scoring environment for some of the teams, albeit not for the scrub teams. Orr's Bruins used to beat the Capitals 8-1 and 12-4.

Orr and Espo's numbers (and Hadfield and Ratelle's) are hardest to adjust, by far

league scoring was pretty high, but very high on good teams. This was so ehwat balanced out by the incredibly bad AHL teams that were now in the NHL. an NHL that featured a lack of Howe, Hull, Mikita, Kharlamov, Petrov... etc.

the weakest, and most imbalanced NHL that i know of.

 

[wetcoast]

Orr and Espo's numbers (and Hadfield and Ratelle's) are hardest to adjust, by far

league scoring was pretty high, but very high on good teams. This was so ehwat balanced out by the incredibly bad AHL teams that were now in the NHL. an NHL that featured a lack of Howe, Hull, Mikita, Kharlamov, Petrov... etc.

the weakest, and most imbalanced NHL that i know of.

One doesn't need to adjust Orr's numbers though to realize how dominant he was.

We can just look at the twilight of his career with the Black Hawks in 76-77 where his ESGF/ESGA ratio was 22-15 on a team that was a huge negative at ES to the tune of nearly 60 goals against more than they scored (and that includes the time with Orr).

Orr probably wouldn't dominate the same way that he did with Boston but I doubt that he would be that far off either although the salary cap could muddle things a bit.

 

[MadLuke]

I've always found it a bit coincidental that the best goalies of all time (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) just so happened to play during the dead puck era while the best offensive players of all time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) played in the high scoring era.

I think one obvious flaw should be glaring here.

Hasek: 1965
Roy: 1965
Lemieux: 1965

Hasek-Roy-Lemieux are all born months apart (exact same day for Lemieux-Roy trying to push one played in the highest scoring era and the other the lowest... is quite the spin), all played against each others, rather famously in some playoff in Lemieux vs Hasek case or Gretzky vs Roy in a cup final.

All 3 goaltenders played in very high scoring seasons (94-97, 06-07 for Brodeur some of his bests seasons, Hasek and Roy obviously). All 3 skaters played in low scoring seasons, doing very well (Gretzky relative to his age and mileage), to give some clue if it was a lot about their environment.

The question seem to be more why outside the rare phenom Howe-Orr-McDavid, etc... does so much of the best seem to be born between 1960-1965, that could be peak mix of kids population, accessibility, popularity with for many country the first time they would be able to play in the nhl.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I think one obvious flaw should be glaring here.

Hasek: 1965
Roy: 1965
Lemieux: 1965

Hasek-Roy-Lemieux are all born months apart, all played against each others, rather famously in some playoff in Lemieux vs Hasek case or Gretzky vs Roy in a cup final.

At least all 3 goaltenders played in very high scoring seasons (94-97, 06-07 for Brodeur some of his bests seasons, Hasek and Roy obviously) all 3 skaters played in low scoring seasons, doing very well, to give some clue if it was a lot about their environment.

The question seem to be more why outside the rare phenom Howe-Orr, etc... does so much of the best seem to be born between 1960-1965, that could be peak mix of kids population, accessibility, popularity with for many country the first time they would be able to play in the nhl.

I lean towards its because their primes coincided with the rapid expansion of European/Soviet players in the NHL.

 

[JianYang]

I think this is harsh towards Roy for a few reasons:

- you're only looking at half of Roy's career, and then you're excluding his three best playoff runs from that portion. Of course he's going to look worse. (To illustrate the point, if we remove Crosby's 1st, 2nd and 5th best playoff runs - say 2008, 2009, and 2010 or 2018, suddenly he's sub-PPG).

- I agree that the Habs were the best defensive team in the NHL over the course of Roy's career. But he pretty clearly wasn't a result of the system. For one thing, he did essentially as well in Colorado as he did in Montreal (from 1986 to 1995, and then also from 1996 to 2003, he was 2nd in save percentage among goalies who played 200+ games - and obviously Colorado didn't play any near as conservatively as the Habs). No, he didn't win any Vezina's in Colorado, but that's mostly because (relative to the league) he played fewer games compared to in Montreal. And Roy put up better numbers than all of the other Habs goalies during his time there (90.4% vs 89.8% save percentage). (Insert all the standard caveats about save percentage here).

