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

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
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

I don't usually agree with you, but you're right on the money here. NOTHING has changed in the top 4. All of their careers have long settled. Unless another player has come to replace one of them (which hasn't happened yet), there is no reason to change the top 4. If Lemieux is removed from the top 4, I think this whole project has lost all of it's credibility IMO.
 
One player being placed in a spot that isn’t universally agreed with(or goes against general perception) does not ruin the credibility of this project.

Especially so if a compelling argument backs the placing. But like I said.. that argument needs to actually be presented.
 
I don't usually agree with you, but you're right on the money here. NOTHING has changed in the top 4. All of their careers have long settled. Unless another player has come to replace one of them (which hasn't happened yet), there is no reason to change the top 4. If Lemieux is removed from the top 4, I think this whole project has lost all of it's credibility IMO.
Agreed. What’s up for debate depending on who you ask is the 5th spot. But Lemieux at the very least is the 4th best player in the last 100 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan
One player being placed in a spot that isn’t universally agreed with(or goes against general perception) does not ruin the credibility of this project.

Especially so if a compelling argument backs the placing. But like I said.. that argument needs to actually be presented.
Um Lemieux is universally accepted as a top 4 player of all time on HF and the rest of the hockey world. Actually outside of Hf Lemieux is usually seen as the 2nd or third best
 
Especially so if a compelling argument backs the placing. But like I said.. that argument needs to actually be presented.

Okay, I'll ask the curious question then. What compelling argument has changed any of these four player's careers in the last 12 years of them NOT playing? They aren't players from 100 years ago that we need to study and review to know where they placed. Most of us watched these players play (at least 99/66, if not all 4). If anything has changed their rankings post retirement, I would assume it has more to do with biases and hidden agendas than earth-shattering new data to disrupt the top 4. Even the last time this list was completed a decade ago, all of them were retired. So nothing in their careers have changed since then. So yes, I do feel like going back and undoing a fairly universal consensus on the top 4 would show a lack of reliability of these lists and thus a lack of validity.

Not to gatekeep, but if you didn't submit a list and are just dropping in to homerishly defend a player, it's not a significant contribution and kind of just taking up space. Present an argument.

Sorry, I typed that reply up before I read your post. I did create a list of 120, but didn't submit it because I didn't feel like I represented older players well enough. I'm more trying to see other people's honest justification, but I guess I'm coming across as a homer. I'll be quiet :P
 
Um Lemieux is universally accepted as a top 4 player of all time on HF and the rest of the hockey world. Actually outside of Hf Lemieux is usually seen as the 2nd or third best

Well, we are about to find out if that's the case aren't we? I'm interested in hearing arguments for someone over Lemieux for that 4th spot, there's nobody there for me now, but I imagine it's possible that I could be convinced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K Fleur
Not to gatekeep, but if you didn't submit a list and are just dropping in to homerishly defend a player, it's not a significant contribution and kind of just taking up space. Present an argument.

I am proud that we ignored this very thing earlier in the thread from a usual suspect. Encourage good discussion...even if you're not in the project. But just parachuting down a Buzzfeed-esque "If you don't have THIS player in your top 8, it may be an early sign of cancer" is not at all useful...
 
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.

Well for starters, the most important two things you listed were his Harts and Smythes, and Beliveau has two Harts (with three runner-ups) and two Smythes (as well as two more years where he could have won it). From there, consider how much more complete of a player Beliveau was, how much he won, how much more respected he was as a leader and a person, and there's a case.
 
Re: completeness.

Let's just make sure we're giving relatively equal weight to that across the board. Same as anything...it's ok if you think the playoffs are 4x more important than regular season to put Richard or Beliveau over someone else...but don't turn around and have Hasek and Hall over Brodeur and Plante later on...and then Turgeon over Kennedy or what have you...that's all I'm asking.
 
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.

Nothing wrong with pointing out that Orr was a far more complete player on the ice. He was elite offensively, legendary if you consider the position. He was legendary defensively. There is literally nothing ridiculous with that or anything else I've said. Some people, like you, simply prefer gaudy offensive numbers as your sole reasoning for putting Gretzky #1 (I used to do it btw). That is your right, just as it's mine to think it's a lazy analysis of hockey in general.

