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

[Dr John Carlson]

Ramble time... I've been thinking about the 'If you were a GM, who would you take?' approach that some use to determining preference between players... What time period's POV would you approach that from? For example, comparing between Orr and Howe. In today's parity-dominated 30 31 team league, I'd much rather have a player like Howe who maybe didn't dominate to the extent of Orr but was consistently elite for almost 20 years, as that would give me the best chance to make the playoffs as frequently as possible. Almost every team that makes the playoffs in this era has a realistic chance to win the Cup so long as they get the right bounces and get hot at the right time. I saw first-hand this fact when Washington won the Cup with one of their weakest rosters of the Ovechkin era; sure, there were strong defensive adjustments made to their system by Reirden that hadn't been there in previous years, but their best players also got hot at the right time and they got bounces that hadn't happened before. From a GM's perspective, I feel like having one of the best rosters in the league gives me less of an advantage over the field now than it has at any time in the league's history. Just get into the playoffs as often as possible, and see what happens. The Ted Leonsis strategy.

Contrast this with the O6 era, where there was less parity and the gap between the best team and an average team was greater As a GM, I'd rather have Orr than Howe in this scenario. I'd rather take a player who was head-and-shoulders above everybody else for a span of 6 or 7 years. In a playoff series, an average team doesn't stand a chance against a Canadiens team lead by Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, Plante, Geoffrion, Moore... not like they do in today's NHL against a team of Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang... I'd need to maximize my chances by taking the best player, regardless of how long they were good for.

So if I'm a GM in the O6 era, I'll take Orr. If I'm a GM in 2018, I'll take Howe... who's to say the pendulum won't swing back in 30 years and Orr would be the preferable choice again? This line of thinking doesn't work very well unless you look at it while accepting that these lists are fluid and subject to change over time due to differing perspectives and newly-discovered information, rather than trying to build a list with the intention of having it stand the test of time. Should that be the correct perspective? If it is, I may swap Orr and Howe from my original list...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

... Because I'm not one to do things that have already been done...

Is there, somewhere, a table of Bobby Orr's numbers vs. specific teams or group of teams?

pretty sure panther did semi-recently this in a woo gretzky/boo orr thread.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ramble time... I've been thinking about the 'If you were a GM, who would you take?' approach that some use to determining preference between players... What time period's POV would you approach that from? For example, comparing between Orr and Howe. In today's parity-dominated 30 31 team league, I'd much rather have a player like Howe who maybe didn't dominate to the extent of Orr but was consistently elite for almost 20 years, as that would give me the best chance to make the playoffs as frequently as possible. Almost every team that makes the playoffs in this era has a realistic chance to win the Cup so long as they get the right bounces and get hot at the right time. I saw first-hand this fact when Washington won the Cup with one of their weakest rosters of the Ovechkin era; sure, there were strong defensive adjustments made to their system by Reirden that hadn't been there in previous years, but their best players also got hot at the right time and they got bounces that hadn't happened before. From a GM's perspective, I feel like having one of the best rosters in the league gives me less of an advantage over the field now than it has at any time in the league's history. Just get into the playoffs as often as possible, and see what happens. The Ted Leonsis strategy.

Contrast this with the O6 era, where there was less parity and the gap between the best team and an average team was greater As a GM, I'd rather have Orr than Howe in this scenario. I'd rather take a player who was head-and-shoulders above everybody else for a span of 6 or 7 years. In a playoff series, an average team doesn't stand a chance against a Canadiens team lead by Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, Plante, Geoffrion, Moore... not like they do in today's NHL against a team of Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang... I'd need to maximize my chances by taking the best player, regardless of how long they were good for.

So if I'm a GM in the O6 era, I'll take Orr. If I'm a GM in 2018, I'll take Howe... who's to say the pendulum won't swing back in 30 years and Orr would be the preferable choice again? This line of thinking doesn't work very well unless you look at it while accepting that these lists are fluid and subject to change over time due to differing perspectives and newly-discovered information, rather than trying to build a list with the intention of having it stand the test of time. Should that be the correct perspective? If it is, I may swap Orr and Howe from my original list...

Loser point has shrunk the perceived parity gap.

You answered your own question with the bolded.