- it's true that Roy usually played on strong teams. I count 5 series where he played on teams that finished 10+ points behind their opponent: 1996 vs Detroit (27 pts), 2002 vs Detroit (17 pts), 1999 vs Dallas (16 pts), 2000 vs Detroit (12 pts), 19991 vs Boston (11 pts). Roy and his team went 2-3 (with a 17-15 record overall). And he had the higher save percentage than the opposing goalies across these five series, so it's hard to blame the losses on him (okay, we can blame him for game 7 in 2002).

- of the five goalies you mentioned, only Moog outplayed Roy more than once:
- Roy played against Vernon three in the playoffs (1986, 1989 1997) and was the better goalie in all three matchups. (The Avalanche lost in 1997, but if I had to blame someone, it would be Forsberg, who was practically invisible - as opposed to the goalie who stopped 93%+ of the shots he faced, including 71 of 73 over the final two games).
-Roy played Hextall twice in the postseason (I'm not counting 1987, when Roy only played one game). Roy was better in 1993, and much better in 1989 (when Hextall was splitting duties with Wregget).
-I can only find one matchup against Casey (1994) and Roy was pretty clearly the better goalie. (Roy had one bad game out of six, with his backup playing once in a one-sided loss).
-Roy faced off against Lemelin twice. He was definitely better in 1989 (though Lemelin was splitting duties with Moog). Lemelin was better in 1988, but Montreal wasn't going to win when they scored 2 goals over the final three games of the series.

Ultimately I agree - I don't think there's much of a case for Roy at #5. But his reputation as a top five playoff performer all-time is justified, and he was a really good playoff performer even outside of his three Conn Smythe runs.

Sidenote to 1994, I thought Roy had arguably his best game that I ever saw in a 2-1 OT win against Boston in the opening round that made you think that he's picking up right where he left off in the 93 playoffs.

Unfortunately for him and the team, he did get sidelined in that series with an emergency appendicitis procedure. The Habs would eventually lose that series in 7 games.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Just for poops and chuckles and being a student of behavioral economics, is part of the reason that the current "best evers" (including Roy and Hasek) because their primes coincided with the time where people who currently have the positions in the media who are telling the stories these days were young and watching them?

I mean, I'm sure that I'm biased from growing up watching these players. We do already see Gordie Howe falling back (slightly) in the "best ever" discussions because the people who experienced him directly no longer have control of the microphones or the pens.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Just for poops and chuckles and being a student of behavioral economics, is part of the reason that the current "best evers" (including Roy and Hasek) because their primes coincided with the people who currently have the positions in the media who are telling the the stories these days were young and watching them?

I mean, I'm sure that I'm biased from growing up watching these players. We do already see Gordie Howe falling back (slightly) in the "best ever" discussions because the people who experienced him directly no longer have control of the microphones or the pens.

Im sure that plays a factor. Its why in every sport you see the argument put out there that we are magically seeing the GOAT play (Lebron/Mahomes/Trout-Ohtani).

With Hasek at least you are still talking about a goalie with 6x Vezina, 2x Hart (1-1-2-3-3 finishes) and 2x Pearson

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Im sure that plays a factor. Its why in every sport you see the argument put out there that we are magically seeing the GOAT play (Lebron/Mahomes/Trout-Ohtani).

With Hasek at least you are still talking about a goalie with 6x Vezina, 2x Hart (1-1-2-3-3 finishes) and 2x Pearson

Agreed completely (noting that I'm susceptible to the same bias so it's hard for me to disagree with what I saw).

 

[Staniowski]

Re: The Big Four (and #5)

I don't think the Big 4 exists any longer, amongst the people who are now sitting around and talking about these things. There's really a Big 3 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr). And Gretzky is so far ahead that you could actually just put him alone at the top.

