Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

[Captain Bowie]

In an absolute sense maybe, but I think the bruins were much better than the expansion teams in thier own era. As much as Phil Esposito gets grilled on this forum, his production in 1968 and 1969 did not depend on Orr at all, he did just fine in the games Orr missed in 73 too.

I actually do think Orr was more dependent on Esposito for his offense than either wayne or mario were for theirs. I see Gretzky putting up 160 points on any team. I dont think Orr has his success if he was on an average team. I honestly see him being a 90-100 point player if he was on a team like the north stars or sabres.

Scoring 100 points on this team might be equally as impressive as scoring 139 points on a team with Phil Esposito scoring 76 goals.

1970-71 Minnesota North Stars Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Canadiens1958]

Given how the Soviets were forced to train, I'd guess he was probably pretty gassed by the time he made it to North America. He'd spent 11 months out of the year for a decade plus training.

Explain how modern Nhlers, vountarily train 11 or more months a year for as long or longer and are not gassed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I know it's a really lefty group so saying he's possibly the worst playoff performer in the group isn't necessarily an insult. But have you seen his playoff +/- relative to his team during the 1980s? I don't think this was available until all the numbers were released recently but he was very dominant despite the relative lack of team success.

Point taken.I just checked, and he does look good.But considering his scary competition, is that enough?

 

[blogofmike]

In an absolute sense maybe, but I think the bruins were much better than the expansion teams in thier own era. As much as Phil Esposito gets grilled on this forum, his production in 1968 and 1969 did not depend on Orr at all, he did just fine in the games Orr missed in 73 too.

I actually do think Orr was more dependent on Esposito for his offense than either wayne or mario were for theirs. I see Gretzky putting up 160 points on any team. I dont think Orr has his success if he was on an average team. I honestly see him being a 90-100 point player if he was on a team like the north stars or sabres.

They were well positioned to squash the E6 teams. That's why Orr gets those lopsided splits in 1970 (+4 East Division, +50 vs Expansion Division) and wins the plus/minus lead over Clarke in 1975 (Orr was + 20 vs Washington in 5 games (4-0-1), Clarke was +3 in 4 games (4-0-0)). So while Orr was +80 to Clarke's +79, Clarke was +76 against teams that were not the worst team of modern times, and Orr was a +60 who had the benefit of squeezing out a lot of pluses against the doormat.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I’m not as enamored by Bourque’s accumulation of positional designations. If you can pick up back-to-back nominations at 65 GP in an 80-game season, then the field chasing you probably isn’t strong enough in terms of quality/quantity.

That said, Bourque was obviously very good for a very long time, though I don’t know that I would necessarily feel any more strongly about his longevity as a top-level player than I would Jean Beliveau and Patrick Roy who won individual awards 11 and 10 times respectively across ranges of 15 and 17 seasons.

I’m not sure what the forward or goaltender equivalent of Bourque’s 1981 (missed 13 GP), 1982 (missed 15 GP), 1983 (missed 15 GP), or 1999 (nominated because 4th and 5th place missed 14-15 GP), but I don’t know that it would be as celebrated to the same extent that Bourque’s is.

Being a Bruins fan, I was a huge fan of Bourque.

That said, I don't see how he is in the top 10. I didn't have Bourque or Roy, but I know many voters really liked Roy and he would definitely have a better case.

 

[bobholly39]

Why?

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Not, Top-100 Hockey Careers of All-Time

Because what you're describing is peak - and peak is just one component of a player's resume.

It's one thing if you say peak is by far the most important for you - and as such it's a very big part of your overall ranking. But it shouldn't be only about peak - if not we're comparing apples to oranges and it makes this whole project useless. My "all time" ranking is vastly different than my "peak" ranking.

To echo this, it’s fully within everyone’s individual interpretation with the understanding that every aspect of a player’s hockey career is eligible for discussion.

So I don't get it it's ok to rank just off of peak? How is that fair, or how does that possibly provide results that are worthwhile?

Can I unilaterally decide i don't like playoff hockey - and only look at regular season too? There needs to be some sort of consistency here. If we're doing an all-time ranking - you need to look at everything the player accomplished - and that includes more than just that player at his very best (ie peak). Maybe you can weight certain criteria more than others - but i don't think it's fair at all to only consider how "good" a player was, vs looking at his full career.

 

[canucks4ever]

They were well positioned to squash the E6 teams. That's why Orr gets those lopsided splits in 1970 (+4 East Division, +50 vs Expansion Division) and wins the plus/minus lead over Clarke in 1975 (Orr was + 20 vs Washington in 5 games (4-0-1), Clarke was +3 in 4 games (4-0-0)). So while Orr was +80 to Clarke's +79, Clarke was +76 against teams that were not the worst team of modern times, and Orr was a +60 who had the benefit of squeezing out a lot of pluses against the doormat.

