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

[MXD]

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.

...
First : What?
Second : Does it work the same with goalies... like... if they stop too much pucks, it doesn't benefit anyone?
Third : If it was so easy to score, then I'm pretty sure Georges Laraque, Tie Domi and Brian McGrattan would've earned their living by scoring goals instead of by punching faces (and being punched in the process), and I'm not even talking about the bad face-punchers here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

This just in: Gretzky scored too much?

No just did not manage the scoring with defensive play.

Oilers Gretzky home and away performance is slightly palatable:

NHL.com - Stats

Post Oiler Gretzky the away numbers are bad, road -79:

NHL.com - Stats

No such phenomena as a home and away back, so do not blame Suter.

 

[BM67]

So?

You have shown that Gretzky did not convert as often as Beliveau given more opportunities against weaker opponents.

Gretzky has more than twice as many assists as goals, therefore he is twice as likely to have assisted on the first goal of a game as he was to score it. As you say, there is only one chance to score the first goal of a game, if you assist on it, then the chance to score on it is gone.

What gives your team a better chance to win a multi-goal game or a 1st goal? Gretzky had 21 multi-goal games in 1981-82 alone.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Of course we have to use all information to help build our cases, but IMO the "peak" is number one if we're building a hierarchy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

...
First : What?
Second : Does it work the same with goalies... like... if they stop too much pucks, it doesn't benefit anyone?
Third : If it was so easy to score, then I'm pretty sure Georges Laraque, Tie Domi and Brian McGrattan would've earned their living by scoring goals instead of by punching faces (and being punched in the process)

Goalies it is the opposite. Gerry Cheevers understood perfectly. In a blowout, either way it did not matter how many goals he gave up. Being healthy for the next game matters.

Your punching theory, based on......

 

[BenchBrawl]

Not sure why h-r took out the "SC" column in the playoff tables, it was visually handy.

 

[MXD]

Goalies it is the opposite. Gerry Cheevers understood perfectly. In a blowout, either way it did not matter how many goals he gave up. Being healthy for the next game matters.

Your punching theory, based on......

Yeah, you're raising Gerry Cheevers to describe excellence at goaltending position. Perfectly aligns with what what you came with so far.

 

[MXD]

... So Cheevers, or whichever goaltender actually, it doesn't matter, receives 35 shots. Makes only 32 saves, so as to not injure himself. He could've made 33, but stopped at 32.

So if his team receives 45 shots instead, Cheevers is faced with two choices :
- Only stop at 32 saves, with the outcome being a ridiculous blow-out, probably being pulled after giving 5 goals on 5 straight shots and not even trying.
- Do his best and probably end up saving 41, and, in all likelihood, keeping his team his team in the game, especially in the case of the early-70ies Bruins, who certainly did score quite a lot.

... And if he chooses the second option, well, he stops too much pucks, at which point he isn't efficient anymore, runs the risk of an injury. So he allows, like, 10 more goals, so as to possibly avoid an injury which would see a replacement (... who is, in theory, worse than Cheevers, but nowhere near 10-goals-a-game-worse-than-Cheevers) take his place instead.

 

[blogofmike]

No just did not manage the scoring with defensive play.

Oilers Gretzky home and away performance is slightly palatable:

NHL.com - Stats

Post Oiler Gretzky the away numbers are bad, road -79:

NHL.com - Stats

No such phenomena as a home and away back, so do not blame Suter.

-80 of that road -79 comes post-Suter...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gretzky has more than twice as many assists as goals, therefore he is twice as likely to have assisted on the first goal of a game as he was to score it. As you say, there is only one chance to score the first goal of a game, if you assist on it, then the chance to score on it is gone.

What gives your team a better chance to win a multi-goal game or a 1st goal? Gretzky had 21 multi-goal games in 1981-82 alone.

Conflict between abstract and fact with your bolded on multiple levels levels.

Canadiens scored more first goals than the Oilers in fewer RS games.

Gretzky(13) and Kurri(11) combined scored first goals at a slower rate than Beliveau and Geoffrion in the playoffs. 24 in 117 common games vs 17 in 75.