Howe is falling and he definitely won't survive McDavid, who's career is as long as Orr's already. Multiple generations already have McDavid in the top 4, and soon all will.

Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid are much better scorers than Howe was, and that's the main reason Howe will continue to slowly move down.

Even though individuals and groups will continue to rank Howe higher, the consensus is moving him out of the top four.

 

[daver]

Re: The Big Four (and #5)

I don't think the Big 4 exists any longer, amongst the people who are now sitting around and talking about these things. There's really a Big 3 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr). And Gretzky is so far ahead that you could actually just put him alone at the top.

Howe is falling and he definitely won't survive McDavid, who's career is as long as Orr's already. Multiple generations already have McDavid in the top 4, and soon all will.

Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid are much better scorers than Howe was, and that's the main reason Howe will continue to slowly move down.

Even though individuals and groups will continue to rank Howe higher, the consensus is moving him out of the top four.

You realize that in way, shape or form can McDavid be a "much better scorer" than Howe when Howe, by reasonable statistical measures, dominated his peers moreso than McDavid.

On a per game basis, McDavid is dominating the league like peak Jagr and Crosby did. Are they better scorers than Howe?

And Jagr was clearly on a tier below Mario.

 

[VanIslander]

Some diverse, interesting perspectives are on this very page!

Thought provoking...

 

[MadLuke]

You realize that in way, shape or form can McDavid be a "much better scorer" than Howe when Howe, by reasonable statistical measures, dominated his peers moreso than McDavid.

Not sure I agree, during the covid season or last year McDavid scored like weaker version of Gretzky-Mario (still prime version of them not peak) under some statistical measure, like Jagr, Espo and Howe did.

Adjusted point - using elite Canadians player scoring

With different previous at adjusting players season, the latest attempt has been the following with those goals: 1) Only use the top players in the league to automatically adjust for scoring distribution change over time, if rules change, style of play, power play habit make scoring more...

forums.hfboards.com

Look how much Howe distanced himself from the best season of his era (Beliveau) versus McDavid versus the best seasons of his era for something some would call reasonable to do.

During Howe peak stretch 51 to 57, 7 seasons

The best ppg (at least 250 games)

Howe : 1.19
Beliveau : 1.11
Richard : 0.98
Lindsay : 0.94
Geoffrion: 0.90

McDavid 7 seasons prime, 2017-2023, Canadian nhler at least 250 games

McDavid : 1.53
MacKinnon: 1.23
Crosby : 1.17
Marchand : 1.16
Stamkos : 1.14


Howe 1.19 ppg was 21.1% above the average .9825 ppg of his elite Canadian peers.
McDavid 1.53ppg was 30% above the average 1.175ppg of his elite Canadian peers.

Other way to show it, adjusting McDavid to 1.53->1.19 and his peers would look like this (Howe era peers)

McDavid : 1.19
MacKinnon: 0.96 (1.11)
Crosby : 0.91 (0.98)
Marchand : 0.902 (0.94)
Stamkos : 0.89 (0.90)

People often look season by season instead by small group of them and in the 06 it can create the situation where you do not compare Howe season to a lot of elite seasons versus modern players. It is close but seem clearly show McDavid>Howe, but that giving the benefit of the doubt that Canadian talents did not grow a single bit, that the advantage of being on the Wings first line never playing against them not taken into account and so on.

McDavid scoring over 2ppg in the playoff in 22, +15 in just 16, 10g-33pts in just 16 games also feel something Gretzky and him and no one else type of affair, but Draisaitl almost did it with him right there, so...

 

[MadLuke]

And Gretzky is so far ahead that you could actually just put him alone at the top.

Was it not always the case (whole career vs whole career wise) and people kept the conversation alive that started I imagine after Mario won his cups in those fashion after a 199pts season and had a fighting chance to make it a conversation, but at the end it did not happen for the fun of it ?

 

[daver]

Not sure I agree, during the covid season or last year McDavid scored like weaker version of Gretzky-Mario (still prime version of them not peak) under some statistical measure, like Jagr, Espo and Howe did.