Orr also got way more ice time than Gretzky did too, which is why I find it laughable when people think he could put up Wayne's offense if he was a forward. If Bobby Orr played center, he would get 25 minutes of ice time instead of 35-40 that he got with boston.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

well i think we can safely say practically no one in this project gives a crap about gretzky's WJC stats, or mario's all-star game MVPs, or whatever howe may or may not have done against a bunch of farmboys on some lake outside of saskatoon.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They were well positioned to squash the E6 teams. That's why Orr gets those lopsided splits in 1970 (+4 East Division, +50 vs Expansion Division) and wins the plus/minus lead over Clarke in 1975 (Orr was + 20 vs Washington in 5 games (4-0-1), Clarke was +3 in 4 games (4-0-0)). So while Orr was +80 to Clarke's +79, Clarke was +76 against teams that were not the worst team of modern times, and Orr was a +60 who had the benefit of squeezing out a lot of pluses against the doormat.

When Orr was a +80, the Bruins had 1 other player over +35 that season. Clarke (+79) had 7 teammates over +35.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm curious: other than howe, orr, and gretzky, what players have any possible argument over mario for #4?

i can see beliveau and rocket, but i don't think anyone else makes any sense if we are saying "top" as opposed to something more ineffable like, say, "greatest."

 

[BenchBrawl]

i'm curious: other than howe, orr, and gretzky, what players have any possible argument over mario for #4?

i can see beliveau and rocket, but i don't think anyone else makes any sense if we are saying "top" as opposed to something more ineffable like, say, "greatest."

I don't have the time to make a serious case, but I think Maurice Richard has the best case based on his incredible star power and the impact and influence he had on the hockey fanbase's subconscious.Maurice Richard is the player most deserving of being called a legend.

His importance surpassed hockey, and I think this isn't just about counting off-rink factors that we shouldn't count at all; I think the reason this off-rink buzz happened is because of some unquantifiable (and some quantifiable) collective observations made by the crowd about what happened on the ice.

To say it differently: The extent of the buzz is informative about some real-time unquantifiable aspects of Richard's career and play.Probably has to do with timing of some plays mixed with the sensed pressure to execute them, which can leave a mark in the crowd's subconscious, but which is lost in translation once we look at it on paper years later.

To conclude, Maurice Richard is the player who played under the most intense pressure in hockey history; he responded by becoming the most clutch goalscorer ever.Those two facts put together are a big part of his legend.

I understand this is quite ''out there'', but this is what I've got in 5 minutes.

 

[Captain Bowie]

i'm curious: other than howe, orr, and gretzky, what players have any possible argument over mario for #4?

i can see beliveau and rocket, but i don't think anyone else makes any sense if we are saying "top" as opposed to something more ineffable like, say, "greatest."

What's the difference?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

one last crazy stats post by me before i call it a day:

the 1991 pittsburgh penguins had the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 12th, 13th, and 17th highest scorers of all time. (and that's not even counting the 5th highest scoring defenseman of all time or another 500 goal/1,000 point scorer.)

to me, any argument about the oilers winning without gretzky in 1990 or gretzky never winning in LA will be met by evidence that stevens, francis, and jagr iced the presidents trophy winning/MVP messier having/career 100 point season leetch-led rangers in three out of four games, with the one loss being in OT.

howe, orr, gretzky, mario, they all had help. they also all are responsible for lifting their teammates to previously unimaginable heights.

For those that have stated the opinion that Orr "made" Esposito, where is the comparable help for Orr compared to the other Top fourers?

 

[Captain Bowie]

For those that have stated the opinion that Orr "made" Esposito, where is the comparable help for Orr compared to the other Top fourers?

Gordie Howe had some great teams, but my gut feeling is he didn't have overwhelming support in terms of offensive production either. Lindsay, Delvecchio and Ullman were great players in their own right, but aside from Terrible Ted will fall in the latter half of this list (if at all).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't have the time to make a serious case, but I think Maurice Richard has the best case based on his incredible star power and the impact and influence he had on the hockey fanbase's subconscious.Maurice Richard is the player most deserving of being called a legend.

His importance surpassed hockey, and I think this isn't just about counting off-rink factors that we shouldn't count at all; I think the reason this off-rink buzz happens is because of some unquantifiable (and some quantifiable) collective observations made by the crowd about what happened on the ice.

To say it differently: The extent of the buzz is informative about some real-time unquantifiable aspects of Richard's career and play.Probably has to do with timing of some plays mixed with the sensed pressure and things of that nature.

Agreed.

