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

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lemieux and Gretzky's offensive domination is out of this world good. To try and capture the offensive domination of each player's best years - I compared the PPG of top performers over each player's best consecutive years. I was initially going to do the same amount of years for each player - but instead i chose to cherry pick the best years possible for each player. 9 for Lemieux, Howe, 10 for Gretzky, 7 for Beliveau and Orr. The idea was to take each player's best years and see how much above others they were in PPG, and not necessarily to pick the exact same amount of years - so as to properly capture the level of offensive domination.

I admit I had trouble selecting which cutoff season for Howe - the other 4 were easier.

I also wasn't initially going to include Beliveau - but when I noticed how close he was to Howe I thought it would make for a good comparison.

Lemieux 1987-88 to 1995-96
Player	Games played	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Lemieux	530	468	678	1146	2.16
Gretzky	703	319	866	1185	1.69
Lindros	297	193	243	436	1.47
Yzerman	732	425	607	1032	1.41
Selanne	337	214	237	451	1.34
Lafontaine	571	345	410	755	1.32
Messier	702	310	606	916	1.3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Howe 1950-51 to 1958-59
Player	Games played	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Howe	618	348	385	733	1.19
Beliveau	377	208	228	436	1.16
Richard	523	275	242	517	0.99
Geoffrion	475	224	230	454	0.96
Bathgate	383	138	216	354	0.92
Moore	411	154	215	369	0.9
Lindsay	601	225	306	531	0.88

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky 1980-81 to 1990-91
Player	Games played	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Gretzky	846	667	1338	2005	2.37
Lemieux	453	364	519	883	1.95
Bossy	524	400	417	817	1.56
Kurri	754	474	569	1043	1.38
Stastny	826	403	716	1119	1.35
Yzerman	594	342	458	800	1.35
Savard	806	379	693	1072	1.33

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Orr 1968-69 to 1974-75 - 7 years
Player	Games played	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Esposito	539	418	494	912	1.69
Orr	514	235	563	798	1.55
Hull	291	190	173	363	1.25
Dionne	309	139	227	366	1.18
Ratelle	516	241	344	585	1.13
Martin	294	185	143	328	1.12
Mikita	510	212	357	569	1.12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Beliveau 1954-55 to 1960-61 - 7 years
Player	Games played	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Beliveau	457	255	304	559	1.22
Geoffrion	394	215	244	459	1.16
Howe	472	227	303	530	1.12
Bathgate	485	191	309	500	1.03
Moore	466	190	266	456	0.98
Maurice Richard	321	160	154	314	0.98
Henri Richard	397	140	226	366	0.92

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Here is how they stack up over the 3rd, 5th and 7th best player:

Player	Domination over 3rd place	Domination over 5th place	Domination over 7th place
Gretzky	52%	76%	78%
Lemieux	47%	61%	66%
Orr	24%	37%	50%
Howe	20%	29%	35%
Beliveau	9%	24%	33%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Conclusion - Lemieux and Gretzky dominated their peers offensively by a LOT. Howe is significantly behind - he is closer to Beliveau territory than to Gretzky or Lemieux.
Orr's numbers for a defender - very impressive.

I think everyone is aware of Gretzky & Mario's offensive dominance. That's why they are in the Top 4. But they played in an all offense era and played virtually no defense themselves. Orr & Howe were complete, two-way players.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Of course not. But like I said, they represent important things that a player did on the ice. How else are you going to quantify how "good" a player was without any statistical representation?

Never said that.

Again, its just part of the ranking process.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I think everyone is aware of Gretzky & Mario's offensive dominance. That's why they are in the Top 4. But they played in an all offense era and played virtually no defense themselves. Orr & Howe were complete, two-way players.

That in and of itself is not an argument for them to be placed above either center. Patrice Bergeron is a more complete player than them, as are hundreds of other players.

What I hope someone can attempt to do is show why/how their complete games make up for the difference in statistical dominance between them (moreso in Howe's case) or Longevity (in Orr's case).

 

[Captain Bowie]

Never said that.

Again, its just part of the ranking process.