Orr still gets picked first since he would only enhance the adjustments with the extra TOI he would enjoy over Howe. #1 winger to #1 defenceman, defenceman plays about 5-7 minutes more pergame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ramble time... I've been thinking about the 'If you were a GM, who would you take?' approach that some use to determining preference between players... What time period's POV would you approach that from? For example, comparing between Orr and Howe. In today's parity-dominated 30 31 team league, I'd much rather have a player like Howe who maybe didn't dominate to the extent of Orr but was consistently elite for almost 20 years, as that would give me the best chance to make the playoffs as frequently as possible. Almost every team that makes the playoffs in this era has a realistic chance to win the Cup so long as they get the right bounces and get hot at the right time. I saw first-hand this fact when Washington won the Cup with one of their weakest rosters of the Ovechkin era; sure, there were strong defensive adjustments made to their system by Reirden that hadn't been there in previous years, but their best players also got hot at the right time and they got bounces that hadn't happened before. From a GM's perspective, I feel like having one of the best rosters in the league gives me less of an advantage over the field now than it has at any time in the league's history. Just get into the playoffs as often as possible, and see what happens. The Ted Leonsis strategy.

Contrast this with the O6 era, where there was less parity and the gap between the best team and an average team was greater As a GM, I'd rather have Orr than Howe in this scenario. I'd rather take a player who was head-and-shoulders above everybody else for a span of 6 or 7 years. In a playoff series, an average team doesn't stand a chance against a Canadiens team lead by Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, Plante, Geoffrion, Moore... not like they do in today's NHL against a team of Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang... I'd need to maximize my chances by taking the best player, regardless of how long they were good for.

So if I'm a GM in the O6 era, I'll take Orr. If I'm a GM in 2018, I'll take Howe... who's to say the pendulum won't swing back in 30 years and Orr would be the preferable choice again? This line of thinking doesn't work very well unless you look at it while accepting that these lists are fluid and subject to change over time due to differing perspectives and newly-discovered information, rather than trying to build a list with the intention of having it stand the test of time. Should that be the correct perspective? If it is, I may swap Orr and Howe from my original list...

otoh, today when you can only hold onto a player for so long before he hits the open market, i’d want it all (orr) and i’d want it now.

who knows where millennial howe will be playing as he’s contending for the hart/ross in year 8, 12, 15?

 

[MXD]

pretty sure panther did semi-recently this in a woo gretzky/boo orr thread.

Not exactly what I had in mind for this exercise, but that'll do. I'll dig for it when I'm not working or otherwise having a social life.

 

[ImporterExporter]

How many players all time can say they had a 7 year stretch where they owned every inch of the ice at even strength, on the power play and kill?

Defense and preventing goals is still so sadly underrated among historians IMHO.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Someone can argue that he was or wasn't a top-5 player that season, they just can't confidently use Hart voting as a part of their argument.

 

[The Macho King]

How many players all time can say they had a 7 year stretch where they owned every inch of the ice at even strength, on the power play and kill?

Defense and preventing goals is still so sadly underrated among historians IMHO.

So on that point -

Orr's peak. Six seasons or seven? I argue six. Maybe this is a result of additional expansion, but the jump from '69 to '70 in offensive production is just too big to ignore. I'll add the previous two seasons to his "prime" (eight-season prime, six-season peak), but I do think there is a separation.

It's a quibble and doesn't affect his placement in my mind, but just thought I would make the point.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

NHL does have the data. RS

1933-34 Score first /win 0.800

NHL.com - Stats

2017-18 Score first /win 0.804

NHL.com - Stats

This is a good start, but requires deeper examination. The stats presented in your post are the league leader, not the overall average. But since we are talking individual players, looking at individual team breakdowns is indeed useful.

A quick look at Gretzky's salad days in Edmonton (1981-82 through 1988) show that an average team was winning at about a .650 clip when they scored first. The Oilers were #1 over this time span at .777, and also the best at overcoming a 1-0 deficit, at .477.

I'll use 1954-55 through 1961 for Beliveau. It is instantly apparent that scoring first was more vital in this particular sample of seasons. Even Leaf and Bruins teams with losing records over this span played .700 hockey when scoring first. The usually lousy Hawks and Rangers are both over .600. Montreal led the way at .801. They were also by far the most likely team to overcome a 1-0 deficit, posting .449.

Failure of the Beliveau Canadiens to score first resulted in a .352 redection in winning%. Gretzky's Oilers saw a .300 reduction.

