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

[Michael Farkas]

I don't want to be the one that comes to Lemieux's aid, but I intend to keep him in the top-4...even if it's only 4 (which I support)...let's not go out of our way here...

Can we just talk about the quality of these teams here...Orr played with Espo and had a very, loose offensive-minded system...but he had guys to work with, one of them broke the scoring record about 100 times...HOFer Johnny Bucyk...Ken Hodge...and a consistent, if unspectacular (to be fair) group of strong glue-men that were reliable year to year...not an all-star team, but he had free reign, he had a historically amazing weapon, a historically strong wing-man and competent men that would work hard to get the puck to the guy with the most talent on the ice. I think that's fair.

Howe, I mean, he had played for a wagon early...Production Line, all that noise...he had coaching, he was backed by goaltending...he wasn't alone out there...

Gretzky, I mean, that goes without saying, those Edmonton teams were a sick joke...

Lemieux...comes into the league with Bob Berry as a coach, a guy who won one playoff series in his 11 year coaching career and it's because CuJo gave up 6 goals in an entire series or whatever, just went ham...the Kings won their first playoff series in six years immediately after he leaves. He joins the Habs early in the 80's, gets canned and two years later the Habs win the Cup with Lemaire. Can't make the playoffs with an expansion-esque Pens team, but two years after he leaves they make the playoffs and win a round.

Lemieux walks into the league, gets Warren Young (out of the league in two years), Doug Shedden (out of the league in two years), Mike Bullard (productive, one-dimensional player, bounces around and is basically done after 1990)...then his d-men are Moe Mantha (relevant offensive d-man from '84 to '88 and then just fades away, gone by 1991), rookie Doug Bodger (who does have a long, successful career) and Randy Hillier (out of the league by 1990)...it's same basic group until 1987.

Those forwards are mostly discarded...reasonable players are inserted Dan Quinn, Randy Cunneyworth and Craig Simpson is drafted highly. Nothing amazing, but these are fine NHL players at least. Bodger and Mantha still man the back line...

1988, same group...subtract Simpson, add Paul Coffey...Pierre Creamer takes over as coach...it's only season in the NHL.

1989. Rob Brown quadruple-A's himself into a spot with Mario gets a billion points and then washes out of the league for like a decade...the team begins to get some depth below their first line for the first time in the Lemieux era. Cullen, Errey, young Kevin Stevens begin to emerge as contributors...Zalapski and Jim Johnson on defense. Barrasso acquired for Bodger. Gene Ubriaco coaches his only full season in the NHL this year.

Those are his first five years in the league. Where you have to check if the leading scorers on the team are even in the league still in three to five years and the coaches are inexperienced at best...

[Good things that we all know about happen from 1990 to 1997, when he quits because it sucks]

Last five years...

2001 - Carry over from the top-heavy Penguins of the late 90's...fun run, I remember it well. Smash Washington, end Hasek's career in Buffalo...fun, fun...good team, good coach...I'm just being consistent with the five year sandwich...this is a point against me here...

2002 - Exit Jagr. Lemieux only plays 24 games anyhow...still some hold overs from the top-heavy years live-on...Kovalev, Lang, Morozov, Hrdina - not in Jagr's hip pocket still produces this season, Steph Richer is kicking around...the defense is Rozsival and Kasparaitis and little else...and that's little to begin with...Hedberg provided quality goaltending...Hlinka gets canned before the anthem is over and FOM (Friend of Mario) Rick Kehoe takes over his first (and second to last!) season coaching in the NHL...he wins 55 of 160.

2003: Tear down time...Kovalev departs, Hrdina departs, Lang departs, Morozov breaks himself...Jagr/Lang/Kovalev/Hrdina are replaced with...Nieminen, Kraft, Surovy, Fata and Robitaille...Randy Robitaille...Kehoe canned.

2004: Enter FOM Eddie Olczyk...no longer getting liquored up with Mike Lange in the broadcast booth, his inability to diagram even simple concepts (as we all should know by now) on regional television and his constant use of "stick on stick, stick on puck...for all you young hockey players out there" is now being used for all "you young hockey players...in the NHL"...waiver acquisition d-man Dick Tarnstrom leads the team in scoring, as Lemieux only plays 10 games...it's Generation X...of all the players that finished the team on the roster, I believe only 3 or 4 are even still in the NHL by 2007 (from memory, it's Malone, Orpik, **** maybe it's two...Scuderi and Fleury are on the team, but they aren't regulars)...the first overall pick goalie Fleury isn't afforded a full-time goalie coach, because why would a teenage goaltender playing for an expansion team need one of those...also, in January and February, the players were paid in Pop Tarts...