Adjusted point - using elite Canadians player scoring

With different previous at adjusting players season, the latest attempt has been the following with those goals: 1) Only use the top players in the league to automatically adjust for scoring distribution change over time, if rules change, style of play, power play habit make scoring more...

forums.hfboards.com

Look how much Howe distanced himself from the best season of his era (Beliveau) versus McDavid versus the best seasons of his era for something some would call reasonable to do.

During Howe peak stretch 51 to 57, 7 seasons

The best ppg (at least 250 games)

Howe : 1.19
Beliveau : 1.11
Richard : 0.98
Lindsay : 0.94
Geoffrion: 0.90

McDavid 7 seasons prime, 2017-2023, Canadian nhler at least 250 games

McDavid : 1.53
MacKinnon: 1.23
Crosby : 1.17
Marchand : 1.16
Stamkos : 1.14


Howe 1.19 ppg was 21.1% above the average .9825 ppg of his elite Canadian peers.
McDavid 1.53ppg was 30% above the average 1.175ppg of his elite Canadian peers.

Other way to show it, adjusting McDavid to 1.53->1.19 and his peers would look like this (Howe era peers)

McDavid : 1.19
MacKinnon: 0.96 (1.11)
Crosby : 0.91 (0.98)
Marchand : 0.902 (0.94)
Stamkos : 0.89 (0.90)

People often look season by season instead by small group of them and in the 06 it can create the situation where you do not compare Howe season to a lot of elite seasons versus modern players. It is close but seem clearly show McDavid>Howe, but that giving the benefit of the doubt that Canadian talents did not grow a single bit, that the advantage of being on the Wings first line never playing against them not taken into account and so on.

No idea why you think you can simply erase players from the league and think that is reasonable.

That being said, Howe's peak from 51-to 54, and his 52/53 season (vs. the other Top 5 scorers) is statistically superior to McDavid's peak (vs. the other Top 10 scorers).

To say that McDavid is better, let alone, "much better", is simply not backed up by common sense.

Howe is the clear best offensive player over his era peers (from '46 to '70) but not to the extent that Mario and Wayne were over their era peers while McDavid is in the same offensive tier as Jagr and Crosby in his era.

Jagr < Mario/Wayne is clear.

Howe > any other player before Mario/Wayne should be clear also.

Placing McDavid higher than Howe doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[MadLuke]

No idea why you think you can simply erase players from the league and think that is reasonable.

Would it be more reasonable to make McDavid compete against the world and Howe against Ontario-Quebec ?

I think it is reasonable to compare McDavid to Canadians in the nhl because that who Howe played against.

Placing McDavid higher than Howe doesn't pass the smell test.

Maybe, but not because McDavid is not a better points producers relative to his peers, Howe brings a lot of other things to the table.

52/53 season

I think that could be a mistake to look at it like this, single 06 season can have few elite season in them.

50-56 best Canadian seasons

Howe : 95
Beliveau : 88
Howe : 86
Howe : 86
Howe : 81
Howe : 79
Lindsay : 78
Geoffrion: 75

17-23 best Canadian seasons

*McDavid 2021 season pace: 153
McDavid : 153
McDavid : 123
McDavid : 116
Huberdeau: 115
MacKinnon: 111
McDavid : 108
Stamkos : 106
*McDavid : 105 (in 56 games)

Does Howe 95 pts in that era look that clearly more dominant than 153 or 105 in 53 of McDavid's ?

If I put Howe and McDavid best at 100:

Howe	95​	100​	100​	McDavid
Beliveau	88​	92.6​	80.4​	McDavid
Howe	86​	90.5​	75.8​	McDavid
Howe	86​	90.5​	75.2​	Huberdeau
Howe	81​	85.3​	72.5​	MacKinnon
Howe	79​	83.2​	70.6​	McDavid
Lindsay	78​	82.1​	69.3​	Stamkos
Geoffrion	75​	78.9​	68.6​	*McDavid

 

[daver]

Would it be more reasonable to make McDavid compete against the world and Howe against Ontario-Quebec ?