Because the point you seemed to be making was the only thing that mattered was how "good" a player was, as opposed to what they actually accomplished. My apologies if that was not your point.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Gretzky is above Orr because in my opinion there are 5 main categories worth considering, and I believe Gretzky is ahead in all of them (or at worst, tied in 1 of 5, and ahead in 4):

Playoffs
Peak
Prime
International Play
Career

I'd combine international play with playoffs (otherwise too much weight is being placed on tournaments). But I agree - if you treat this as four categories, Gretzky is clearly ahead two of them (career, playoffs/international), and solidly ahead in a third (prime). I'm in the "Orr had the higher peak" camp, but it wasn't by a large margin - not anywhere close enough to make up for Gretzky's advantages in the other categories.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

VsX-10 or VsX-7?

I'm fine posting the data however people want it. Going forward, I'll continue to post the full ten years' worth of data, but with two total columns (one for 10 years, one for 7 years) - this way people can pick whichever metric they prefer (or they can calculate something else - like five years - if they really want to).

Does Bourbon Maple Syrup (with the waffles) counts?

We haven't had any "you can't compare a goalie to skater" comments yet. Forget the hard liquor - we're still in mocktail territory.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That in and of itself is not an argument for them to be placed above either center. Patrice Bergeron is a more complete player than them, as are hundreds of other players.

What I hope someone can attempt to do is show why/how their complete games make up for the difference in statistical dominance between them (moreso in Howe's case) or Longevity (in Orr's case).

Come on, we are talking about Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe, not Patrice Bergeron and hundreds of other players. They are part of the consensus Top 4. All-time greats offensively and 200 foot players. In Orr's case, an all-time great defensively also.

To me, Orr and Howe were simply better hockey players. Didn't see a lot of Howe, but saw the entire careers of the other 3. And no one ever dominated a game like Bobby Orr.

Nothing Orr could do about longevity. If its very important to your rankings, perhaps Orr shouldn't be in the Top 4 (or even Top 10).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

For the Hart table - i wonder if awarding points per rank would be more representative of strength of resume? ex Hart win - 10 points. 2nd place 9 points, 3rd place 8 points, etc. (could argue different value per rank too, such as 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 to give more merit to top 1, 2 and 3).

I wanted to give the raw data, and people can interpret it as they wish (rather than creating a "junk stat" for the sake of creating a junk stat - then we'd spend our time having a @seventieslord -style argument about how much each ranking is really worth).

For the VsX - i assume games played is a big proponent here - and thus probably hurts someone like Lemieux? Is there any comparable method to compare PPG?

I've also looked at VsX using points per game - this link should work. Lemieux, not surprisingly, ranks second to Gretzky (though he's still a fair bit back).

Many of you probably know that my position is something like this - what a player actually did on the ice, rather than what they could have done had they not been injured, is what really counts. But I recognize there's value in people having this data so they can support their position as effectively as they can.

 

[blogofmike]

You can do whatever you want, as can everyone else.



Orr did not get 35 to 40, he got 28 to 30.



... It is. If you double your opponent's score regularly as opposed to scoring 50% more, you will win much more often.

... And why Don Awrey in particular?

Awrey because he was there a lot and not a main Orr partner. Naming Dallas Smith as an off-ice comparable seems off.

And I don't know if the ratios map on to winning percentage in practice. Teams with similar Goal Differentials have records in the same ballpark and I can't see low GA teams having a clear advantage: https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_diff

Though I would defer to someone who actually wanted to test the correlation statistically instead of eyeballing it.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Come on, we are talking about Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe, not Patrice Bergeron and hundreds of other players. They are part of the consensus Top 4. All-time greats offensively and 200 foot players. In Orr's case, an all-time great defensively also.

To me, Orr and Howe were simply better hockey players. Didn't see a lot of Howe, but saw the entire careers of the other 3. And no one ever dominated a game like Bobby Orr.

Nothing Orr could do about longevity. If its very important to your rankings, perhaps Orr shouldn't be in the Top 4 (or even Top 10).

I guess I was hoping for a better presentation of an argument to convince people who were open to being convinced to alter their original rankings. You have stated your opinion quite clearly, but simply doing so is not going to sway anyone to your side. If you don't want to present a detailed argument, that's fine too.

All relevant factors are a balancing act. A player with a lesser peak and Orr's longevity (Say, Eric Lindros) falls much further down the list. Bobby Orr has the peak play to make up for his lack of lonigevity to be #2 for me, but not quite enough for number one. If there's a solid case to convince me otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Conclusion: Bourque faced stiffer competition for top dog on the blueline than Orr (or Lidstrom). That's partially why simply counting trophies is misleading.

I don't want to spent a lot of time talking about Bourque now (as he's likely to finish in the bottom two this round) - but I don't think that people fully appreciate the bad luck he had, peaking during the golden age of American defensemen.