2006: Having spoken to a couple people around the team, practices are a complete gong show and the team had no system...Olczyk is banished back up to the broadcasting booth...a real coach in Michel Therrien enters...and they bring in some old help and a young superstar...enter: Crosby, Gonchar, Recchi, LeClair, Palffy (who quits immediately after Darcy Hordichuk dummied him), etc. the team is still drek, but it means well and there's hope...

My sense is, is that guys like Gretzky, Orr, Howe...extending to Beliveau, Harvey, somehow Richard is in this group, etc. weren't playing any noteworthy chunks of their careers with coaches who, for instance, can't identify what a 1-3-1 forecheck is and what each player's role is in that (Olczyk) or players who were not good enough for the league when asked to play on the second-to-worst team in the league as opposed to the worst...maybe I'm wrong and I'm not saying Lemieux didn't have free reign, he largely did, I'm not saying he didn't have an absolute squad at times (Jagr, Stevens, Francis, Coffey, etc.) he did...but he effectively played on two expansion teams for multiple years...and when he didn't (this is with 1988, 1989, 2001 removed) he scored 2.07 points per game, was a plus-107 in 377 games and worked everyone...

Not asking for #1...not even asking for a medal here...but before we start a #66 for #6 campaign, let's not lose sight of the fact that he was rubbing two sticks together and y'all were using a blow torch...

 

[blogofmike]

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.

Good post.

By the end of Orr's career, the Sabres and Kings were good, and he was even a minus player against them, while the Wings were awful and Orr posted a solid + against them, but that won't show up here:

68-75 Team	GP	Orr +/-	PM/G	Bruins +/-	Off +/-	Gap/GP
Atlanta	14	10	0.714	15	5	0.357
Buffalo	29	28	0.966	22	-6	1.172
California	40	79	1.975	98	19	1.500
Chicago	42	19	0.452	37	18	0.024
Detroit	49	51	1.041	69	18	0.673
Kansas City	4	5	1.250	8	3	0.500
Los Angeles	38	49	1.289	58	9	1.053
Minnesota	41	53	1.293	74	21	0.780
Montreal	49	14	0.286	7	-7	0.429
NY Islanders	13	18	1.385	24	6	0.923
NY Rangers	49	50	1.020	46	-4	1.102
Philadelphia	39	37	0.949	48	11	0.667
Pittsburgh	39	33	0.846	43	10	0.59
St Louis	36	37	1.028	47	10	0.750
Toronto	48	30	0.625	27	-3	0.688
Vancouver	25	30	1.200	55	25	0.200
Washington	5	20	4.000	31	11	1.800

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So for the ratio crowd, A) the gap column is for you. It's how much space Orr put between his on/off numbers per game. And it looks like it was really high against a few choice expansion opponents.

And B) how much credit are you giving Orr for his plus/minus? With Gretzky his impact was clear because even with Carson (a Top 10 ES scorer in LA and Edmonton) going the other way, when Gretzky left Edmonton they stopped being a dominant ESGF team, and the Kings had a 3-year run as the #1 ESGF team magically ending after the Suter hit (and the end of the 100 ES point years). There wasn't any apparent impact on ESGA.

Are you saying that without Bobby Orr, the Bruins would have been whatever the off-ice ratio was? Because that's preposterous. It would be like claiming Edmonton would have scored around 200 goals without Gretzky because he got 200 points and nothing good could have happened without him! And there's a clearer link to points and Gretzky then there is to Orr and pluses and minuses.

I guess another question is, why was Boston as a team posting the same ESGF/ESGA numbers without Orr in 77-78, as they were with a 135-point Orr in 1975?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Key question about Mario Lemieux, Jagr and the Penguins remains what did Scotty Bowman see that told him the team could not be salvaged, so he walked.

Suspect Mario wanted to rub the sticks and not let Scotty rub them.

 

[blogofmike]

Also, here's sub .333 teams. Proportionally higher number in Orr's day, and higher minuses even without accounting for the games played count. Assuming a 16 opponent league vs a 20 opponent league, there should be something like 16 1981-88 teams here vs 12 1968-75 teams. Yet there are more 68-75 teams, and that counts an 88 Leafs team that was very tough to get a plus rating against for a bottom dweller.

