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

[bobholly39]

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.

Is that really relevant though, let alone a significantly enough to affect the ranking of players? If Gretzky had spent his whole career doing nothing but whining in the media left and right - does it change his accomplishments? I feel accomplishments and ability is what we should be looking at, moreso than character. Maybe if someone wants to paint a picture about how Lemieux's character impeded his team's ability to succeed vs how Howe's character helped his team more it can start to matter more.

Also - despite the fact that Lemieux had a bit of a reputation as such - he also has 2 truly remarkable achievements that showcase his courage and character. His return in 93 from cancer, and 01 from retirement. Also - to a lesser extent - him captaining Canada to gold in 2002 near the end of his career was also significant.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why don't we just watch him...he's not some mystery player from 1905...there are plenty of Bruins games available to us from the 70's...

 

[The Macho King]

BTW - I don't think I've ever seen anyone as effusive in their praise for a teammate who was a legend in their own right as Esposito regarding Orr. He does a lot of interviews and talks a lot b/c Tampa - to hear Espo tell it you would think he was some plug that owed all of his success to Orr.

 

[DitchMarner]

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.

Didn't Crosby have a reputation for being a whiner earlier in his career? What about Gretzky? I know a lot of fans didn't like him because of his alleged whining. On YouTube videos people still post derogatory comments about Crosby and Wayne in regard to their supposed whining/"favorable treatment". Does anyone working on this project really care about any of that, though?

 

[Michael Farkas]

You shouldn't really...but I've never held sports persons up to be role models or anything of the sort...I respect them for what they are: a form of entertainment to me and, in most cases, my genetic superiors...

 

[The Macho King]

Yeah if we're adding "non-performance based" metrics to this, Bobby Hull isn't on my list at all.

 

[pappyline]

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.

I agree with this. You could extend this to the top 5. The first 2 times we did this Bobby Hull was voted in as #5. Hull also came in ahead of Richard in the wingers list.Nothing has really changed since then. Yet here we have people pimping Richard, Beliveau And Harvey as potential #4s but no mention of Hull. BTW, Lemieux is my #4 and Hull is my #5. In fact I think of it as a top 5 with Hull firmly entrenched as # 5 but maybe that is more of a discussion for vote 2.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

For those wanting to remove Lemieux from the top 4?

He has 18 major individual awards.
Richard has 6
Beliveau has 5
Etc

He also won these against greater competion which includes 27-31 year old Wayne Gretzky.

Outside of his 3 Hart’s he has three second place finishes (two to Gretzky) and another third place.

There is virtually no argument for anyone else

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

Just to be clear (as I was asking if anybody was willing/able to make a case) - I don't see a strong argument for keeping Lemieux out of the top four. Even with his injuries and early retirement, he still objectively accomplished more than any player in history not at the "big four" level. But a few people have alluded to possibly moving him out of the top four, so I was curious to see if anyone wanted to try to articulate a case. Better for someone to explain their position now, than for us to get surprised with unexpected voting results on Sunday.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Also - since 99% of the focus in this thread has been on the top four (and rightly so), there's been little discussion about players 5-10. For that reason, unless that changes, I'm probably going to keep them in exactly the same order I had on my initial list (when I vote on Sunday). But I fully expect there will be some changes once the cases for those players (and 11-14) are discussed in detail next week.

 

[sr edler]

Does anyone working on this project really care about any of that, though?

I think some do to a certain extent, certainly, because it (the whining/perceived whining) is so closely linked to the game itself. It’s not like they whine (if they do) about something unrelated to the game. Most often on-ice too. I actually have Lemieux #3 and Howe #4 though (swearing in church) so I’m not describing my own views here. I mean I think sometimes whining could probably be legitimate, and sometimes not. It depends on the situation and the scope of it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with this. You could extend this to the top 5. The first 2 times we did this Bobby Hull came in as the consensus #5. Hull also came in ahead of Richard in the wingers list.Nothing has really changed since then. Yet here we have people pimping Richard, Beliveau And Harvey as potential #4s but no mention of Hull. BTW, Lemieux is my #4 and Hull is my #5. In fact I think of it as a top 5 with Hull firmly entrenched as # 5 but maybe that is more of a discussion for vote 2.