The early eighties to late nineties featured the strongest group of American blueliners ever seen. Bourque finished behind only Americans in 1983 (Langway and Howe), 1992 (Leetch), 1993 (Chelios) and 1996 (Chelios). Does that mean that he should get credit for nine Norris trophies (when compared to Harvey, who faced hardly any competition from American defensemen)? I don't think it works quite so simply - but it does speak to Bourque's incredible Norris resume, and the very competitive environment in which he earned it.

 

[VanIslander]

We haven't had any "you can't compare a goalie to skater" comments yet. Forget the hard liquor - we're still in mocktail territory.

As long as we avoid Molotov cocktails...

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

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

Esposito : Orr- Symbiotic Relationship.
Rogues Gallery of assorted borderline Pitts Wingers : 1st 6 years of Lemieux- Eleemosynary Relationship.

Lemieux would finally enter into a Symbiotic Relationship-- with Young Jagr... but that was only after he'd been in the league for half-a-dozen years, and had built up maybe 40% of his C.V. in spite of his teammates.

 

[VanIslander]

Symbiosis explains Orr-Esposito and Lemieux-Jagr but I am less convinced regarding Gretzky-Kurri (with all due respect to Jari's defensive responsibilities) and a couple of other duos, which involve none of the 10 we're considering this week/round.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Roy, too, had a rogue voter in 2002-03, taking a single first-place vote for going 22-4 down the stretch (essentially giving him more than double his voting share of 1988-89), but like the Anderson example, I don’t know that it was necessarily impactful given how far away from the top names they had placed.

More relevant would be in a specialized award like the Vezina, like Lundqvist continuing to stretch his top-6 in Vezina voting streak off of a single voter, but I don’t know that we were seeing that sort of thing from Roy in 1989, Gretzky and Roy in 1990, or Bourque in 1991 who in addition to picking up the scraps of the top-3 in Hart voting were strong 1st Team All-Stars at Defense/Goal or 2nd Team at Center.

While we may have some take it as gospel that Steve Larmer in 1991 (0-1-2 in Hart voting) was better than Joe Sakic in 1991 (0-0-3 in Hart voting), I guess I’m of the opinion that in the case of easily digestible tables, it might be better to know the rank and sort it out in the discussion if it was deserved as opposed to the situation where we may get 2 players from one season and 12 from another depending not on the players’ performance but the ballot distributed to the media.

But surely there should be some type of threshold - no? Should I present Doug Harvey as finishing in 8th place for the Hart in 1954 because he got two (possibly throw-away) votes?

If the consensus says I should present that anyway, that's fine (it won't take me more than five minutes to change the parameters) - but my concern is I'd be presenting a lot of noise, with not a lot of informational value.

(Ideally, the NHL would have moved away from the 5-3-1 voting system long before it did. Still, that voting system probably achieves their goal of picking trophy winners - the newer 10-7-5-3-1 system gives a lot of interesting information to people like us who are willing to pore through it, but obviously they're not thinking about us when they're making these decisions).

 

[VanIslander]

... If the consensus says I should present that anyway, that's fine... but my concern is I'd be presenting a lot of noise, with not a lot of informational value.

Word.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Alternative is that Hart Trophies are overrated.They are after all a by product not an objevtive.

^ a much needed reality check

Mario from age 22-30 was doing this only Gretzky ever could. No player ever came close to him. I mean Orr’s goal record was broken nobody came close to Lemieux 199 points. Who came close to 46 point streak?

sure, coffey came closet to/broke orr's records. but then lemieux's 199 and 46 aren't actually records because he never caught gretzky.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I’m hoping the Lemieux delegation will join the party soon. Since it seems for the most part people are pretty locked in on their top 2.

I’d also be interested if someone has an argument for Howe being in the top 2

I think Howe has a better argument to be #1 than he does to be #3 or lower, unless the voter has a significant preference for peak performance over the other aspects of a player's career.

A lot has already been mentioned in here so far, but I haven't seen much talk of Howe's playoff career. MXD pointed out that Detroit's failures in 1951 and 53 can't be lumped at Howe's feet. I did a fairly deep dive on Howe during the playoff players project from 2017. I'll go back and dig up specifics from the thread when I have the time, but the general conclusion was that despite not winning any Cups in the 60s, Howe regularly dragged weak Red Wings rosters to the cusp of glory. So unlike Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, Mr. Hockey was seemingly as good or even better in the playoffs outside of his championship years.