The Gretzky(13) : Kurri(11) ratio does not reflect there career ratios RS.

Next best Oilers are the Anderson and Messier combo playoffs (total 17),
RS total 74 versus Gretzky(46) and Kurri(34) for 80. These are easily beaten by Beliveau(47) + Geoffrion(45) yet Geoffrion missed 122 RS games in the span.

PP overlap(24.4%) would not generate the required volume of assists for Gretzky especially with Geoffrion's RS replacement thrown in and Beliveau' PP assists to two time scoring champ Moore and Maurice Richard.

 

[Canadiens1958]

... So Cheevers, or whichever goaltender actually, it doesn't matter, receives 35 shots. Makes only 32 saves, so as to not injure himself. He could've made 33, but stopped at 32.

So if his team receives 45 shots instead, Cheevers is faced with two choices :
- Only stop at 32 saves, with the outcome being a ridiculous blow-out, probably being pulled after giving 5 goals on 5 straight shots and not even trying.
- Do his best and probably end up saving 41, and, in all likelihood, keeping his team his team in the game, especially in the case of the early-70ies Bruins, who certainly did score quite a lot.

... And if he chooses the second option, well, he stops too much pucks, at which point he isn't efficient anymore, runs the risk of an injury. So he allows, like, 10 more goals, so as to possibly avoid an injury which would see a replacement (... who is, in theory, worse than Cheevers, but nowhere near 10-goals-a-game-worse-than-Cheevers) take his place instead.

Cheever's record does not support your account.

 

[Sturminator]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

 

[MXD]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

See... I'm one STEP away from that, and Howe vs. Orr might just be the most interesting issue in the whole project. Mostly due to era concerns.

 

[Sentinel]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

That's the way I have them.

Except peak Gretzky was better than peak Orr.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

I'm closing in on that as well. 70s little write up about Howe is making me reconsider the order of Howe and Orr

 

[MXD]

It may also have to do with quality of competition.

Orr's numbers were boosted by playing for a powerhouse team against expansion team opponents. +50 against E6 teams in 1970. +4 against the O6. Going +20 against the Washington Capitals in 1975.

Much of Orr's plus-minus advantage over his teammates stems from the Bruins being able to bully sub-par competition when he was on the ice. He was particularly good against the dregs of the 1970s, like the Seals and Caps.

By Gretzky's day, the competition was better. There were a few Mickey Mouse teams here and there, but they didn't make up half of Edmonton's schedule.

This is the thread I refer to (above): I compared Orr's scoring from 1969-1971 to Gretzky's from 1982-1984:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...ats-vs-good-bad-teams.2168117/#post-126136779

As there didn't seem a great deal of interest in it, I didn't take it any further.

Dropping these here for now. My thanks to @blogofmike and @The Panther

 

[ResilientBeast]

Dropping these here for now. My thanks to @blogofmike and @The Panther

Wow that is an interesting thread from @The Panther

 

[BenchBrawl]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

This makes me want to put Gordie at #1.

For all his gazillion points, there's still the cold fact that Gretzky completely avoided (and lacked) one of the major aspect of the sport in his game.It might not have slowed down his efficiency, but there's a certain higher respect when looking at Howe's game because of this (but no disrespect to Wayne neither).Is this sort of respect relevent in ranking players? I don't know, but it might break a tie.

There's also the transferability of one's style and set of skills from one era to the next.You know Gordie would have been allright in all eras.Could Gretzky thrive as much in a more punishing environment? Probably he would still burn the league, but maybe he'd be forced to play more defense and be a little tougher.

I guess what I'm aiming at is that Howe was more autonomous than Gretzky.Wayne needs protection to some extent.Howe needs no one.If the careers are close, I'm tempted to vote for the more autonomous player.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Then I’m not sure that reporting an altered quantity-based ranked order junk stat for trophy voting is a great idea when the change in ballot results in breakdowns of 100%-60%-20% share distribution (an allocation of 180% of the maximum) and 100%-70%-50%-30%-10% share distribution (an allocation of 260% of the maximum).