There is also the fact that he scored 82 playoff goals in 132 games while playing in the 40's and 50's. GPG in playoffs he's only behind Mario and Bossy (when did they play?).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Gordie Howe had some great teams, but my gut feeling is he didn't have overwhelming support in terms of offensive production either. Lindsay, Delvecchio and Ullman were great players in their own right, but aside from Terrible Ted will fall in the latter half of this list (if at all).

How about Red Kelly?

Anyway, its not just about offensive production. Especially when we are comparing a defenseman to the greatest offensive players (all forwards) of all time.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Agreed.

There is also the fact that he scored 82 playoff goals in 132 games while playing in the 40's and 50's. GPG in playoffs he's only behind Mario and Bossy (when did they play?).

That sounds very impressive, but in the pre-expansion era, Bobby Hull is close behind in PO GPG, .62 for Richard, .56 for Hull. This is up to and including 1966/1967. Even then, it wasn't until 1980/81 that goals jumped to a level not yet seen in a non-WWII year, which Richard definitely benefitted from in 43/44, scoring 12 goals in 9 games. Adjusting that season out, and Rocket is .01 playoff goals per game ahead of Bobby Hull.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gordie Howe had some great teams, but my gut feeling is he didn't have overwhelming support in terms of offensive production either. Lindsay, Delvecchio and Ullman were great players in their own right, but aside from Terrible Ted will fall in the latter half of this list (if at all).

Red Kelly, Sid Abel, say hi.

One of Howe's strength was the ability to create scorers. Earl Reibel, Garry Aldcorn, Parker MacDonald, others.

 

[Captain Bowie]

How about Red Kelly?

Anyway, its not just about offensive production. Especially when we are comparing a defenseman to the greatest offensive players (all forwards) of all time.

But the concept of "making" another player is based on the idea of offensive production. Unless I am completely mis-understanding the label, but I don't believe I am.

Red Kelly, Sid Abel, say hi.

One of Howe's strength was the ability to create scorers. Earl Reibel, Garry Aldcorn, Parker MacDonald, others.

I'll include this in here since it brings up the same thing as Dennis above.

 

[MXD]

... I feel like game logs and/or team breakdowns (preferably team breakdows, since it wouldn't have to be manual) would be a very important part in the Orr vs. Howe debate. Anyone know where we would find these?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If Orr and Lemieux have similar peaks. Then Lemieux has to be well ahead in longevity. Post age 30 Lemieux was still a dominant player (second in hart voting at 35.) while Orr was retired.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

What's the difference?

i guess we all define these words differently for ourselves, but to me top is who performed best on the ice.

greatest is how you conducted yourself on the ice, off the ice, what you meant to the game, what you mean to fans, non-fans, society, etc.

for example, you could make an argument that doug harvey was a better player than rocket or beliveau. but you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that harvey was greater than them. ykwim?

 

[VanIslander]

I’m not as enamored by Bourque’s accumulation of positional designations. If you can pick up back-to-back nominations at 65 GP in an 80-game season, then the field chasing you probably isn’t strong enough in terms of quality/quantity.

Then - by your reasoning - Orr's field of competitors was relatively weak! Orr played 61 of 70 and 46 of 74 in back to back years, finishing 3rd and 1st in Norris voting.

Lemieux missed a lot of games in back to back years as an all star forward. To have missed some games and still gotten trophy recognition could be due to greatness, not necessarily bad competition.

Plus, just look at the many all-time great defensemen Bourque competed against versus the relative few greats of Orr and Lidstrom's eras (detailed earlier this thread).

 

[blogofmike]

When Orr was a +80, the Bruins had 1 other player over +35 that season. Clarke (+79) had 7 teammates over +35.

And yet Clarke's R on/off is going to be ridiculous (over 4.00). Clarke's R-on will be around 5.00 to Orr's roughly 1.94.

How much stock do you put in these numbers in this example? And why is it any more persuasive to put Orr over Gretzky with these ratios?

Dividing ratios by other ratios sets a variable bar (Orr is mostly compared to Don Awrey, Gretzky mostly to the Messier/Anderson line). The stat will reward low GA more than high GF (winning 4-2 is better than winning 6-4 for some reason). They are heavily influenced by linemates (tossing Jagr on Lemieux's line in 1997 improves things over 1996, when he was driving Lemieux's score down), roles and quality of off-ice non-linemates, (Orr is a scorer facing a schedule half-filled with teams who can't score, Awrey is largely a non-scorer), and general opponent quality (Orr padded his gap vs historically weak Expansion teams).

 

[canucks4ever]

If Orr and Lemieux have similar peaks. Then Lemieux has to be well ahead in longevity. Post age 30 Lemieux was still a dominant player (second in hart voting at 35.) while Orr was retired.

You can also argue Mario is a better playoff performer, which is what really matters.