Only one person ''pimped'' M.Richard as far as I know: me.

Only one person ''pimped'' Beliveau and Harvey as far as I know: seventieslord.

Perhaps it's your job to ''pimp'' Bobby Hull.We're kindda expecting it from you, and that's good.

And as far as Bobby Hull > Maurice Richard being a "consensus", that might have been true back in the days but I don't think it's true now (if I'm wrong so be it).

There's nothing about Hull vs. Richard that justify a consensus IMO.They're close players and both made my Top 10.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Is that really relevant though, let alone a significantly enough to affect the ranking of players? If Gretzky had spent his whole career doing nothing but whining in the media left and right - does it change his accomplishments? I feel accomplishments and ability is what we should be looking at, moreso than character. Maybe if someone wants to paint a picture about how Lemieux's character impeded his team's ability to succeed vs how Howe's character helped his team more it can start to matter more.

Also - despite the fact that Lemieux had a bit of a reputation as such - he also has 2 truly remarkable achievements that showcase his courage and character. His return in 93 from cancer, and 01 from retirement. Also - to a lesser extent - him captaining Canada to gold in 2002 near the end of his career was also significant.

While Lemieux's battles with cancer are inspiring,Howe' return in the fall of 1950 from a near fatal skull fracture suffered in game one of the semis cannot be overlooked. Pre Ross Trophies and the start of the longevity streak.

Also goes to the perception of Howe as a bully that is floating around.

 

[MXD]

I'm not even sure the criticism of Lemieux was fair and appropriate in the first place.

 

[Canadiens1958]

For those wanting to remove Lemieux from the top 4?

He has 18 major individual awards.
Richard has 6
Beliveau has 5
Etc

He also won these against greater competion which includes 27-31 year old Wayne Gretzky.

Outside of his 3 Hart’s he has three second place finishes (two to Gretzky) and another third place.

There is virtually no argument for anyone else

Which 18 do you view as major?
Mario Lemieux Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

More awards available in Lemieux's time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He has 18 major individual awards.
Richard has 6
Beliveau has 5
Etc

Not all of those trophies Lemieux won existed throughout their careers and some of them are somewhat redundant. It would be like awarding triple credit for a Vezina, Jennings, and the Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award.

 

[MXD]

... To make things clear : Just because I'm liking a post doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the thoughts expressed therein. Sometimes I'm just thanking the participant for coming up with a relevant argument (or fact), or for stating an opinion in a way that makes sense.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Which 18 do you view as major?
Mario Lemieux Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

More awards available in Lemieux's time.

I’m adding in the rocket Richard trophy as he led the league in goals three times. As I also did for Maurice (5) and Beliveau (1)

 

[blogofmike]

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.

Gretzky post-88 is a better playoff performer than Orr post-72 (1973 is a particularly poor showing). The Oilers won, just as the Habs won after Beliveau, and when Richard was injured, and the Red Wings in 50 when Howe was injured. The 70s Bruins continued to falter in the playoffs as they did with Orr.

But 2 Gretzky vs Orr thing to judge:
A) Playoffs. The inassailable one-word argument over most, including Orr, whose mastery in all three zones started to become suspect. The Bruins started to surrender a ton of PP goals in April. Their PP faltered in key moments, even as it looks okay overall as they could crush weaker teams like the time they got 10 PPG in 4 games. And Orr was a minus player in the playoffs as many times in as many trips as Mario Lemieux. There seems to be a disconnect where all team success in GF/GA is to Orr's credit, but it becomes someone else's problem when the Bruins fail in the playoffs.