I think it is reasonable to compare McDavid to Canadians in the nhl because that who Howe played against.

You are introducing a hypothetical scenario; one that is open to subjective biases, for no good reason.

We have zero idea how any player does in any other era; all you can you do is compare their relative domination. I am extremely skeptical of moving players up and down tiers based on when they played.

I am not against Howe's offensive peak and prime being "gettable" but that is only half of his legacy especially vs. McDavid, who like Jagr, is lacking in playoff success, elite longevity and a notable all around game. He is an offensive weapon and used as such.

 

[MadLuke]

I am not against Howe's offensive peak and prime being "gettable" but that is only half of his legacy especially vs. McDavid, who like Jagr, is lacking in playoff success, elite longevity and a notable all around game. He is an offensive weapon and used as such.

Yes like I said Howe bring much more to the table than peak offensive domination using points as the proxy for it.

Just saying that McDavid prime look to be at least similar if not better using what I feel are quite reasonable statistical way to look at it.

all you can you do is compare their relative domination.

We can also do their relative domination to Canadian players, one could think it is a variable that change less through history and superior to some others.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Re: The Big Four (and #5)

I don't think the Big 4 exists any longer, amongst the people who are now sitting around and talking about these things. There's really a Big 3 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr). And Gretzky is so far ahead that you could actually just put him alone at the top.

Howe is falling and he definitely won't survive McDavid, who's career is as long as Orr's already. Multiple generations already have McDavid in the top 4, and soon all will.

Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid are much better scorers than Howe was, and that's the main reason Howe will continue to slowly move down.

Even though individuals and groups will continue to rank Howe higher, the consensus is moving him out of the top four.

Only Gretzky matched Howe's dominance over his peers. You can't go by raw totals across multiple eras (for example, Bernie Nicholls is a better scorer than Howe by that method).

Not to mention Howe had 6x Ross, 20x Top 5 in points, 5x Rocket and 6x leading the playoffs in scoring

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Not sure I agree, during the covid season or last year McDavid scored like weaker version of Gretzky-Mario (still prime version of them not peak) under some statistical measure, like Jagr, Espo and Howe did.

Adjusted point - using elite Canadians player scoring

With different previous at adjusting players season, the latest attempt has been the following with those goals: 1) Only use the top players in the league to automatically adjust for scoring distribution change over time, if rules change, style of play, power play habit make scoring more...

forums.hfboards.com

Look how much Howe distanced himself from the best season of his era (Beliveau) versus McDavid versus the best seasons of his era for something some would call reasonable to do.

During Howe peak stretch 51 to 57, 7 seasons

The best ppg (at least 250 games)

Howe : 1.19
Beliveau : 1.11
Richard : 0.98
Lindsay : 0.94
Geoffrion: 0.90

McDavid 7 seasons prime, 2017-2023, Canadian nhler at least 250 games

McDavid : 1.53
MacKinnon: 1.23
Crosby : 1.17
Marchand : 1.16
Stamkos : 1.14


Howe 1.19 ppg was 21.1% above the average .9825 ppg of his elite Canadian peers.
McDavid 1.53ppg was 30% above the average 1.175ppg of his elite Canadian peers.

Other way to show it, adjusting McDavid to 1.53->1.19 and his peers would look like this (Howe era peers)

McDavid : 1.19
MacKinnon: 0.96 (1.11)
Crosby : 0.91 (0.98)
Marchand : 0.902 (0.94)
Stamkos : 0.89 (0.90)

People often look season by season instead by small group of them and in the 06 it can create the situation where you do not compare Howe season to a lot of elite seasons versus modern players. It is close but seem clearly show McDavid>Howe, but that giving the benefit of the doubt that Canadian talents did not grow a single bit, that the advantage of being on the Wings first line never playing against them not taken into account and so on.

McDavid scoring over 2ppg in the playoff in 22, +15 in just 16, 10g-33pts in just 16 games also feel something Gretzky and him and no one else type of affair, but Draisaitl almost did it with him right there, so...