A head-to-head comparison of 1st goal totals for individual players needs to take into account things like what percentage of the team's goals a player scored, as well as defensive strength and goaltending. Somebody who is a lone wolf offensive driver on a defensively sound team is going to have greater opportunity to score first than his opposite number on a deep offensive team that suffers from bad goaltending. As far as a Gretzky/Beliveau comparison, these differences may wash. Both played on deep teams with numerous offensive threats, and both were backed by HOF goaltenders. Beliveau's Habs were better defensively, which is an advantage, but it's an advantage that Beliveau himself contributed to. But there are going to be examples where a significant mental adjustment needs to be made.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

My mind is bending a bit on this as well. I’m closer to putting Howe first than I’ve ever been.

My question is, I feel like I think of the O6 as one big block that had equiptable competition levels throughout (at whatever point we view the war recovery to be finished). This seems reductive though. Should I be viewing the environment of the 60s as more competitive than the 50s? Are there certain seasons of the O6 with penalty crackdowns influencing the scoring race? Etc

I absolutely think you should be viewing the environment of the '60s as more competitive than the '50s, particularly the early '50s.

Let's talk a bit about Gordie Howe's quality of competition, because I'm not quite convinced that he had the toughest situation of the Big Four during his peak. I'd even go so far as to say the opposite, that if you care about stats relative to the rest of the league Gordie Howe was probably in the best position of any of the Big Four to put up impressive numbers at his peak. That's because the timing of his birth in 1928 was particularly good, coming at end of a weak cohort of scoring talent, and because he was on a dominant team during a down period for the rest of the league.

There are all kinds of problems with HHOF selections, so take that as a caveat, but this is just a quick and dirty illustration of how the 1920s was a very weak decade for elite forward talent:

There are 19 forwards born between 1908 and 1918 in the HHOF
There are 9 forwards born between 1919 and 1929 in the HHOF
There are 16 forwards born between 1930 and 1940 in the HHOF

Of those nine, four were born between 1919 and 1921. That gives the following selections from the rest of the decade:

1922: None
1923: Harry Watson
1924: None
1925: Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy
1926: Bert Olmstead
1927: None
1928: Gordie Howe
1929: None

Those guys were Howe's prime age competition during his peak. There were a few hanging around in their thirties still from the previous generation (Maurice Richard and Max Bentley, most notably), but not too many. Then from 1930-32, six Hall of Famers were born (Armstrong, Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore, Delvecchio, Bathgate), which makes up the core group of forwards that would compete against Howe in the scoring charts in the latter part of the decade.

Another typical measure of a generation's dominance is their longevity. You can see the "missing generation" of elite forwards from the 1920s if you look at the number of top-10 scorers who were age 30 or older by season:

30+ year olds in the Top 10 in Points (using Hockey-Reference's Age Definition):
1947: 5
1948: 5
1949: 4
1950: 3
1951: 3
1952: 3
1953: 1
1954: 2
1955: 2
1956: 1
1957: 2
1958: 0
1959: 2
1960: 2
1961: 3
1962: 1
1963: 4
1964: 5
1965: 4
1966: 4
1967: 6

From 1953 to 1962, there were just 16 top-10 scoring seasons by 30 year olds, nine of which were either Richard or Howe, reflecting the transition period between two stronger generations.

I don't think defencemen in the early '50s were necessarily weak, but the goalies and forwards certainly were relative to earlier and later periods. If you look at 1947-48, for example, just 5 years before Howe's peak year, the starting goalies included Brimsek, Rayner, Broda and Durnan. On the list of PPG leaders were Lach, O'Connor, prime age Rocket, Apps, D. Bentley, Conacher, Poile, M. Bentley, Stewart, Lindsay, Laprade, Schmidt, Kennedy, Blake, Abel, a very young Howe, Watson, Dumart, etc.

By 1953 the four star goalies had all retired or been replaced, leading to a weaker crop of Sawchuk, Henry, Lumley, Rollins, McNeil and a rookie Gump Worsley. In the previous list of stars, O'Connor, Apps, Doug Bentley, Conacher, Poile and Blake had retired, and Stewart, Laprade, Abel, Watson and Dumart had aged and were shadows of their former selves.

That leaves 27-year old Ted Lindsay (71 points in 70 GP), who played on Howe's wing, 31-year old Maurice Richard (61 points in 70 GP), 35-year old Elmer Lach (41 points in 53 GP), 27-year old Ted Kennedy (37 points in 43 GP), 34-year old Milt Schmidt (34 points in 68 GP), and 32-year old Max Bentley (23 points in 36 GP). There wasn't much competition from anybody else born in the 1920s, with the next highest scorers from that decade being Wally Hergesheimer and Paul Ronty. The 1930s babies were starting to filter in (e.g. Delvecchio, Geoffrion, Beliveau and his 3 GP), but were not yet ready to challenge for the top spots.