B) Impact. The Oilers ESGF dropped by about as much as the Kings increased in 1989. And then the Kings ESGF reverted to normal when Gretzky went from 100+ES point guy to 60+ ES point guy after the 1991 Canada Cup. Gretzky was clearly more of a point-maker than a point-taker. The ability of Boston to replicate the ESGF/ESGA splits in 77-78 is odd, and a sign that Boston could have gotten a lot of those pluses without Orr. Which makes sense. Edmonton had a harder time replacing Gretzky because his pluses involved more ES points. A lot of Orr's pluses came without him getting points. Does that not mean that Gretzky earned the plus more often? Edmonton never got back to the adjusted ESGF/ESGA levels they got with Gretzky. It took Boston 2 years to match a year with a Ross-winning Orr.

Furthermore Orr's plus minus advantage over his teammates from 68-75 was most pronounced against the worst teams, like the Golden Seals. Which explains why it was so replaceable by 1977-78's regular season, and so difficult for Orr's Bruins in the playoffs in the non-Cup years.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Outside those conditions, all his offensive brilliance in the world amounted to exactly 0 team success.

This is only a fair assessment if "team success" is a pass/fail measurement dependant on whether your team won the Stanley Cup or not. If so, and applied to both player's peaks, Gretzky still has more team success, and they both have a 0 in that column for post-peak years. That is to say Gretzky still wins 4-2.

I don't subscribe to such a black and white definition of team success though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Every metric we have, as well as peer acounts say Orr was a legendary defensive player. I've already outlined some of that in here. Not to mention, some of the users here watched Orr in his prime. Never heard them say anything remotely negative about Orr in any capacity. Using the word overrated and Orr in the same sentence is comical.

If you want to challenge that notion bring me the numbers and peer acounts that say otherwise.

I'll be waiting a long time. In fact, I'll drop out of this entire project if somebody can show me players and coaches who said other wise or numbers that bear out some sort of other narrative. I'm that sure of myself.

I'd like to thank @overpass for making this easy for starters.

Bobby Orr at even strength produced more points than any defensemen by miles. But since we're talking defense, Orr also helped prevent goals at a much, much, better rate than almost any other defensemen post 1960 including many great defensive dman. The only ones who challenge Orr are those who played a lot less minutes and didn't come remotely close to carrying the offensive play for their respective teams.

