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

[Captain Bowie]

Yup you know hockey and rude.

What?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Eye-witness opinions are always welcomed for me.The more the better.

I should clarify...

The observations of one person's eye witness account doesn't do much for me. The observations of a collective of eye-witness accounts? Absolutely.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Inside Quebec,probably Canada and the USA and the hockey world.

The overwhelming majority of people in the US would have no clue as to Maurice Richard was, sadly. Far more would know Lemieux, at least vaguely. I'd guess the splits are pretty even in Canada. Both are iconic, although I agree 100% that Maurice is thought of more fondly inside Quebec at least.

Sadly over time, names die more and more. Just the nature of the beast and time.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The New HOH Top 100 Players drinking game

• Ice cold glass of water on a hot summer's day - someone explains that they've changed their long-held belief, and explains why.
• Hot cup of tea on a cold winter's night - someone shares previously unpublished statistical analysis or a newly uncovered historical account.
• Morning cup of coffee - someone writes a long, thoughtful, factual post - but it doesn't break any new ground or challenge their long-held beliefs.
• Virgin daiquiri - someone posts a snarky two-line response, phrased as a riddle.
• Can of beer - someone debates the minutia of how Hart trophy voting, or how VsX is calculated.
• Half a bottle of red wine - someone argues that you can't compare a forward to a goalie because, they're, like, different positions, man.
• Five shots of whiskey - someone argues that the NHL finally became a "real" or "professional" league, coincidentally just before their favourite player debuted and/or just before their favourite team won a bunch of Stanley Cups.
• A bathtub full of moonshine - someone posts that Sidney Crosby is the greatest player ever, because he'd score 500 points a season in the 1950's.

 

[VanIslander]

I could use a hot cup of tea.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The overwhelming majority of people in the US would have no clue as to Maurice Richard was, sadly. Far more would know Lemieux, at least vaguely. I'd guess the splits are pretty even in Canada. Both are iconic, although I agree 100% that Maurice is thought of more fondly inside Quebec at least.

Sadly over time, names die more and more. Just the nature of the beast and time.

Until incapacitated Maurice Richard was one the top attractions on the USA memorabilia autograph circuit.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The thing is, Orr didn't have the luxury of having the chance to play "post" prime. In large part of no fault of his own. Injuries robbed him and that had to the do with the era, lack of advancements in medicine, repair and recovery aspects especially, not having a lunatic enforcer covering you everywhere you went on the ice, which by today's standards wouldn't work because nobody is doing it.

Orr put up legendary offensive numbers at the time. No other way about it. And even today they are still elite (a notch below Gretzky or Lemieux of course) especially when you factor he was a friggin defensemen!!! And the advanced data we do have today show he was insanely dominant defensively, be it, even strength or special teams. So imagine if Wayne Gretzky had the ability to be a Selke defensive forward while posting near legendary numbers.

Orr is an elite offensive player all time, regardless of position + IMO greatest defensive player of all time, regardless of position.

Gretzky is the GOAT offensive player of all time and somebody who literally coasted when he wasn't in the ozone for big chucks of the games. Blame it on him, the era, i don't care. He was at best a 2 zone player.

Both have legendary numbers
Both have legendary awards and title cabinets
Orr was a far more complete player
I pick Orr

What's interesting is, had Orr hung on longer, he was entering probably a little weaker era...

I might need help from one of the stat guys like HockeyOutsider or whoever might have this kind of thing...but my impression is that post-prime scoring was tougher to come by pre-short-shift era, if I'm wrong, you're gonna wanna ignore this next part...

Orr is a '48 birthday.

Brad Park ('48)
1977 - 0.87 pts/gm (77 GP)
1978 - 0.99 pts/gm (80 GP)
1979 - 0.98 pts/gm (40 GP)
1980 - 0.66 pts/gm (32 GP)
1981 - 0.85 pts/gm (78 GP)
1982 - 0.75 pts/gm (75 GP)
1983 - 0.47 pts/gm (76 GP)
1984 - 0.73 pts/gm (80 GP)
1985 - 0.64 pts/gm (67 GP)

Borje Salming ('51)
1976 - 0.73 p/g
1977 - 1.03
1978 - 0.95
1979 - 0.94
1980 - 0.96
1981 - 0.92
1982 - 0.81
1983 - 0.65
1984 - 0.63

Larry Robinson ('51)
1976 - 0.50 p/g
1977 - 1.1
1978 - 0.81
1979 - 0.91
1980 - 1.04
1981 - 0.77
1982 - 0.83
1983 - 0.89
1984 - 0.58
1985 - 0.62
1986 -1.05

Bill Hajt ('51)
1976 - 0.34 p/g
1977 - 0.33
1978 - 0.29
1979 - 0.28
1980 - 0.21
1981 - 0.31
1982 - 0.17
1983 - 0.21
1984 - 0.34
1985 - 0.32

Fred Barrett ('50)
Spans from 1971 to 1983, his scoring remains consistent post-prime.