Gordie Howe played on a line with possibly the second-best forward in the league, and he played on the same team as the best goalie and the best offensive defenceman. There were 5 Red Wings in the top 8 in league scoring. Detroit was +89 in goal differential, the next best in the league was +7. Gretzky and Orr definitely padded their stats against weak teams, but everybody in the league got to play those weak teams. Not everybody got to play with Lindsay and Kelly and avoid facing Sawchuk. In short, Gordie Howe could not have possibly timed his peak season better to maximize his score in all the stats that compare a player's performance to his peers.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Rocket Richard, who famously never won an Art Ross Trophy in his career, would have probably won 2 Art Rosses from 1951-54 if Gordie Howe didn't exist (and could very possibly have made it 3 in 1952 as well in a Howe-free world if Richard didn't get injured).

If you look at even strength scoring only, it's interesting that Howe's dominance is very short-lived. He was basically up in the stratosphere for three seasons, 1951-1953. But those were the only three seasons that were above the baseline 1987-2001 Mario Lemieux level (at least on a per-game basis). I was surprised at how small the gap was between Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull in seasons 4-10, for example, using my era adjustments (again even-strength only), and I have Howe's fourth best ES season in the same range as Jagr's fourth best ES season. Obviously Howe still has a ton of great seasons and he was a great power play scorer, and all that has to factor in, but it does make you wonder how much of the 1951-54 numbers were because of Howe peaking and how much was potentially related to other factors.

I'm looking at offensive numbers here, not measures of two-way play. I definitely assume that Howe had very good goals for/against ratios at his best. Still, I think there is a tendency to overrate his offensive peak a bit ( I mean here, obviously, not on the main boards), which is why I think Orr and Gretzky are clear of the rest of the pack and why I also think there might be a possible case for Mario Lemieux at #3 if you are a peak guy. And as an aside, I also think quality of competition is an important factor in debating Richard, Beliveau and Hull, and it probably doesn't really work in favour of the Rocket.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Orr is the only peak that can compete with Gretzky (and I think he has an argument that his peak is better... in fact it's one that I'm coming around to more and more).

For the purposes of any player evaluation, peak is the most important (but not sole) criteria to me. Peak years are the years where that player had *the most* impact. So - and this is for me - peak years need to be both transcendent to be in this group, and sustained (one-two year peaks aren't going to cut it here). Orr had a six year peak that I think can reasonably be said to surpass Gretzky's 8 year peak.

(as an aside - I should note simply counting how many years one player outperformed the other is a dubious endeavor not worth much to me. It lacks all context)

Wow. Get out of my head and stop stealing my thoughts!

The peak is what we remember...it's what creates stars and legends... it's what gets focused on when you read a player bio. A peak is defining.

 

[bobholly39]

Wayne Gretzky +520, Bobby Orr +582 RS

Playoffs Gretzky +66, Orr +60.

Looking past the fact that the +/- is a terribly useful stat (hoping the sarcasm if obvious enough) - you have to also add-on power play points +/- to determine true results, as per your logic. Since a goal on the power play is just as effective to the outcome of a game.

now using only power points (not +/- as on-ice presence during a power play goals - which i think should be attainable but takes more work/research) - you have to add:

890 power play points to Gretzky
324 for Orr

Net result:

Gretzky + 1410
Orr +906

 

[blogofmike]

Can we just use Hart shares? Winning 5% of the max possible vote equals 0.05 points.

 

[The Macho King]

Wow. Get out of my head and stop stealing my thoughts!

The peak is what we remember...it's what creates stars and legends... it's what gets focused on when you read a player bio. A peak is defining.

TBF I personally still have Gretzky's peak over Orr's, but you can't pretend he doesn't have a good argument. And note - I don't entirely discount the rest of their careers. But yeah - peak is my most important criteria.

The sad thing is... I probably should have organized and coalesced these thoughts earlier instead of working them through now. Oh well.

 

[The Macho King]

Can we just use Hart shares? Winning 5% of the max possible vote equals 0.05 points.

No because Hart voting sucks.

 

[blogofmike]

No because Hart voting sucks.

Haha, nevertheless, a 1% share that is also a 6th place finish sounds great as a finish, while as a share, you can see it as a throwaway vote.