Rk	Team	GP		Season
1	Washington Capitals	5	-219	1974-75
2	New York Islanders	6	-142	1972-73
3	California Golden Seals	5	-135	1973-74
4	Los Angeles Kings	6	-94	1969-70
5	Kansas City Scouts	4	-148	1974-75
6	California Golden Seals	6	-102	1970-71
7	California Golden Seals	5	-95	1972-73
8	Vancouver Canucks	6	-70	1971-72
9	Los Angeles Kings	6	-87	1971-72
10	Oakland Seals	4	-62	1967-68
11	California Golden Seals	6	-85	1974-75
12	Buffalo Sabres	6	-87	1971-72
13	Minnesota North Stars	4	-84	1974-75
	VS Bruins	69
Rk	Team	GP		Season
1	Winnipeg Jets	4	-147	1980-81
2	Pittsburgh Penguins	3	-121	1983-84
3	Detroit Red Wings	3	-117	1985-86
4	New Jersey Devils	3	-88	1983-84
5	Hartford Whalers	3	-122	1982-83
6	Pittsburgh Penguins	3	-109	1982-83
7	New Jersey Devils	3	-95	1982-83
8	Toronto Maple Leafs	3	-91	1984-85
9	Colorado Rockies	8	-104	1981-82
10	Minnesota North Stars	3	-79	1987-88
11	Toronto Maple Leafs	3	-33	1987-88
12	Pittsburgh Penguins	3	-98	1984-85
	VS Oilers	42

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[blogofmike]

Key question about Mario Lemieux, Jagr and the Penguins remains what did Scotty Bowman see that told him the team could not be salvaged, so he walked.

Suspect Mario wanted to rub the sticks and not let Scotty rub them.

Always thought Bowman never thought of it as his team, and didn't even run any of the practices. Scotty was watching the sticks and hoping a fire would appear. Turns out it did.

 

[The Panther]

I'm not getting into this debate too much, and I'm not voting in this project. But a couple of points re: Wayne Gretzky should be made:

1) People need to stop with the "Gretzky's-teammates-were-so-good-Oh-My-God-Better-than-anyone-ever". No, they weren't. Here are some facts:
- Gretzky entered the NHL on an expansion team.
- In Gretzky's first season, when he was high-school aged, none of Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson, etc. played for Edmonton. Gretzky had the highest PPG in the League -- higher than prime Guy Lafleur, playing on the late-dynasty Canadiens.
- In Gretzky's second season, no other Oiler was a PPG player, and Gretzky had the highest-scoring season in NHL history
- In Gretzky's second season, he put up the best plus/minus in NHL history of a player playing a full season on a losing team
- In Gretzky's first three years after leaving Edmonton, he continued to be the most dominant 5-on-5 player in hockey, and scored at the rate of 47 goals, 118 assists, 166 points (+28) per season in Los Angeles.

Besides all this, the greatest players -- Howe, Orr, and Lemieux -- all played with staggering line-ups of amazing players for parts or all of their primes. But for some reason, this never gets held 'against' them -- only Gretzky. Did Gretzky's team ever dominate NHL scoring like Orr's in 1970-71? No.

2) It's irrelevant to his legacy in any case, but people have over-stated how weak Gretzky's 1993-94 season was. I watched several of his games that season, and -- esp. earlier in the season before the team collectively gave up on the year -- he was very good. The difference is that after Canada Cup '91, Gretzky was no longer capable of dominating at 5-on-5 the way he had for the previous 12 seasons. Hence, when he played on a trainwreck team (the '94 Kings), and got the most ice-team, his plus/minus dropped. He was actually a solid 'plus' in the first quarter or more of the season, but as the team quickly crashed and burned, so did Wayne's plus/minus. The three worst plus/minuses on the Kings that year are Gretzky, Robitaille, and Kurri... their three best players (well, besides Blake.)

Again, I never hear of say, Lemieux's -18 in 1990 being used against him in these rankings, but only against Gretzky... when he was notably past his prime, at that.

 

[blogofmike]

I don't want to be the one that comes to Lemieux's aid, but I intend to keep him in the top-4...even if it's only 4 (which I support)...let's not go out of our way here...

Can we just talk about the quality of these teams here...Orr played with Espo and had a very, loose offensive-minded system...but he had guys to work with, one of them broke the scoring record about 100 times...HOFer Johnny Bucyk...Ken Hodge...and a consistent, if unspectacular (to be fair) group of strong glue-men that were reliable year to year...not an all-star team, but he had free reign, he had a historically amazing weapon, a historically strong wing-man and competent men that would work hard to get the puck to the guy with the most talent on the ice. I think that's fair.

Howe, I mean, he had played for a wagon early...Production Line, all that noise...he had coaching, he was backed by goaltending...he wasn't alone out there...

Gretzky, I mean, that goes without saying, those Edmonton teams were a sick joke...

Lemieux...comes into the league with Bob Berry as a coach, a guy who won one playoff series in his 11 year coaching career and it's because CuJo gave up 6 goals in an entire series or whatever, just went ham...the Kings won their first playoff series in six years immediately after he leaves. He joins the Habs early in the 80's, gets canned and two years later the Habs win the Cup with Lemaire. Can't make the playoffs with an expansion-esque Pens team, but two years after he leaves they make the playoffs and win a round.