I'm not sure if I'm reaching or not, but we see those early one-offs from "meh" players (relative to what we're doing here) in the early 80's...I'm not sure if Orr doesn't break some of his records or get close in his 30's if he could still go...at the very least, you have to assume he eats up Carlyle's garbage Norris...

 

[Canadiens1958]

What?

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151442149/

Yet Kyle McMahon understood the data immediately.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What's interesting is, had Orr hung on longer, he was entering probably a little weaker era...

I might need help from one of the stat guys like HockeyOutsider or whoever might have this kind of thing...but my impression is that post-prime scoring was tougher to come by pre-short-shift era, if I'm wrong, you're gonna wanna ignore this next part...

Orr is a '48 birthday.

Brad Park ('48)
1977 - 0.87 pts/gm (77 GP)
1978 - 0.99 pts/gm (80 GP)
1979 - 0.98 pts/gm (40 GP)
1980 - 0.66 pts/gm (32 GP)
1981 - 0.85 pts/gm (78 GP)
1982 - 0.75 pts/gm (75 GP)
1983 - 0.47 pts/gm (76 GP)
1984 - 0.73 pts/gm (80 GP)
1985 - 0.64 pts/gm (67 GP)

Borje Salming ('51)
1976 - 0.73 p/g
1977 - 1.03
1978 - 0.95
1979 - 0.94
1980 - 0.96
1981 - 0.92
1982 - 0.81
1983 - 0.65
1984 - 0.63

Larry Robinson ('51)
1976 - 0.50 p/g
1977 - 1.1
1978 - 0.81
1979 - 0.91
1980 - 1.04
1981 - 0.77
1982 - 0.83
1983 - 0.89
1984 - 0.58
1985 - 0.62
1986 -1.05

Bill Hajt ('51)
1976 - 0.34 p/g
1977 - 0.33
1978 - 0.29
1979 - 0.28
1980 - 0.21
1981 - 0.31
1982 - 0.17
1983 - 0.21
1984 - 0.34
1985 - 0.32

Fred Barrett ('50)
Spans from 1971 to 1983, his scoring remains consistent post-prime.

I'm not sure if I'm reaching or not, but we see those early one-offs from "meh" players (relative to what we're doing here) in the early 80's...I'm not sure if Orr doesn't break some of his records or get close in his 30's if he could still go...at the very least, you have to assume he eats up Carlyle's garbage Norris...

Defenceman and forwards were impacted differently by the shortshift era.

 

[Captain Bowie]

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151442149/

Yet Kyle McMahon understood the data immediately.

Doesn't mean you didn't misrepresent the data. Why is the league leader important compared to league average when talking about the trend across the league? It's not, it leaves too much grey area for outliers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Little help please?

re: short shift impact positionally, C1958...just a nudge in the right direction is likely all I need...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Little help please?

re: short shift impact positionally, C1958...just a nudge in the right direction is likely all I need...

Gilles Thibaudeau:

Gilles Thibaudeau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

type forwards with short term speed and offensive skills were available from the deep minors and even Junior A.

5th - to 7th defencemen were not as easy to find.

Created an offensive imbalance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doesn't mean you didn't misrepresent the data. Why is the league leader important compared to league average when talking about the trend across the league? It's not, it leaves too much grey area for outliers.

Averaging stats.

Basic to university introductory stats is the first day of class the prof or lecturer raises a trite example along the lines that the average family in a part of town has 2.3 children. Asks for reactions. Students react neutrally or with banal platitudes. Prof or lecturer then asks anyone to define or produce 0.3 of a child. 0.3 of a child does not exist.

A league leader exists/existed for every season. That is why the NHL and others use it.

Yet you falsely accuse posters of misrepresentation. No misrepresentation. Just take the data and use it as you see fit.

Similar to goal, point, assist , PIM leaders. Actual numbers. Not league averages are presented.

 

[VanIslander]

What's interesting is, had Orr hung on longer, he was entering probably a little weaker era...

Weaker era?

In terms of all-time great defensemen (top100 player calibre) got harder not easier after the 1970's.

Bourque, Langway, Coffey, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis,... and Fetisov,... a lot of elite all-time defensemen.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Averaging stats.

Basic to university introductory stats is the first day of class the prof or lecturer raises a trite example along the lines that the average family in a part of town has 2.3 children. Asks for reactions. Students react neutrally or with banal platitudes. Prof or lecturer then asks anyone to define or produce 0.3 of a child. 0.3 of a child does not exist.