The former demands a player to pull a minimum of 1/4th of the available 3rd-place ballots while the latter asks for just 1/10th of the available 3rd-place votes (or even less than that because of the extra data pulled from 4th and 5th place designations) to attain the same binary +1 qualifier for the chart.

Applying prerequisites that remove actual placement takes a junk stat that is already volatile and way too dependent on external factors (like the expansion of the quantity of #1 roles on teams that coincides with the expansion of the number of cities for which a player may find himself to be “most valuable”) and adds an extra variable so that rather than each year at least contributing equal representation based on (again) actual placement, we’re saying sometimes 2 players, sometimes 12 players, just so long as we don’t include 10th place William Karlsson and his weird random 1st place vote and equate it with Wayne Gretzky when no one was going to do that anyway.

There’s value to be gained from closer examination of the voting results (like looking to see if someone took a majority or just a plurality in victory) but the construction of a chart that gives a greater amount of participation ribbons when the top candidates in a given year don’t have exceptional seasons and therefore take smaller portions of a pie which can also sometimes be 144% bigger when baked after 1996-97 and therefore contain more slices is not it.

I mean... we all know where Hockey-Reference is, so do we even need to post junk stats of trophy voting at this point anyway, especially when they’ve been tweaked in a way where upon the first look at the new formula, we can’t even reliably compare a player to himself? Beyond the fatal flaw of not accounting for the substantial effects of ballot expansion on voting shares, like, at what point would we look at a chart that adds 1996-97 Patrick Roy and removes 1989-90 Patrick Roy and think that we’ve improved it?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

So was I.

Although Gretzky was -53 after 30, Orr was even.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's the way I have them.

Except peak Gretzky was better than peak Orr.

No, it was not.

How's that for a complete argument.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes two different models, clearly. And it's fine to use your own model/paradigm if you prefer - but what i'm saying is it can't be limited to how "good" the player was - rather, how often a player was that good counts too. It's easier to showcase this with the way i broke it down, with peak/prime/playoffs etc. Where even if you think Orr was slightly "better" - Gretzky did it more often and at some point that seems should be enough to overtake Orr in the ranking.

If you want to argue that Orr being slightly (or more?) better than Gretzky is enough to trump how much more often Gretzky did it - please do so. But you yourself said you find the difference between the 2 in peak to be quite small, so i dont see how it would be enough to overcome the rest from Gretzky.

Also - in terms of valuing how much "peak" is worth vs prime, career, playoffs...to each his own. It looks like a very big component for Orr in particular as it's 80% of his career his peak. For most players peak is maybe 2-3 seasons in a 20 year career, so it depends. Obviously the longer your peak the better that is, as length of peak is important too. In that metric - Howe falls quite clearly behind the other 3 here.

But judging a player solely on his peak (or almost) seems dishonest to me as often it's only up to 20% of a player's total career. you have to look at the whole picture.

But we are talking about Orr. His peak is not 20% of his career, its 80%.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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

We can, but it still has its flaws. The two biggest are:

1. Similar to the discussion QPQ and I have been having - in a year where one or two players dominate, there are very few votes left for anyone else. Not to keep bringing up 1989, but Patrick Roy's 4th place finish only gets him 0.01 Hart shares (less than Braden Holtby or Auston Matthews earned last year).

2. For whatever reasons, the voting results were less consistent the farther back you though (that is, there seems to be more of a "bandwagon" effect in recent decades, with most voters picking the same top few candidates on most ballots). My guess is this is because writer were able to watch more games back in the Original Six era and earlier (as there were fewer games in total), so they were more confident in their own opinions. Now I think the votes are highly influenced by stats and media narratives.

I can present that data if there's a demand, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Sorry I failed to live up to your expectations.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

But we are talking about Orr. His peak is not 20% of his career, its 80%.

And what after?
Gretzky 81-91
Lemieux 88-96

Can both easily go head to head with Orr’s peak. But after that age 30 both particularly Lemieux were still elite hockey players