 

[The Macho King]

Haha, nevertheless, a 1% share that is also a 6th place finish sounds great as a finish, while as a share, you can see it as a throwaway vote.

Oh I see what you're saying. Yeah I think that's been addressed, and at least so far we're not going too far down the well in trophy-counting. But in later rounds it will probably come up.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I absolutely think you should be viewing the environment of the '60s as more competitive than the '50s, particularly the early '50s.

Let's talk a bit about Gordie Howe's quality of competition, because I'm not quite convinced that he had the toughest situation of the Big Four during his peak. I'd even go so far as to say the opposite, that if you care about stats relative to the rest of the league Gordie Howe was probably in the best position of any of the Big Four to put up impressive numbers at his peak. That's because the timing of his birth in 1928 was particularly good, coming at end of a weak cohort of scoring talent, and because he was on a dominant team during a down period for the rest of the league.

Excellent post but consider the following:

1.) Howe was faced with the greatest range of adjustments of players considered. Schedules, rules, minor / youth coaching, pre / post sponsorship competition.

2.) While Howe had great teammates initially as you listed, he also played on a Red Wing team that was poor in RW depth,giving him extra ice time.

3.) Post 1955,JackAdams slowly eroded his teammate situation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Looking past the fact that the +/- is a terribly useful stat (hoping the sarcasm if obvious enough) - you have to also add-on power play points +/- to determine true results, as per your logic. Since a goal on the power play is just as effective to the outcome of a game.

now using only power points (not +/- as on-ice presence during a power play goals - which i think should be attainable but takes more work/research) - you have to add:

890 power play points to Gretzky
324 for Orr

Net result:

Gretzky + 1410
Orr +906

All achieved with no benefit to Gretzky and the Oilers.

Specifically no in game advantage int erms of driving strategies or building advantages that create dominating seasons.

BTW, you neglected to balance the net against PPGA allowed and related negatives.

 

[blogofmike]

Wayne Gretzky +520, Bobby Orr +582 RS

Playoffs Gretzky +66, Orr +60.

Gretzky got to at least +606, he just continued playing as a high calibre player on poor defensive teams after the Suter hit. Whatever you think of Gretzky after 30, he was far superior to Orr at that age

 

[blogofmike]

All achieved with no benefit to Gretzky and the Oilers.

Specifically no in game advantage int erms of driving strategies or building advantages that create dominating seasons.

BTW, you neglected to balance the net against PPGA allowed and related negatives.

I can't wait for the Habs to come up next round so you can go back to Cup counting as the new defining measure of success

 

[bobholly39]

All achieved with no benefit to Gretzky and the Oilers.

Specifically no in game advantage int erms of driving strategies or building advantages that create dominating seasons.

BTW, you neglected to balance the net against PPGA allowed and related negatives.

I don't understand your first 2 sentences. Can you explain yourself a bit better? How is scoring power play points of no benefit to the Oilers? The strategy is to outscore the opposition to win games - and scoring more goals (even on power play) - helps?

Also - yes i just counted points, not actual on-ice presence during power play goals. This should add numbers to both players - probably more to Gretzky since he has that many more seasons. Power play goals against is likely a very small number and not super relevant - but you can look it up if you want. The point is with the large advantage to Gretzky when adding power plays - if you're trying to use career +/- to paint Orr in a positive light vs Gretzky it doesn't work.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't understand your first 2 sentences. Can you explain yourself a bit better? How is scoring power play points of no benefit to the Oilers? The strategy is to outscore the opposition to win games - and scoring more goals (even on power play) - helps?

Also - yes i just counted points, not actual on-ice presence during power play goals. This should add numbers to both players - probably more to Gretzky since he has that many more seasons. Power play goals against is likely a very small number and not super relevant - but you can look it up if you want. The point is with the large advantage to Gretzky when adding power plays - if you're trying to use career +/- to paint Orr in a positive light vs Gretzky it doesn't work.

Basically the first two sentences refer to over production and over consumption which have no benefit and impede efficiency. Why bother with defence since it is easy to score more and pays more.

Like consumer products, over production by upwards of x% per category carries costs that do not benefit anyone.

 

[Captain Bowie]

This just in: Gretzky scored too much?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

This just in: Gretzky scored too much?

BWAHhahahaha!

Nice use of humor to illustrate- argumentation from a pre-determined position doesn't get much more blatant than that.