A league leader exists/existed for every season. That is why the NHL and others use it.

Yet you falsely accuse posters of misrepresentation. No misrepresentation. Just take the data and use it as you see fit.

Similar to goal, point, assist , PIM leaders. Actual numbers. Not league averages are presented.

Difference between talking about an individual achievement vs. the league trend.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Difference between talking about an individual achievement vs. the league trend.

Which was the nature of the discussion. You just want the last word. Welcome to it.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Which was the nature of the discussion. You just want the last word. Welcome to it.

I swear the more I read your posts, the more confused I get.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Weaker era?

In terms of all-time great defensemen (top100 player calibre) got harder not easier after the 1970's.

Bourque, Langway, Coffey, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis,... and Fetisov,... a lot of elite all-time defensemen.

Weaker league. Doesn't mean great players couldn't have come out of it.

From watching, it seems like the league was great in the mid-late 50's through to 67. There was enough talent early on (say, 1968 to 1972) to sustain the expansion reasonably enough (compared to what it was, a doubling in league size...which is insane)...then as you drift away and the late O6 players/prospects attrition away and more teams continue to get added, the game seems to become weaker all-around...this seems to hit a lull right around Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You (maybe it's all the falsetto stuff), before really starting to move back in the right direction as the decade gets to its waning days...

 

[MXD]

It was bathroom break so I didn't quite take the time to take a deep look at them.

Those numbers seem cherry-picked to favour Gretzky. Whatever seasons The Panther looked at obviously didn't include 1985-86, when Gretzky played in the same division as the 59 point Winnipeg Jets, the 59 point Vancouver Canucks, and the 54 point L.A. Kings.

I think we need to see the complete picture rather than keep playing dueling anecdata, so I looked up how many games prime Gretzky and Orr had against teams that were below .400 and teams that were above .600 each season and overall during their primes (note: these are all the games that were scheduled, I did not remove games missed by either player as I assume they were distributed randomly):

Edmonton Oilers:

1981: 24 games vs. .600+, 16 games vs. <.400
1982: 9 games vs. .600+, 25 games vs. <.400
1983: 18 games vs. .600+, 12 games vs. <.400
1984: 15 games vs. .600+, 17 games vs. <.400
1985: 14 games vs. .600+, 23 games vs. <.400
1986: 6 games vs. .600+, 33 games vs. <.400
1987: 3 games vs. .600+, 0 games vs. <.400
1988: 11 games vs. .600+, 14 games vs. <.400

640 total GP
100 games vs. .600+ (16%)
140 games vs. <.400 (22%)

Boston Bruins:
1968: 10 games vs. .600+, 4 games vs. <.400
1969: 8 games vs. .600+, 18 games vs. <.400
1970: 32 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1971: 18 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1972: 18 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1973: 11 games vs. .600+, 16 games vs. <.400
1974: 21 games vs. .600+, 15 games vs. <.400
1975: 20 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400

618 total GP
138 games vs. .600+ (22%)
149 games vs. <.400 (24%)

I also checked extremely bad teams (winning percentage below .300), there were 6 from 1981-1988 and 6 from 1968-1975.

Not really seeing a lot of evidence to suggest that Orr had significantly easier competition. It is interesting that the schedule strength seemed to be a lot more variable in the 1980s, so I do think some of Gretzky's seasons might be a little stronger or weaker than they seem. It is very possible that the main difference between his numbers in 1982 and 1983 was that Gretzky played against better teams in 1983, and Gretzky's numbers in 1985-86 almost certainly aren't as good as they look relative to other years because he crushed the three terrible teams in his division:

Gretzky, 1985-86:
vs LAK/WPG/VAN: 24 GP, 20 G, 54 A, 74 P, +44
vs Rest of League: 56 GP, 32 G, 109 A, 141 P, +27

I also ran the numbers for both Bobby Orr and Bobby Clarke (if there was any other 1970s star up for voting right now I would have picked them instead, but I needed some point of comparison) to see if Orr had unusual splits against the Original Six teams compared to everyone else.

Orr, 1968-1975:
vs O6: 236 GP, 87 G, 213 A, 299 Pts, +163
vs Rest: 324 GP, 159 G, 370 A, 530 Pts, +423

Clarke, 1972-1978:
vs O6: 196 GP, 63 G, 144 A, 207 Pts, +63
vs Rest: 344 GP, 149 G, 330 A, 479 Pts, +277

Orr's PPG is 29% higher against the rest of the league, Clarke's PPG is 32% higher against the rest of the league. Not much of a difference.

