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

[VanIslander]

Dang.

How do I get my head around ranking Roy in the top 10 when I think he isn't even the best goalie?

I need either convincing of his numero uno puck stopperoo status or else I'll just plop him 10th and hope the next round includes the guy I feel at the moment has been greater than him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

NHL releasing previously unavailable archival data created new perceptions. Likewise easier access to newspaper archives broadened the data bank.

.Finally the growing understanding of positions and their importance

 

[VanIslander]

We are ranking all 10 aren't we?

Only 4 will be inducted, but all ten will be ranked, eh? I think so.

 

[MXD]

I don't exactly know why there's a focus on Lemieux, Beliveau and Richard awards in an effort to show that Lemieux was better, consdering it's pretty obvious that Beliveau, Richard (and Harvey and Bourque and Roy) would pass Lemieux due to everything that isn't related to, well, awards and numbers. ... And Hull too, while we're at it (despite Hull's numerical case probably a tad closer on surface)

Sorry @Ageless, but you're pretty much trying to demolish an opened door.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I don't exactly know why there's a focus on Lemieux, Beliveau and Richard awards in an effort to show that Lemieux was better, consdering it's pretty obvious that Beliveau, Richard (and Harvey, and Hull, and Roy) would pass Lemieux due to everything that isn't related to, well, awards and numbers.

Sorry @Ageless, but you're pretty much trying to demolish an opened door.

So then what are we talking about? Character? Leadership? Those don’t make someone a better hockey player. A better person sure maybe that can be true. And any intangibles they may have had over Lemieux cannot override the pure offensive domination that Lemieux brings to the table in this comparison.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Dang.

How do I get my head around ranking Roy in the top 10 when I think he isn't even the best goalie?

I need either convincing of his numero uno puck stopperoo status or else I'll just plop him 10th and hope the next round includes the guy I feel at the moment has been greater than him.

3 Conn Smythes. All deserved. 2 of them legendary. Also could have won a 4th had the Habs won in 1989. He posted spectacular numbers in defeat.

Great to elite goalie stats for his time, especially in Montreal.

But he didn't flop and play an unorthodox (which for a goalie means exciting) style like Hasek so some folks detract points for style. There is no better combination of regular and postseason dominance by a goalie in history. Hasek has him beat by a bit in the regular season IMO, but is about 2000 parsec's behind Roy in crunch time. Fact.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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

See how that’s a stronger argument than the one you made before? Keeping everyone on equal footing is going to be more persuasive.

 

[BenchBrawl]

See how that’s a stronger argument than the one you made before? Keeping everyone on equal footing is going to be more persuasive.

Still a tip of the iceberg argument

 

[Michael Farkas]

So then what are we talking about? Character? Leadership? Those don’t make someone a better hockey player. A better person sure maybe that can be true. And any intangibles they may have had over Lemieux cannot override the pure offensive domination that Lemieux brings to the table in this comparison.

Huh? You don't think there's anything in the game between elite scoring and character...? Nothing comes to mind at all? Are you Mr. Lemieux?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I don’t mean to start a useless argument but the idea of Lemieux being out of the top 4 has me wanting to counter. I’ve never heard that until now

 

[quoipourquoi]

Dang.

How do I get my head around ranking Roy in the top 10 when I think he isn't even the best goalie?

By comparing his resume to the eligible players as opposed to only being able to contextualize a player’s career in relation to another player at the same position?

For clarification, everyone is going to be doing the above. For 21 weeks.

For instance, why would Ray Bourque, another player you are being asked to rank this round, place above Patrick Roy?

 

[The Macho King]

I don’t mean to start a useless argument but the idea of Lemieux being out of the top 4 has me wanting to counter. I’ve never heard that until now

Yeah, and you're arguing a point that no one has made. Some people want to hear the discussion (to the extent that there is one). It's probably pretty notable that despite about half a dozen people saying "I'd love to hear this argument" no one has stepped forward and made it.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Huh? You don't think there's anything in the game between elite scoring and character...? Nothing comes to mind at all? Are you Mr. Lemieux?

I said intangibles. As in physicality, faceoff prowless, etc. Does not matter in this instance. Lemieux is far too dominating offensively which at the end of the day is a forwards responsibility. And at the end of the day no forward besides Gretzky performed at his level

 

[quoipourquoi]

Still a tip of the iceberg argument

Perhaps, but we definitely want to encourage progress in order to better develop our quality of discussion.

 

[MXD]

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 ****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.

Tagentially related to this is my main reason why I'm not even entertaining Beliveau vs. Lemieux here, as ...