Even Strength - Defencemen

Player	GP	$ESP/82	$ESGF/82	$ESGA/82	R-ON	R-OFF	EV%
Bobby Orr	657	64	130	66	1.99	1.03	49%
Pat Stapleton	635	31	104	87	1.18	1.14	49%
Bill White	604	24	93	75	1.24	1.06	49%
Pierre Pilote	660	36	108	81	1.34	1.11	49%
Tim Horton	1010	24	97	83	1.16	1.17	48%
Jacques Laperriere	691	21	104	77	1.35	1.29	47%
Marcel Pronovost	636	21	93	91	1.02	0.98	46%
Gilles Marotte	808	23	85	99	0.86	0.87	46%
Leo Boivin	728	23	87	115	0.76	0.73	46%
Erik Karlsson	556	44	85	84	1.01	0.95	46%
Harry Howell	932	21	88	101	0.87	0.77	46%
Ian Turnbull	628	33	86	82	1.05	1.02	45%
J.C. Tremblay	796	25	101	78	1.30	1.30	45%
Moose Vasko	600	19	89	83	1.07	1.09	45%
Brian Leetch	1205	33	84	80	1.06	0.97	45%
Barry Gibbs	792	19	74	85	0.87	0.95	45%
Gary Bergman	838	26	86	88	0.97	0.90	44%
Bob Baun	826	19	88	77	1.15	1.16	44%
Carl Brewer	533	27	100	70	1.42	1.07	44%
Allan Stanley	627	26	92	79	1.17	1.21	44%
Ted Harris	788	19	84	71	1.18	1.17	43%
Dale Rolfe	509	19	83	79	1.06	1.02	43%
Jim Schoenfeld	719	20	88	68	1.29	1.19	43%
Paul Coffey	1409	41	95	77	1.23	1.20	43%
Jim Neilson	1024	22	81	86	0.94	1.00	43%
Dallas Smith	889	24	96	76	1.27	1.34	43%
Borje Salming	1148	28	86	75	1.14	0.82	43%
Larry Robinson	1384	32	97	61	1.60	1.34	43%
Reed Larson	904	29	73	81	0.90	0.82	43%
Denis Potvin	1060	36	87	58	1.49	1.23	43%
Duncan Keith	913	33	88	73	1.20	1.08	43%
Serge Savard	1040	23	94	65	1.44	1.52	43%
Terry Harper	1066	17	85	68	1.24	1.04	43%
Ted Green	620	26	89	100	0.89	1.07	42%
Ron Stackhouse	889	25	82	79	1.05	0.82	42%
Dave Burrows	724	14	76	85	0.89	0.99	42%
Carol Vadnais	1087	24	78	82	0.96	1.00	42%
Phil Russell	1016	22	75	73	1.04	0.96	42%
P.K. Subban	500	31	77	69	1.11	0.99	42%
Drew Doughty	688	25	72	63	1.15	1.02	42%
Scott Stevens	1635	28	83	63	1.31	1.19	42%
Guy Lapointe	884	28	91	64	1.41	1.66	42%
Bob Stewart	575	14	62	95	0.65	0.75	42%
Dustin Byfuglien	521	35	79	78	1.02	0.92	42%
Brad Park	1115	33	89	64	1.40	1.20	42%
Alex Pietrangelo	539	33	77	68	1.13	1.14	42%
Ray Bourque	1612	35	86	63	1.37	0.95	42%
Victor Hedman	549	35	81	74	1.08	0.99	42%
Bob Dailey	561	26	74	68	1.09	1.18	41%
Derian Hatcher	1045	21	73	70	1.04	1.10	41%
Robert Svehla	655	25	73	70	1.04	0.95	41%
Jocelyn Guevremont	571	24	79	75	1.05	0.97	41%
Dion Phaneuf	902	22	74	73	1.02	0.97	41%
Barry Beck	615	23	75	73	1.02	0.84	41%
Nicklas Lidstrom	1564	30	88	62	1.41	1.17	41%
Sandis Ozolinsh	875	30	72	70	1.02	0.96	41%
Joni Pitkanen	535	28	77	75	1.03	0.87	41%
Brian Engblom	659	15	81	66	1.22	1.11	41%
Tracy Pratt	580	13	64	78	0.82	0.84	40%
Kevin Hatcher	1157	24	73	72	1.01	1.04	40%
Bob Murdoch	757	21	78	65	1.20	1.09	40%
Craig Hartsburg	570	21	71	67	1.06	1.01	40%
Dale Tallon	542	25	65	80	0.82	0.82	40%
Bob Woytowich	504	16	66	91	0.73	0.71	40%
Don Awrey	979	14	79	76	1.04	1.22	40%
Arnie Brown	681	20	70	81	0.86	1.00	40%
Ryan Suter	913	25	77	65	1.18	1.03	40%
Kris Letang	603	33	79	68	1.16	1.15	40%
Jerry Korab	825	21	74	70	1.05	1.25	40%
Doug Wilson	1024	28	72	67	1.08	0.90	40%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hmmmm, PK metric shows Orr to be legendary in that role as well. Used more than all but a handful of players in history and Boston killed off a far greater % of power plays. Want me to keep going?