Orr's plus/minus per game played is 2.2 times as good as Clarke's against the Original Six, and 1.6 times as good as Clarke's against everyone else, so it is at least possible that the Bruins were better at beating the bad teams by a lot of goals, helping that goals for/against ratio a bit even though Orr wasn't necessarily padding his individual stats (*Edit - my mistake, had that backwards, those numbers actually make Orr look better because he dominated the better teams by more than Clarke did). Ideally I'd like to see a few more points of comparison, as well as to see how Gretzky did against his weaker opponents through his entire prime, but I think I've run enough numbers for today.

 

[VanIslander]

Well, the 1970's and 1980's NHL is made particularly weaker for us in this HOH project.

In considering who were the greatest players of all time, we look at how players fared against the best players of their own era.

The Soviets proved time and again and again that their best players were competitive against the NHL's best.

 

[seventieslord]

Is this sarcasm or stating of fact?

What does this have to do with ...

Are you able to state an opinion/argument in full - assuming you have one - on the topic?

What's this supposed to mean? And how is it relevant in what context?

Irrelevant.

????

That's a terrible misunderstanding of the data you posted.

I don't understand your first 2 sentences. Can you explain yourself a bit better?

...
First : What?

What?

Little help please?

I swear the more I read your posts, the more confused I get.

I just caught up on about 20 hours of posts from this thread. This was a major recurring theme.

 

[seventieslord]

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 is exactly where I started and where I will probably finish. I like seeing posts that challenge Gretzky, whether they are in favour of Orr or Howe, but ultimately I'll likely have Gretz #1. The reason is he has a lot of good/great seasons beyond his best 8. Orr is the best per-game player of all-time, but Gretzky's longevity can outweigh that. I don't understand how one can say that, and then also say that Howe's longevity doesn't outweigh it.

If you value peak that much, fine, put Orr ahead of them. But if you value longevity, he should be behind both. Not just one.

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?

I don't think we necessarily disagree here, I think we're just both trying to say statistical significance is important. Am I right?

Agreed. Yet Hart trophy voting seems to have a long history of awarding the sizzle more than the steak (Shore, Morenz).

They had both sizzle and steak.

All I can tell you is I saw them both play, as rookies and later (actually saw one of Orr's last Bruins games playing with Brad Park). Orr was the most dominant player I ever saw live. On TV, with replays available, even more so. That's all I've got. The numbers for Orr seem to indicate his dominance also. Gretzky offensive numbers are truly staggering. But when you can lead the league in scoring with 130 points and still put up a -25 (worst on his team), it really makes you wonder. I don't think a crippled Bobby Orr could ever be the worst +/- on his team.

While I 100% agree with your assessment of Gretzky's 1993-94 season, it was probably his 15th best season.

Is anybody willing to make an argument (even as devil's advocate) that would displace one of the usual suspects from the top four spots?

I could probably try with Harvey and/or Beliveau.

Like I've said in the past, I'm much more open to putting one of those guys over Lemieux, than I am to putting Lemieux over someone in the big 4. Just too many flaws, comparitively speaking.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well, the 1970's and 1980's NHL is made particularly weaker for us in this HOH project.

In considering who were the greatest players of all time, we look at how players fared against the best players of their own era.

The Soviets proved time and again and again that their best players were competitive against the NHL's best.

Late seventies until the 1987 CanadaCup.

 

[ted2019]

Orr never played with Rick Middleton.

You are correct, my mistake.

 

[Canadiens1958]

This is exactly where I started and where I will probably finish. I like seeing posts that challenge Gretzky, whether they are in favour of Orr or Howe, but ultimately I'll likely have Gretz #1. The reason is he has a lot of good/great seasons beyond his best 8. Orr is the best per-game player of all-time, but Gretzky's longevity can outweigh that. I don't understand how one can say that, and then also say that Howe's longevity doesn't outweigh it.

If you value peak that much, fine, put Orr ahead of them. But if you value longevity, he should be behind both. Not just one.



I don't think we necessarily disagree here, I think we're just both trying to say statistical significance is important. Am I right?



They had both sizzle and steak.



While I 100% agree with your assessment of Gretzky's 1993-94 season, it was probably his 15th best season.



I could probably try with Harvey and/or Beliveau.

Like I've said in the past, I'm much more open to putting one of those guys over Lemieux, than I am to putting Lemieux over someone in the big 4. Just too many flaws, comparitively speaking.

Agree. Although Beliveau vs Gretzky is a solid argument. When post dynasty play is considered.

Harvey is interesting but an Orr, Howe, x, Harvey string requires a major shiftin theperceptions of defensive and 200 foot hockey.