Lemieux walks into the league, gets Warren Young (out of the league in two years), Doug Shedden (out of the league in two years), Mike Bullard (productive, one-dimensional player, bounces around and is basically done after 1990)...then his d-men are Moe Mantha (relevant offensive d-man from '84 to '88 and then just fades away, gone by 1991), rookie Doug Bodger (who does have a long, successful career) and Randy Hillier (out of the league by 1990)...it's same basic group until 1987.

Those forwards are mostly discarded...reasonable players are inserted Dan Quinn, Randy Cunneyworth and Craig Simpson is drafted highly. Nothing amazing, but these are fine NHL players at least. Bodger and Mantha still man the back line...

1988, same group...subtract Simpson, add Paul Coffey...Pierre Creamer takes over as coach...it's only season in the NHL.

1989. Rob Brown quadruple-A's himself into a spot with Mario gets a billion points and then washes out of the league for like a decade...the team begins to get some depth below their first line for the first time in the Lemieux era. Cullen, Errey, young Kevin Stevens begin to emerge as contributors...Zalapski and Jim Johnson on defense. Barrasso acquired for Bodger. Gene Ubriaco coaches his only full season in the NHL this year.

Those are his first five years in the league. Where you have to check if the leading scorers on the team are even in the league still in three to five years and the coaches are inexperienced at best...

[Good things that we all know about happen from 1990 to 1997, when he quits because it sucks]

Last five years...

2001 - Carry over from the top-heavy Penguins of the late 90's...fun run, I remember it well. Smash Washington, end Hasek's career in Buffalo...fun, fun...good team, good coach...I'm just being consistent with the five year sandwich...this is a point against me here...

2002 - Exit Jagr. Lemieux only plays 24 games anyhow...still some hold overs from the top-heavy years live-on...Kovalev, Lang, Morozov, Hrdina - not in Jagr's hip pocket still produces this season, Steph Richer is kicking around...the defense is Rozsival and Kasparaitis and little else...and that's little to begin with...Hedberg provided quality goaltending...Hlinka gets canned before the anthem is over and FOM (Friend of Mario) Rick Kehoe takes over his first (and second to last!) season coaching in the NHL...he wins 55 of 160.

2003: Tear down time...Kovalev departs, Hrdina departs, Lang departs, Morozov breaks himself...Jagr/Lang/Kovalev/Hrdina are replaced with...Nieminen, Kraft, Surovy, Fata and Robitaille...Randy Robitaille...Kehoe canned.

2004: Enter FOM Eddie Olczyk...no longer getting liquored up with Mike Lange in the broadcast booth, his inability to diagram even simple concepts (as we all should know by now) on regional television and his constant use of "stick on stick, stick on puck...for all you young hockey players out there" is now being used for all "you young hockey players...in the NHL"...waiver acquisition d-man Dick Tarnstrom leads the team in scoring, as Lemieux only plays 10 games...it's Generation X...of all the players that finished the team on the roster, I believe only 3 or 4 are even still in the NHL by 2007 (from memory, it's Malone, Orpik, **** maybe it's two...Scuderi and Fleury are on the team, but they aren't regulars)...the first overall pick goalie Fleury isn't afforded a full-time goalie coach, because why would a teenage goaltender playing for an expansion team need one of those...also, in January and February, the players were paid in Pop Tarts...

2006: Having spoken to a couple people around the team, practices are a complete gong show and the team had no system...Olczyk is banished back up to the broadcasting booth...a real coach in Michel Therrien enters...and they bring in some old help and a young superstar...enter: Crosby, Gonchar, Recchi, LeClair, Palffy (who quits immediately after Darcy Hordichuk dummied him), etc. the team is still drek, but it means well and there's hope...

My sense is, is that guys like Gretzky, Orr, Howe...extending to Beliveau, Harvey, somehow Richard is in this group, etc. weren't playing any noteworthy chunks of their careers with coaches who, for instance, can't identify what a 1-3-1 forecheck is and what each player's role is in that (Olczyk) or players who were not good enough for the league when asked to play on the second-to-worst team in the league as opposed to the worst...maybe I'm wrong and I'm not saying Lemieux didn't have free reign, he largely did, I'm not saying he didn't have an absolute squad at times (Jagr, Stevens, Francis, Coffey, etc.) he did...but he effectively played on two expansion teams for multiple years...and when he didn't (this is with 1988, 1989, 2001 removed) he scored 2.07 points per game, was a plus-107 in 377 games and worked everyone...

Not asking for #1...not even asking for a medal here...but before we start a #66 for #6 campaign, let's not lose sight of the fact that he was rubbing two sticks together and y'all were using a blow torch...

Gretzky could make Blair MacDonald an All-Star and could set up anyone. Howe got production out of a few non-Production Line sources, particularly around 1961. And while I think Orr was embarrassing in Game 6 of the '74 Finals his main wingman getting there was Al Sims, though to be fair to Al his job was mostly to stay out of the way and he was solid in the pre-merger era. Sent to the AHL fairly soon after, but apparently Al no longer cutting the mustard means the league got weaker...

 

[seventieslord]

Again, I never hear of say, Lemieux's -18 in 1990 being used against him in these rankings, but only against Gretzky... when he was notably past his prime, at that.

You're right, it should be brought up.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Patrick Roy: First things first. While in Montreal, their style of play was very defensive. They had some gifted offensive players like Mats Naslund , Bobby Smith, Kjell Dahlin , Stephane Richer and others. He never had another superstar player to play off of and as the last line of defense, he won many a game and series at times, by himself. When Roy arrived in Colorado, he had stars all around him and they could win sometimes by simply out scoring fools. Colorado was a much deeper team then Montreal ever was and this cause Roy to sometimes become too relaxed. He did win and show up more times then not when they needed to win a game.

i see it a little differently. the '93 team was weak, but roy's '86 and '89 teams were extremely deep.

look at that '86 team: bobby smith, guy carbonneau, and brian skrudland down the middle; naslund, walter, gainey, and mcphee on LW; claude lemieux, richer, dahlin, and nilan at RW.

in '89, swap mike keane for nilan, russ courtnall for dahlin, and add shayne corson.

naslund smith keane
mcphee skrudland lemieux
walter carbonneau courtnall
gainey corson richer

on D: chelios/ludwig, robinson/green, and the youngsters svoboda/desjardins

lacking in a sakic or forsberg superstar talent up front, obviously, but those are crazy deep teams. vs., for example,

deadmarsh sakic young
kamensky forsberg lemieux
yelle ricci keane
simon/hannan/corbet/rychel/murray/klemm

lefebvre ozolinsh
gusarov foote
krupp leschyshyn/wolanin

or, after the '01 team loses forsberg,

tanguay sakic hejduk
nieminen drury hinote
podein yelle messier
dingman reinprecht reid

bourque foote
klemm blake
de vries skoula

i mean, what even is that '96 fourth line? and that '01 team, even with forsberg, is a two line team. and on D, even as late as 1989, i'd rather have chelios/robinson/ludwig/green over blake/bourque/foote all day long.

why am i saying all this? to show that a player's "help" isn't always just listing the biggest names against everyone else's biggest names. even offensively, that '89 habs team had a 50 goal scorer on the fourth line. they finished 5th in the league in goals; the '01 avs finished 4th.

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

riddliness notwithstanding, i'd still rather have an oracle than not.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Again, I never hear of say, Lemieux's -18 in 1990 being used against him in these rankings, but only against Gretzky... when he was notably past his prime, at that.

there's an obvious reason for that. when mario is a minus nobody is remotely surprised. when gretzky is a minus, we are surprised.

so as a last resort, trot out old '94 gretzky and his -25 for shock value.

i mean, omg, after nine hart trophies and eleven nominations, he doesn't even get a single hart vote. how dare he?

 

[daver]

Is it a coincidence that the three players who lay claim to the biggest gaps in offensive production vs. their peers and the highest raw numbers in NHL history came at a time of dramatic expansion that saw the NHL quadruple in size over a period of 25 years?

No just your misrepresentation of chronological history.

You fail to consider that all the players you allude to other than Bobby Orr were products ofthe post NHL sponsorship era and the introduction ofthe two goalie system at the NHL and youth levels.

Bobby Orr, an NHL sponsorship product was breaking scoring recordsfor defencemen in juniorhockey. Only question was his future NHL impact.

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

I found this amusing.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Good post.

By the end of Orr's career, the Sabres and Kings were good, and he was even a minus player against them, while the Wings were awful and Orr posted a solid + against them, but that won't show up here:

68-75 Team	GP	Orr +/-	PM/G	Bruins +/-	Off +/-	Gap/GP
Atlanta	14	10	0.714	15	5	0.357
Buffalo	29	28	0.966	22	-6	1.172
California	40	79	1.975	98	19	1.500
Chicago	42	19	0.452	37	18	0.024
Detroit	49	51	1.041	69	18	0.673
Kansas City	4	5	1.250	8	3	0.500
Los Angeles	38	49	1.289	58	9	1.053
Minnesota	41	53	1.293	74	21	0.780
Montreal	49	14	0.286	7	-7	0.429
NY Islanders	13	18	1.385	24	6	0.923
NY Rangers	49	50	1.020	46	-4	1.102
Philadelphia	39	37	0.949	48	11	0.667
Pittsburgh	39	33	0.846	43	10	0.59
St Louis	36	37	1.028	47	10	0.750
Toronto	48	30	0.625	27	-3	0.688
Vancouver	25	30	1.200	55	25	0.200
Washington	5	20	4.000	31	11	1.800

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So for the ratio crowd, A) the gap column is for you. It's how much space Orr put between his on/off numbers per game. And it looks like it was really high against a few choice expansion opponents.

And B) how much credit are you giving Orr for his plus/minus? With Gretzky his impact was clear because even with Carson (a Top 10 ES scorer in LA and Edmonton) going the other way, when Gretzky left Edmonton they stopped being a dominant ESGF team, and the Kings had a 3-year run as the #1 ESGF team magically ending after the Suter hit (and the end of the 100 ES point years). There wasn't any apparent impact on ESGA.

Are you saying that without Bobby Orr, the Bruins would have been whatever the off-ice ratio was? Because that's preposterous. It would be like claiming Edmonton would have scored around 200 goals without Gretzky because he got 200 points and nothing good could have happened without him! And there's a clearer link to points and Gretzky then there is to Orr and pluses and minuses.

I guess another question is, why was Boston as a team posting the same ESGF/ESGA numbers without Orr in 77-78, as they were with a 135-point Orr in 1975?

Boston also never won another Cup after Orr left either.

Not for 4 decades.

Oilers won a Cup in Gretzky's 2nd absent season. He never won again.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Key question about Mario Lemieux, Jagr and the Penguins remains what did Scotty Bowman see that told him the team could not be salvaged, so he walked.

Suspect Mario wanted to rub the sticks and not let Scotty rub them.

As much as I love Mario for getting me truly into hockey as a younger person, and truly saving the Pens, twice...

There is truth to this. It was Lemieux's way on the ice and Bowman walked.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I don't want to be the one that comes to Lemieux's aid, but I intend to keep him in the top-4...even if it's only 4 (which I support)...let's not go out of our way here...
Can we just talk about the quality of these teams here...
...his first five years in the league. Where you have to check if the leading scorers on the team are even in the league still in three to five years and the coaches are inexperienced at best...

[Good things that we all know about happen from 1990 to 1997, when he quits because it sucks]

Not asking for #1...not even asking for a medal here...but before we start a #66 for #6 campaign, let's not lose sight of the fact that he was rubbing two sticks together and y'all were using a blow torch...

Meant to bring this up sometime- thanks for your coverage. Looking at the run-up to the entry of Lemieux into the league (a case of knowing where you've been to help ascertain where you're going) it was amazing to be reminded of the 'Armor-at-Kursk' level Tank-Battle of '84, where the Penguins and New Jersey raced to the bottom to try to insure that coveted #1 overall draft-pick. There was so much sucking, it could have been filed under 'pr0n.'

Like Tolstoy's bad families, those teams were horrible in different ways. The Devils were ghastly in a "Beavis & Butthead" way [i.e.: 'do you think we're ever going to score?'] Pittsburgh, on the other hand, became The Land that Defense Forgot. And because Almightily Awful Defense is a more consistently losing formula than Squirtgun Offense, Pittsburgh 'won' the blowfest and achieved The Big MariO.

To see what remained of the Pittsburgh team of Lemieux's early days is to acquire a keen understanding of how comprehensively thorough the 'Commitment to Excrement' was.

 

[daver]

Orr started in the original 06 era.

Gretzky started in that tripled size league plus added WHA teams.

And I don't recall Orr (or anyone else) stating that a team was a "Mickey Mouse organization" as Gretzky did about the Devils in 1983. That after a 13-4 game where Gretzky put up 8 points and Kurri had five goals. (Devils still manage to score 4 times)

Orr played his rookie season in the O6, as I said he played his PRIME in an era that saw the league triple in size.

When Orr started his prime their were eleven non-Canadians. When Wayne started their were ninety-five non-Canadians.

To position Orr as playing in a less diluted or more talented era than Wayne or Mario holds zero water.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As much as I love Mario for getting me truly into hockey as a younger person, and truly saving the Pens, twice...

There is truth to this. It was Lemieux's way on the ice and Bowman walked.

For a months I thought you were a robot.

Where would you rank Mario on the list of all time hockey coaches?

 

[quoipourquoi]

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

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing - just on-the-fly troubleshooting of the best presentation of voting results.

If I actually thought that either you or Hockey Outsider believed there were 4 times as many relevant players in 2003-04 as there were in 1988-89, that would be a disagreement.

I’m just pointing out that something fundamentally flawed in uses other than determining a 1st place result (the 5-3-1 ballot) shouldn’t be combined with something better equipped to determine additional ranks (10-7-5-3-1).

It would be like asking you guys to submit 50 names instead of 120 and building an aggregate off of it. The latter is more accurate. The 10-7-5-3-1 ballot is more accurate. So assigning a voting share threshold to what is already a ballot that handicaps data collection (the 5-3-1) will turn a bad table into a worse table by creating a disproportionate allotment towards post-1996 players as evidenced through three of the currently eligible players who were good on both sides of the ballot change.

I’ll throw out a 4th example to go with 1989 Roy (4th; unlisted), 1990 Roy (5th; unlisted), 1991 Bourque (4th; unlisted): Wayne Gretzky’s dynamite Pearson-nominated 1997-98 which landed him 5th in Hart voting (8.5% share). Unlike the aforementioned three, this season places him on the chart... but it would’ve been ignored if the data was collected on a 5-3-1 ballot, as it would have appeared on just two ballots, earning just 6 voting points across 54 ballots (2.2%).

On a 5-3-1 ballot, Gretzky would have been the suspicious selection that the 5% minimum is designed to exclude - the rogue 1st place vote that boosted him over players who appeared on more ballots. But ultimately, it is a relevant season, and because more data was included to show that a great number of people believed him to be the 4th and 5th most valuable, that’s where he appropriately landed. It just would have been ignored when held to the same standard of pre-1996 data collection.

If the data isn’t comparable, then presenting it in a ranked order chart is problematic. And considering there are examples of post-1996 players who would have jumped from even smaller shares - ones 2/3rds the size of the already microscopic one Roy was able to steal from Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman in 1988-89 - to chart-eligible shares based on 4th and 5th place voting, I’m going to say that the data isn’t comparable, and I doubt either of you would disagree on that one either.

So let’s not present it like it is.

 

[ImporterExporter]

For a months I thought you were a robot.

Where would you rank Mario on the list of all time hockey coaches?

I'm not sure how he'd have fared if he tried coaching in the traditional sense. Probably not well if he adopted the my way or the highway approach. That may have worked for Bowman over the years, but Bowman was a unique mind and Lemieux would have had a tough time keeping locker rooms together in this day and age. Even Scotty loosened up in his later years....a bit.

I honestly think the worst thing that happened to him during his playing career, beyond the cancer and terrible injuries was Badger Bob Johnson passing. He seemed to be that quintessential players coach, who let the players slide more than normal in terms of rigidity. And the Pens finally seemed to have something magical working, just to see a, by all accounts, a wonderful coach and man, pass.

 

[bobholly39]

Boston also never won another Cup after Orr left either.

Not for 4 decades.

Oilers won a Cup in Gretzky's 2nd absent season. He never won again.

To me this post should be a +1 for Gretzky - not the other way around, which I believe is what you're alluding to.

Gretzky made players around him better. There's no chance in hell Edmonton wins a cup in 1990 if Gretzky hadn't been with them for years, helping Messier, Kurri and others become the players they did.

I know you're trying to say Boston was more dependent on Orr than Oilers and Edmonton (and hence - Orr contributed more) - but that's simply not fair. Boston not winning a cup after Orr should have absolutely 0 bearing whatsoever on your evaluation of Orr because:

1. The year after he left we had what is probably the greatest team of all time (Habs in 76) win their first of 4 straight cups.
2. After that? Isles 4 straight - arguably the 2nd greatest dynasty ever.
3. Right after that? Well guess what - it's dynasty time as Edmonton starts winning.

Boston wasn't winning any cups after 75 with or without Orr. So this should count as an exact big fat 0 in your evaluation of Orr. You can't simply twist it into "see? without Orr they didn't win a cup, that makes Orr look good". Not fair.

Gretzky? He gets a +1 for his teammates he helped mold into the players they are win a cup after he left. Is that far fetched? You could say so - even though I firmly believe it. Even if you do - after Edmonton Gretzky still had a lot of playoff success. This is a team sport - and individually Gretzky contributed greatly to his team's success, both by improving their regular season record and helping them do well and go far in playoffs. They fell short but is anyone really going to imply that 92-93 playoffs for Gretzky should be a negative?

Orr's teams fell short of the cup more often than Gretzky. Gretzky achieved more success in Edmonton than Orr in Boston. +1 Gretzky

 

[K Fleur]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop Lemieux out of the top 4.

To do so there needs to be a great argument for the player replacing Lemieux and not just an argument that Lemieux was not as good as Gretzky, Howe, and Orr.

 

[ImporterExporter]

To me this post should be a +1 for Gretzky - not the other way around, which I believe is what you're alluding to.

Gretzky made players around him better. There's no chance in hell Edmonton wins a cup in 1990 if Gretzky hadn't been with them for years, helping Messier, Kurri and others become the players they did.

I know you're trying to say Boston was more dependent on Orr than Oilers and Edmonton (and hence - Orr contributed more) - but that's simply not fair. Boston not winning a cup after Orr should have absolutely 0 bearing whatsoever on your evaluation of Orr because:

1. The year after he left we had what is probably the greatest team of all time (Habs in 76) win their first of 4 straight cups.
2. After that? Isles 4 straight - arguably the 2nd greatest dynasty ever.
3. Right after that? Well guess what - it's dynasty time as Edmonton starts winning.