I don't think I can come up with arguments for Beliveau > Lemieux that wouldn't also necessarily involve, if I'm being totally objective, Crosby > Lemieux. And no, that's totally not something I'm doing.

And yeah, that explains Dickie Moore getting, most of the time, the short end of the stick, despite having a claim at being the more useful, if not the best, Canadien between 1956 and 1960.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I don’t mean to start a useless argument but the idea of Lemieux being out of the top 4 has me wanting to counter. I’ve never heard that until now

Then you probably haven't read the HoH board that much, it's not a completely unheard of concept.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Tagentially related to this is my main reason why I'm not even entertaining Beliveau vs. Lemieux here, as ...

I don't think I can come up with arguments for Beliveau > Lemieux that wouldn't also necessarily involve, if I'm being totally objective, Crosby > Lemieux. And no, that's totally not something I'm doing.

And yeah, that explains Dickie Moore getting, most of the time, the short end of the stick, despite having a claim at being the more useful, if not the best, Canadien between 1956 and 1960.

Both were by far superior ambassadors for the game than Lemieux.

I'm not really making an argument for their rankings, just stating something that should be said.

 

[seventieslord]

I have never ever seen anyone put Beliveau ahead of Lemieux. So like another poster said? Why try to force it.

I'm not trying. That's the argument one would use.

Thanks to his health, Beliveau has more elite seasons and more elite playoffs. His elite seasons weren't quite as elite, though.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Depends what you mean though. He's legendary in not getting scored on, and that result is kinda what matters the most.

Even if, in a strict sense, you imagine the game was played 100% in your own end and sometime like, say, Bill White would have been slightly more effective at strict defense than Bobby Orr, he was still among the very best at that, and he played the game in a way that that situation actually was the least frequent one he would find himself in on the ice.

 

[Captain Bowie]

See how that’s a stronger argument than the one you made before? Keeping everyone on equal footing is going to be more persuasive.

This is a strong sticking point for me that sometimes gets lost between the cracks.

Please do bring your arguments to the discussion, but they must be applied evenly to all players/factors/era/whatever you are using. For example; @Ageless mentions Lemieux lost the Hart twice to Gretzky. This is not useful information unless you also show who the other guys finished 2nd to (if applicable). If done right, it should strengthen you point. If it doesn't, don't use it at all.

Beliveau finished 2nd in Hart voting three times, to Howe and then Hull and then Esposito.

Richard finished 2nd in Hart voting times, to teammate Elmer Lach and then to Milt Schmidt.

Without this additional info, I completely disregard your line about losing twice to Gretzky, because I have nothing to compare it to. But with it, it strengthens your point, and probably further helps to put more of a gap between Beliveau and Richard as well.

 

[seventieslord]

If Gretzky had spent his whole career doing nothing but whining in the media left and right - does it change his accomplishments?

If you add in that he was brittle and missed plenty of time, and took off certain games even though he wasn't injured in the traditional sense, then yes would have lesser achievements. We'd also look at his character, conditioning and durability differently.

he also has 2 truly remarkable achievements that showcase his courage and character. His return in 93 from cancer, and 01 from retirement.

1993 was awesome, of course, but 2001 was mostly about money, wasn't it?

 

[seventieslord]

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

number one, you are referring to a good number of awards that beliveau had no chance of winning when he played, and number two, for the ones that did exist when he played, you are making it seem as though winning the award is the only thing that matters, and never mind coming second or third.

 

[K Fleur]

1993 was awesome, of course, but 2001 was mostly about money, wasn't it?

The story that Lemieux has always maintained is that a big reason for the comeback was that he wanted his then 4 year old son to see him play.

Though I’m sure having a vested financial interest in the team and having the ability to put asses in the seats played at least a small part.

 

[VanIslander]

I just put an hour into a post to argue why Roy is 10th on this list by arguing for Hasek as not far away in terms of 'crunch time' performance.

I don't understand how the post disappeared. The only logic is mod interference?

What avenue do I have to finding out what happened.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We have 10 players eligible for discussion. Not 11, not 12, not 13...

And there are going to be times when only one player at a given position or era is eligible, but y’all got to stay focused.

Everyone’s doing a fantastic job integrating defenseman Orr into discussions with forwards Gretzky and Lemieux and Howe. And I’m going to hold you to the same level of cross-positional and cross-generational discussion among eligible players for five more months.

The next person to talk about an ineligible player has to buy everyone a round of drinks. And we have 32 participants, so this isn’t cheap.