Lemieux 34 in 15

 

[MadLuke]

Lemieux 34 in 15

Was +6 that playoff, not +1pergame a la McDavid, that was Gretzkyeske

 

[rmartin65]

One of the big problems with the "against Canadian players only" idea here is that McDavid benefits from a non-Canadian player more than a lot of other players; I'm not saying that he's a product of Draisaitl or anything, but there is no way that he is not benefiting extensively from having a top-3 non-Canadian player on his team.

In other words, you can eliminate players from lists, but I don't think you can eliminate those players' impact.

EDIT: as for the thread itself, this seems like a weird take, unless the OP has Hasek and Roy (or I guess any two goalies) at spots 5 and 6. Otherwise, just say the goalie you think is the 5th best player.

 

[daver]

We can also do their relative domination to Canadian players, one could think it is a variable that change less through history and superior to some others.

This assumes that Canadian players' numbers are not influenced by the presence of non-Canadians or a lack of their presence. This opens up a whole can of hypothetical worms; or a partial can depending on what narrative you want to be true.

You make it sound like we aren't talking about slim margins of talent level between the top hockey talent in the world. You remove Jagr and Kucherov from the league and it isn't a Canadian AHLer taking their spot; it is a 2nd liner moving up who likely sees a boost in their points due to more PP time.

The stats show that a Top 5 scoring finish in the O6 is generally is the same as a Top 10 scoring finish in the current league. I believe that kind of "adjusting for era" is reasonable.

I am sorry but I don't see any serious HOH poster agreeing with your premise.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Was +6 that playoff, not +1pergame a la McDavid, that was Gretzkyeske

+15 in 16 gp is not a +1 pergame

 

[wetcoast]

I think one obvious flaw should be glaring here.

Hasek: 1965
Roy: 1965
Lemieux: 1965

Hasek-Roy-Lemieux are all born months apart (exact same day for Lemieux-Roy trying to push one played in the highest scoring era and the other the lowest... is quite the spin), all played against each others, rather famously in some playoff in Lemieux vs Hasek case or Gretzky vs Roy in a cup final.

All 3 goaltenders played in very high scoring seasons (94-97, 06-07 for Brodeur some of his bests seasons, Hasek and Roy obviously). All 3 skaters played in low scoring seasons, doing very well (Gretzky relative to his age and mileage), to give some clue if it was a lot about their environment.

The question seem to be more why outside the rare phenom Howe-Orr-McDavid, etc... does so much of the best seem to be born between 1960-1965, that could be peak mix of kids population, accessibility, popularity with for many country the first time they would be able to play in the nhl.

I think the simple explanation is that the baby boomers were controlling the media narrative and it has stuck to a certain extent.

Also all 3 of these guys really stood out head and shoulders from the competition in some areas.

 

[wetcoast]

One of the big problems with the "against Canadian players only" idea here is that McDavid benefits from a non-Canadian player more than a lot of other players; I'm not saying that he's a product of Draisaitl or anything, but there is no way that he is not benefiting extensively from having a top-3 non-Canadian player on his team.

In other words, you can eliminate players from lists, but I don't think you can eliminate those players' impact.

EDIT: as for the thread itself, this seems like a weird take, unless the OP has Hasek and Roy (or I guess any two goalies) at spots 5 and 6. Otherwise, just say the goalie you think is the 5th best player.

It is a problem but is it a really big one or as big as the problem with some people using top 10 finishes, SC counting ect?

The problem is that at best we can only guess across eras when we do these player comps and often the final answer is predetermined depending on which group of people are asked and people here often say hey this is the HOH section here we need to counteract the main boards regency bias.

The reality is that if any of the Big 4 were starting in the league today, or even post lockout 04 they really quite likely wouldn't stand out as much as when they did back in their eras.

Their resumes are still incredible and they are surely among the best players of all time but this notion that the best anyone can hope for is getting to 5th spot does seem like a problem as well.

Mario and his video game numbers seem to partially blind some to the fact that he didn't really tilt the ice in so far as winning games as his legacy makes him out to be.