It's not like I'm suggesting Gretzky be dumped into the abyss because he was a shitty player in his own end. I just won't put him #1 anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan
Nothing wrong with pointing out that Orr was a far more complete player on the ice. He was elite offensively, legendary if you consider the position. He was legendary defensively. There is literally nothing ridiculous with that or anything else I've said. Some people, like you, simply prefer gaudy offensive numbers as your sole reasoning for putting Gretzky #1 (I used to do it btw). That is your right, just as it's mine to think it's a lazy analysis of hockey in general.

It's not like I'm suggesting Gretzky be dumped into the abyss because he was a ****ty player in his own end. I just won't put him #1 anymore.

Also it's not just gaudy offensive numbers. It's a career twice as long with historically relevant seasons.

I think Bobby Orr's defensive reputation starting to get a little overrated in this thread.


From the Hockey News The Top 60 Since 1967

So, often Orr was able to what was best for the team. Aside from being supremely skilled as a skater and offensive player, he also was tough enough to fight his own battles. And any time he carried the puck and got caught up ice after losing it, he had the speed and smarts to get back into position. That came from his days player on the Seguin River at the mouth of Georgian Bay in hometown of Parry Sound, ONT witj no coaches trying to stifle creativity. Because there was no flass off which to chip the puck, Orr became the best puck-carrying defenseman of all time. Most of his hockey as a youngster was played outdoors, and Orr remembers his time having to "wait our turn" to play at the indoor rink like everyone else.

"My kind of defence was the handle the puck and not give it back" Orr said "I couldn't play real defence because that wasn't my game. I didn't like sitting back and I really didn't know how to sit back."

To suggest that Orr's opponents went into games thinking they could take advantage of his defensive play was ludicrous; they were far too worried about what he would do to them on the other side of the ice....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kant Think
Nothing wrong with pointing out that Orr was a far more complete player on the ice. He was elite offensively, legendary if you consider the position. He was legendary defensively. There is literally nothing ridiculous with that or anything else I've said. Some people, like you, simply prefer gaudy offensive numbers as your sole reasoning for putting Gretzky #1 (I used to do it btw). That is your right, just as it's mine to think it's a lazy analysis of hockey in general.

It's not like I'm suggesting Gretzky be dumped into the abyss because he was a ****ty player in his own end. I just won't put him #1 anymore.

Youre changing your words.

In my last 2 posts i didnt call you out for having Orr above Gretzky - but rather i called out your specific arguments which are flawed and warrant to be called out.

You suggested that its bad on Gretzky to have no cups outside edmonton. You also hinted that it makes Gretzky look bad that the Oilers won without him in 90 and somehow shows Orrs greater value that the Bruins didnt win a cup for 40 years.

The above arguments are extremely flawed for the reasons i mentionned. You should respond specifically to what i said instead of changing it to "well Orr is a more complete player so i prefer him" which is what you seem to be doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast
Can someone make an argument as to why Howe should be above Lemieux?

Lemieuxs offense is significantly above Howe. At least on a per game basis as i showed in an earlier post for their best 9-10 seasons. If the argument is simple longevity - ok to each their own in weighing longevity and choosing who to put on top so thats easy enough.

But i feel like theres a lot of people who prefer Howe to Lemieux for defense or complete play moreso than longevity. Can someone try and quantify what that looks like? What did Howe contribute outside of offense and how much of it that it should trump Lemieuxs higher offense?
 
Can someone make an argument as to why Howe should be above Lemieux?

Lemieuxs offense is significantly above Howe. At least on a per game basis as i showed in an earlier post for their best 9-10 seasons. If the argument is simple longevity - ok to each their own in weighing longevity and choosing who to put on top so thats easy enough.

But i feel like theres a lot of people who prefer Howe to Lemieux for defense or complete play moreso than longevity. Can someone try and quantify what that looks like? What did Howe contribute outside of offense and how much of it that it should trump Lemieuxs higher offense?

But they were in the seasons that they won the Hart. So it would be more accurate to include them in that count.



Honestly, the case for Howe being in the top-2 works just as well as the case for him being #1. The simplest way to make that case is as follows:

1. Point out his extreme longevity, particularly how high he was in the scoring race and Hart voting in his Xth best season compared to other top-4 players:

In their respective 12th best seasons:

- Howe was 3rd in points and 3rd in Hart voting
- Gretzky was 2nd in points (and? but?) 4th in Hart voting
- Lemieux was a very good player but did not play enough to be a factor in Hart voting nor was he top-10 in scoring
- Orr was retired

In their respective 15th best seasons:

- Howe was 4th in scoring and 5th in Hart voting
- Gretzky won the scoring title without receiving a single Hart vote
- Lemieux played about 20 games
- Orr was retired

In their respective 18th best seasons:

- Howe was 5th in scoring and 7th in Hart voting
- Gretzky was "just" a PPG player in the 1994-95 lockout season
- Lemieux was retired
- Orr was retired

It's arguable that, if you know how all their careers play out, and you are selecting one player to build a dynasty and your goal is to win as many cups as possible in 25 years, you take Howe because he gives you a legitimate shot approximately 16 times, as opposed to ~9 times for Orr, ~12 for Gretzky and ~9 for Lemieux.