Penalty Kill - Defencemen

Player	GP	SH%	TmSH+	$SHP/82
Jacques Laperriere	691	76%	0.90	2
J.C. Tremblay	796	66%	0.94	1
Marcel Pronovost	636	66%	0.96	1
Bill White	604	65%	0.88	1
Bobby Orr	657	62%	0.78	6
Francois Beauchemin	836	60%	1.08	1
Jay Bouwmeester	1071	59%	0.95	1
Serge Savard	1040	58%	0.82	2
Ray Bourque	1612	58%	0.88	2
Bill Hajt	854	57%	0.77	1
Chris Chelios	1651	57%	0.85	2
Barry Beck	615	57%	1.01	1
Tim Horton	1010	57%	0.92	2
Jim Schoenfeld	719	56%	0.77	1
Scott Stevens	1635	56%	0.88	1
Zdeno Chara	1350	56%	0.90	2
Willie Mitchell	907	56%	0.90	1
Derian Hatcher	1045	56%	0.89	1
Alex Pietrangelo	539	55%	0.84	1
Borje Salming	1148	55%	1.09	1
Rob Scuderi	783	55%	0.91	1
Chris Pronger	1167	55%	0.91	1
Bob Stewart	575	54%	1.19	1
Bob Plager	644	54%	1.00	1
Denis Potvin	1060	53%	0.82	2
Harry Howell	932	53%	1.05	1
Rod Langway	994	53%	0.83	1
Adam Foote	1154	53%	0.99	1
Dave Burrows	724	53%	1.05	1
Dan Hamhuis	951	53%	0.93	1
Carol Vadnais	1087	53%	0.98	1
Moose Vasko	600	53%	1.00	1
Niklas Hjalmarsson	623	53%	0.97	2
Guy Lapointe	884	53%	0.76	1
Tom Laidlaw	705	52%	0.98	1
Duncan Keith	913	52%	0.95	2
Richard Matvichuk	796	52%	0.86	1
Dan Girardi	788	52%	0.84	2
Nicklas Lidstrom	1564	52%	0.81	2
Bert Marshall	868	51%	0.97	1
Craig Ludwig	1256	51%	0.93	0
Karlis Skrastins	832	51%	1.00	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[BenchBrawl]

... To make things clear : Just because I'm liking a post doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the thoughts expressed therein. Sometimes I'm just thanking the participant for coming up with a relevant argument (or fact), or for stating an opinion in a way that makes sense.

Same.I also distribute ''likes'' unevenly, some days I like more posts and so on, so if I didn't ''like'' a post that doesn't mean I don't like it or agree with it, and if I ''like'' a post doesn't mean I agree with everything in it.

I'm still not sure I like that feature.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Not all of those trophies Lemieux won existed throughout their careers and some of them are somewhat redundant. It would be like awarding triple credit for a Vezina, Jennings, and the Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award.

If we want to say only the awards that existed for all three

Lemieux 6 art ross , 3 Hart
Beliveau 2 hart, 1 art ross
Richard 1 hart.

Lemieux also finished second to Gretzky twice for the hart

 

[The Macho King]

I'm not even sure the criticism of Lemieux was fair and appropriate in the first place.

I haven't heard a good argument for knocking Lemieux out of his #4 spot. If you were to make one, it would probably have to be a) with a player who was not a contemporary, and b) probably a Dman so you can make the positional disparity in awards/appreciation argument. The best candidate for that would probably end up being Harvey.

But I'm not even sure Harvey is the #2 D of all time personally, so I don't know how it will work. The tough thing with all of the players from those Habs teams is that the entire squad was so f***ing good that pulling one guy out and saying "HIM HE'S THE BEST!" feels like you're giving one of the other guys the short end of the stick. But with Harvey at least you get a lot of Norris', good offensive numbers (especially for the period), and a reputation for sterling D. You can make the argument that he's the engine for those teams, and that the Norris became the de facto "Hart for Dman" trophy while the Hart was (mostly) reserved for forwards (with some goalies - especially since the Vezina wasn't voted on at the time).

I think the argument is flimsy, but I also think it's the best you got. Because if you try someone like Hull - himself not a great two-way player, not a ton of postseason success, and while his offensive numbers were great they didn't have the separation from the competition that Mario had. Beliveau you're going to have to lean heavy into the intangibles argument as well as two-way play. Richard - I think with him you have to explain why he doesn't have an Art Ross despite playing in some lightly competitive eras.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Let's run with this...

The Oilers lost their #1 center AND their #1 PMD at around the same time...and replaced them with what?

Boston lost Orr and added a #1 d-man and a top line player in Rick Middleton at the same time...

Other major changes that could influence these numbers...?