Boston wasn't winning any cups after 75 with or without Orr. So this should count as an exact big fat 0 in your evaluation of Orr. You can't simply twist it into "see? without Orr they didn't win a cup, that makes Orr look good". Not fair.

Gretzky? He gets a +1 for his teammates he helped mold into the players they are win a cup after he left. Is that far fetched? You could say so - even though I firmly believe it. Even if you do - after Edmonton Gretzky still had a lot of playoff success. This is a team sport - and individually Gretzky contributed greatly to his team's success, both by improving their regular season record and helping them do well and go far in playoffs. They fell short but is anyone really going to imply that 92-93 playoffs for Gretzky should be a negative?

Orr's teams fell short of the cup more often than Gretzky. Gretzky achieved more success in Edmonton than Orr in Boston. +1 Gretzky

Not at all. I'm sorry.

Orr won 2 Cups in roughly 600 games (his final "three" seasons are worthless in terms of counting them as wholes)

Gretzky played nearly 1500 games and won 4 Cups.

Orr didn't have the luxury of getting a full career to win more. He didn't lose his career because he walked away or was out of shape, suffering soft tissue injuries. He was a victime of a lack of medical advancement and era and done as a hockey player at age 26. A massive shame. Gretzky won all his team successes in a very condensed time and in the most favorable conditions. Outside those conditions, all his offensive brilliance in the world amounted to exactly 0 team success.

And again, you can throw out all the offensive numbers you want. I know them all. I've been up and down the raw and advanced data.

Bobby Orr was simply the better HOCKEY PLAYER. Offensively, Gretzky has no peer, but hockey isn't played in one zone. It's just where I'm at sir.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lmao if Lemieux gets dropped out of the top 4... that would be insanity
6 art Ross
3 Hart’s
4 Lindsay’s
3 Richards
2 conn smythes

 

[bobholly39]

Not at all. I'm sorry.

Orr won 2 Cups in roughly 600 games (his final "three" seasons are worthless in terms of counting them as wholes)

Gretzky played nearly 1500 games and won 4 Cups.

Orr didn't have the luxury of getting a full career to win more. He didn't lose his career because he walked away or was out of shape, suffering soft tissue injuries. He was a victime of a lack of medical advancement and era and done as a hockey player at age 26. A massive shame. Gretzky won all his team successes in a very condensed time and in the most favorable conditions. Outside those conditions, all his offensive brilliance in the world amounted to exactly 0 team success.

And again, you can throw out all the offensive numbers you want. I know them all. I've been up and down the raw and advanced data.

Bobby Orr was simply the better HOCKEY PLAYER. Offensively, Gretzky has no peer, but hockey isn't played in one zone. It's just where I'm at sir.

We dont count games but seasons played. You can only win 1 cup per season regardless of if theres 20 70 or 84 games.

Orr has 9 seasons. He won 2 cups. Arguably only 3 truly great playoff runs

In his first 9 seasons Gretzky won 4 cups and arguably could be called the best player in the playoffs 5 times.

How is that anything but advantage Gretzky?

If you want to make arguments for Orr over Gretzky do so. If you want to unilaterally declare Orr better and refuse to budge no matter what - thats your right i suppose.

But dont bring up ridiculous claims as a supposed argument for Orr when the opposite is true.

First 9 seasons - Gretzky clear advantage in cups and playoffs.

Next 9 seasons - again clear advantage to Gretzky.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop Lemieux out of the top 4.

To do so there needs to be a great argument for the player replacing Lemieux and not just an argument that Lemieux was not as good as Gretzky, Howe, and Orr.

Who would you replace Lemieux with? No player in history besides the other three come remotely close to his reg season or playoff peak and his prime also blows everyone out of the water.

 

[bobholly39]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop Lemieux out of the top 4.

To do so there needs to be a great argument for the player replacing Lemieux and not just an argument that Lemieux was not as good as Gretzky, Howe, and Orr.

Too much talk of dropping Lemieux out of the top 4 in past few pages.

Who exactly will replace him? Bourque/Roy? They played head to head and Lemieux was seen as a significantly better player than either of them his whole career. Nobody has the peak he does outside of Orr and Gretzky. And it's just not just the height of peak, but length. He towered over his peers in terms of domination for almost 10 years straight, from 88 to 97. Nobody touches that.

I want to see more Lemieux vs Howe talk and Lemieux vs Orr talk than talk of a 5th player coming in. If someone has a strong case to make for some 5th player - make it - but nobody has yet because it doesn't exist, we're just wasting time alluding to it.