2. Point out that his prime is not to be discounted and is actually extremely dominant offensively:

Howe is 2nd all-time in VsX scores, whether you want to 5, 7, or 10 year samples. If you go with 10, he's about 22% behind Gretzky in that time. (if you go by their best four margins of victory in the scoring race vs. non-teammates, I get the same answer: Gretzky 22% ahead of Howe) He's not even behind Lemieux, though I'm sure if you adjust for missed games you would likely find that Lemieux was producing at a similar or better rate when he was actually playing. Gretzky outscored his nearest non-teammate by 58% n a per-game basis during his most favorable period. Howe outscored his by just 20%, but his competition was Maurice Richard, not Mike Bossy.

It's arguable that his 10-year value is "close enough" to Gretzky's, when you consider his comparative all-around play, that his seasons 11-20 bridge that gap. In those 11-20 seasons, Howe's 10-year VsX is virtually identical to that of Gretzky, yet Hart voting in those seasons seems to indicate he was seen as a considerably higher impact player than Wayne. Whether that's enough to bridge the gap depends on how wide you think that gap is. It starts at the 22% offensive edge and lessens the more you value other things.

This post 70s wrote earlier when I asked was helpful
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39
This post 70s wrote earlier when I asked was helpful

Thank you I had seen that. But that post is more about longevity than about defensive ability or two-way play. I'd like to see more talk about that. Was Howe truly dominating defensively, or did he bring other aspects to the game outside of offense that we can quantify? Or is his only real argument above Lemieux (and Gretzky if some go there) longevity?
 
Also it's not just gaudy offensive numbers. It's a career twice as long with historically relevant seasons.

I think Bobby Orr's defensive reputation starting to get a little overrated in this thread.


From the Hockey News The Top 60 Since 1967

So Orr didn't sit back to play defence. That doesn't mean he wasn't an effective defender as an attacking player, defending all over the ice instead of waiting back in his own end.

Ken Dryden in "The Game" on Bobby Orr. It's a long quote, the bolded part is the key for this part of Orr's game.
Great players have skills that set them apart. Virtuoso skills—Hulls shot, Lafleur’s quickness, Frank Mahovlich’s power and grace—skills that separate them from their opponents and from the game, but also from teammates less able It is a platitude of sports that a great player makes everyone around him better, hut when it is true, the effect is often just spillover and coincidental. Indeed. more commonly it works the other way—the great player has everyone around him to make him better. When a superstar comes onto the ice or onto a playing field, a game changes and is drawn to him. It is he who is at the center of the action, commanding it, directing it, his teammates little more than courtiers or spectators, their initiative sapped, their skills seconded. It is no petulant power play of a selfish superstar, it is the force and magnetism of his skills that have this effect. It is why great players rarely work well together (there can only be the one ball or one puck at a time), and are more effective with players of complementary and subservient skills—and so Cashman becomes Esposito’s cornerman, Jim Braxton, O. J. Simpson’s blocker. Orr was the profound exception.

Perhaps it was because he lined up as a defenseman Set back a few feet from the game with the time and perspective that offered, he could watch it, “taking pictures” as Bowman would say of him, finding its pattern, its rhythm, then at a moment he could choose, accelerate into its midst to turn two-man attacks into three, three into four. Orr was a brilliant skater, fast, quick, wonderfully maneuverable. While the speed of Hull. Mahovlich, and Lafleur, as forwards, often isolates them from teammates who cannot keep up. and robs them of the time necessary for effective combination play, as a defenceman, Orr gave his teammates a head start. With more ice in front of him, Orr could play full out, using all his special skills, and never lose contact. From behind, he could shape the game, He could see where it might go, then with no forward’s lanes to hold him back, he could take it there: pushing teammates, chasing them. Forcing a pace higher than many thought they could play, supporting them with passes, bursting ahead. leading them, forcing them to rise to his game, always working with them, From behind, with several defenders in front of him, he needed his teammates, who in turn needed his extraordinary passing and intuitive skills to bring out their skills to make him better, in turn to make them better. It was what made him unique. By making everyone a contributor, he made everyone feel part of his own success. of their success. From last placeto a Stanley Cup in four years. it could only happen because, as catalyst and driving force. Orr brought the Bruins along with him.