How often did the other three take a team to greater heights than they ought to have reached? Gretzky comes out looking decent here. Kings in 93 were not really Cup material, but came close. Playoff runs with the Blues in 96 and Rangers in 97 were at least worthy of a golf clap. Orr doesn't really have any examples unless you want to argue that his Cup winning rosters themselves were 2nd-rate (I won't, others might entertain the idea). Lemieux in the 2001 comeback year probably equates to Gretzky's lone Rangers playoff appearance. Overall, nothing earth shattering here. Certainly nothing that rates with the multiple Conn Smythe-caliber playoff campaigns Howe delivered in the 60s as one of the oldest players in the NHL on typically middling Detroit teams.

 

[blogofmike]

Islanders were not an impressive dynasty. Below dynasty RS performance.

Mario in 1993. Kindly explain what he was doing in OT of game 7 on Volek's series winning goal.



Eye test.

It took restraint not to go with the 5 straight goals Orr was on the ice for in 1971, but since I just watched the full game in another thread:

​

Orr, in his 3rd(?) best playoff run, probably could have used an eye test to avoid clearing the zone on his own team's PP twice here, once by swinging at a slow moving puck and whiffing, and the second on a behind the back pass to the neutral zone. Of course he then proceeded to Eddie Shore his team into a 3-on-4 kill, leading to the Flyers goal. A penalty in the last three minutes of the game also helps the Flyers close out the win.

Gretzky and Howe have piles of strong playoff runs. Their non-Smythe performances are great. It's closer with Lemieux, but if you call the 2 Cup years a push, I think Mario had more meaningful playoff runs.

 

[Sentinel]

Orr vs Gretzky

1. I don't think some people fully appreciate how dominant a peak Orr was. Consider scoring based on 7 year VsX. Orr produced more points per year in 7 year peak form than Jagr, Hull, Mikita, Beliveau, etc. From the blueline! That's flat out absurd.

Then consider that the next closest player to Orr's 7 year peak offensive value among Dmen is Coffey, who btw, had the benefit of playing with Gretzky and Lemieux for a large portion of his career, was rather weak defensively and got to enjoy a scoring era that dwarfs anything else post consolidation. Orr posted insane scoring numbers, when you factor in he played D and did it while not being a liability in any way in his own end.

Orr played with Esposito, who was no slouch offensively and who beat him for the Hart. When Gretzky and Lemieux were "on," nobody beat them for the Hart.

Orr played in probably *the* most dilute talent era.

Dominance

While there are a handful of Dmen who played as much or close to the same amount of ES minutes, none come even remotely close to Orr's production offensively while shutting the door on the opposition. Look at the even strength points per 82 games, goals for and against. Again, it's about being dominant at both ends of the ice. Nobody has done it quite like Bobby O. Certainly not Gretzky. It's why I can't understand why people have the likes of Jagr in the top 10. Hockey isn't just about gaudy numbers. I'd like to think the game is far more nuanced.

Nobody questions Orr's dominance. But his dominance lasted for a really, REALLY short period of time. Unlike Gretzky's and Jagr's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Orr played with Esposito, who was no slouch offensively and who beat him for the Hart. When Gretzky and Lemieux were "on," nobody beat them for the Hart.

Orr played in probably *the* most dilute talent era.


Nobody questions Orr's dominance. But his dominance lasted for a really, REALLY short period of time. Unlike Gretzky's and Jagr's.

Gretzky played in the most diluted era of the NHL, poat NHL/WHA consolidation.

Nor did Gretzky dominate as you claim.

Orr`s career is shorter than Gretzky's Edmonton career, fewer RS games but Orr a defenceman opened the scoring in 44 games with the game influencing 1st goal.

During, his Edmonton career, playing more RS games Gretzky scored 46 1st goal, lower per game rate. With fewer goals, Orr was more dominant, influencing the direction of games.

 

[blogofmike]

I think Howe has a better argument to be #1 than he does to be #3 or lower, unless the voter has a significant preference for peak performance over the other aspects of a player's career.

A lot has already been mentioned in here so far, but I haven't seen much talk of Howe's playoff career. MXD pointed out that Detroit's failures in 1951 and 53 can't be lumped at Howe's feet. I did a fairly deep dive on Howe during the playoff players project from 2017. I'll go back and dig up specifics from the thread when I have the time, but the general conclusion was that despite not winning any Cups in the 60s, Howe regularly dragged weak Red Wings rosters to the cusp of glory. So unlike Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, Mr. Hockey was seemingly as good or even better in the playoffs outside of his championship years.

How often did the other three take a team to greater heights than they ought to have reached? Gretzky comes out looking decent here. Kings in 93 were not really Cup material, but came close. Playoff runs with the Blues in 96 and Rangers in 97 were at least worthy of a golf clap. Orr doesn't really have any examples unless you want to argue that his Cup winning rosters themselves were 2nd-rate (I won't, others might entertain the idea). Lemieux in the 2001 comeback year probably equates to Gretzky's lone Rangers playoff appearance. Overall, nothing earth shattering here. Certainly nothing that rates with the multiple Conn Smythe-caliber playoff campaigns Howe delivered in the 60s as one of the oldest players in the NHL on typically middling Detroit teams.

Chicago was a helpful matchup. The weak PK of those 60s Chicago teams seems to have played into Howe and Ullman's wheelhouse. The 63 and 64 Wings went 12-10-6 against Chicago, which was the best combined RS record against them over 2 years. Of course, as much as Ullman helped in Round 1, he tanked against the Leafs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But surely there should be some type of threshold - no? Should I present Doug Harvey as finishing in 8th place for the Hart in 1954 because he got two (possibly throw-away) votes?

If the consensus says I should present that anyway, that's fine (it won't take me more than five minutes to change the parameters) - but my concern is I'd be presenting a lot of noise, with not a lot of informational value.

(Ideally, the NHL would have moved away from the 5-3-1 voting system long before it did. Still, that voting system probably achieves their goal of picking trophy winners - the newer 10-7-5-3-1 system gives a lot of interesting information to people like us who are willing to pore through it, but obviously they're not thinking about us when they're making these decisions).

I don’t think reporting an 8th place ranking from 2 votes is necessary, but I also don’t think reporting as few as 2 players in some seasons and as many as 12 players in others is the answer either.

Sure, Patrick Roy had a pretty solid 1996-97 (Vezina nominee on the President’s Trophy winner), but is it more notable than his 1988-89 and 1989-90? Of course not. And the actual Hart ranking doesn’t say that it is either - just the subsequent disqualification of the two seasons because of the acknowledged limitations of the ballot used in those years.

I mean, if we’re adding a condition that would disqualify a 3rd place Hart finish in 1980-81 where a player scored 135 points just because there have been random votes that resulted in peculiar placements 8, 9, or 10 names down the ranking in other years, then the altered publication of Hart rankings is probably doing more damage than alleviating the theorized problem.

At the very least, I’d say report a minimum number of names each year (I think top-5 was the standard used throughout the positional projects), and then apply the minimum - because you’re probably correct in picking up relevant allocation of Hart shares beyond those top rankings.

And then if someone wants to argue that Patrick Roy wasn’t a top-5 player in 1988-89 because he only stole so many 3rd place votes from Gretzky and Lemieux and Yzerman, we can cross that bridge. Otherwise I think reporting the Hart placement of five goaltenders in 2003-04 alone (but not also 1990-91 Ray Bourque) might be a stretch.

 

[daver]

Gretzky played in the most diluted era of the NHL, poat NHL/WHA consolidation.

The league tripled in size during Orr's prime. The league increased by 24% in Wayne's prime with, I am assuming, a notable increase in non-Canadians joining the league.

 

[Canadiens1958]

But surely there should be some type of threshold - no? Should I present Doug Harvey as finishing in 8th place for the Hart in 1954 because he got two (possibly throw-away) votes?

If the consensus says I should present that anyway, that's fine (it won't take me more than five minutes to change the parameters) - but my concern is I'd be presenting a lot of noise, with not a lot of informational value.

(Ideally, the NHL would have moved away from the 5-3-1 voting system long before it did. Still, that voting system probably achieves their goal of picking trophy winners - the newer 10-7-5-3-1 system gives a lot of interesting information to people like us who are willing to pore through it, but obviously they're not thinking about us when they're making these decisions).

Question(bolded) is not representative of voting patterns and weight factors.

Specifically mid-season and end of season voting vs end of season only. Likewise who voted. Montreal and Toronto media with superior participation number had proportionate votes for awhile.

Yet commentary and analysis habitually overlooks these quirks, leaving the value of half-season Hart or other votes vs full season votes open and unresloved and resulting analysis misleading.