He was the rare player who changed the perceptions of his sport. Until Orr, defensemen had been defenders, usually stocky and slow-footed, their offensive game complete when the puck had cleared the defensive zone. Even so-called “rushing defensemen” in pre-Orr times, Red Kelly, Tim Horton, and others, rarely went much beyond the center line, moving up only as a forward moved back, dropping out of the play as soon as they made their first pass. It was Orr who broke down the barriers separating offense and defense lining up as a defenseman, when the puck dropped, he became a “player”, his game in instant and constant transition, until with no real transition at all, neither defenseman nor forward, both defender and attacker, he attacked to score and keep from being scored against, he defended to prevent goals and create chances to score. It was what soccer commentators would call a “total” game, what we knew as hockey of the future, and it became the model for all defensemen to follow.

Earlier this season, after six operations on his left knee, after nine seasons spanning thirteen years. Orr retired. He has left defence a much-changed position. He has given it new perceptions, a new attitude that makes further change easier, but he left no heirs. The best of his contemporaries—Robinson, Potvin, Lapointe, Park, Salming—have tried at times to emulate him, but without the prodigious skating and puck—handling skills necessary for his all-ice, all-out, all-the-time game, they have settled back, never completely, not quite comfortably, into something more measured, more restrained. It is what works best for them. They style that was the style of the future remains very much that.
 
Well, we are about to find out if that's the case aren't we? I'm interested in hearing arguments for someone over Lemieux for that 4th spot, there's nobody there for me now, but I imagine it's possible that I could be convinced.
Yes I am intrigued to see at the end of the day
 
So Orr didn't sit back to play defence. That doesn't mean he wasn't an effective defender as an attacking player, defending all over the ice instead of waiting back in his own end.

Ken Dryden in "The Game" on Bobby Orr. It's a long quote, the bolded part is the key for this part of Orr's game.

I don't disagree that he was effective I'm just challenging that he was a "legendary defensive player"
 
Well for starters, the most important two things you listed were his Harts and Smythes, and Beliveau has two Harts (with three runner-ups) and two Smythes (as well as two more years where he could have won it). From there, consider how much more complete of a player Beliveau was, how much he won, how much more respected he was as a leader and a person, and there's a case.
I have never ever seen anyone put Beliveau ahead of Lemieux. So like another poster said? Why try to force it.
 
Was Howe truly dominating defensively, or did he bring other aspects to the game outside of offense that we can quantify? Or is his only real argument above Lemieux (and Gretzky if some go there) longevity?

Quite a bunch of posters view Lemieux as somewhat of a weak whiner (or even a quitter), and they prefer the physically imposing guy instead who bullied players left and right and just played on forever. That's one aspect.
 
So Orr didn't sit back to play defence. That doesn't mean he wasn't an effective defender as an attacking player, defending all over the ice instead of waiting back in his own end.

Ken Dryden in "The Game" on Bobby Orr. It's a long quote, the bolded part is the key for this part of Orr's game.
To add on to this - Esposito always jokes that Orr couldn't skate backwards, because he was always either attacking with the puck or attacking the puck-carrier. I don't think that means he didn't defend - I think he was as aggressive in defense as he was in offense though.

That being said, I do think maybe the superlatives are getting a little excessive on his defensive play. Greatest Dman in history, bar none. Great defender in his own right. Probably not the greatest defensive player of all time, though - and I'm seeing that thrown about a bit.
 
To add on to this - Esposito always jokes that Orr couldn't skate backwards, because he was always either attacking with the puck or attacking the puck-carrier. I don't think that means he didn't defend - I think he was as aggressive in defense as he was in offense though.

That being said, I do think maybe the superlatives are getting a little excessive on his defensive play. Greatest Dman in history, bar none. Great defender in his own right. Probably not the greatest defensive player of all time, though - and I'm seeing that thrown about a bit.

I would take a couple of D ahead of him if I'm looking for defence. For sure Harvey, Bourque (probably) Lidstrom (maybe)

And that's all I want to talk about with my quote. Over on the ATD board (looking forward to a snarky comment) Orr does not get considered the best defensive D of all time and it seems like in this project posters want to paint him that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad