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

[quoipourquoi]

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

What avenue do I have to finding out what happened.

I’ll PM you the content now so you can use it when the ineligible player you spent an hour of research into is eligible.

 

[Captain Bowie]

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.

I feel special, I saw it.

 

[VanIslander]

Let me be clear.

We have the right to say we will have to vote a player LAST in a group of 10 choices if we are NOT ALLOWED to conpare that player with someone not on the list of ten.

I don't understabd why we can't argue a player on the list vs. one off the list!!!!

Please ve consistent and disallow all Crosby conparisons and any future such comparisons of a player on the list to one off of it.

 

[MXD]

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.

I'm pretty sure that it's because your post was about Hasek, which isn't eligible, and not about Roy.

You know, I'm pretty sure a post about how Hull should be ranked 10th because LW Alex Ovechkin is superior would get deleted, too. Same logic applies to players in other positions, I suppose.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I'm pretty sure that it's because your post was about Hasek, which isn't eligible, and not about Roy.

You know, I'm pretty sure a post about how Hull should be ranked 10th because LW Alex Ovechkin is superior would get deleted, too. Same logic applies to players in other positions, I suppose.

Drink!

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let me be clear.

We have the right to say we will have to vote a player LAST in a group of 10 choices if we are NOT ALLOWED to conpare that player with someone not on the list of ten.

Let me be clear.

Spending an hour composing a post about an ineligible player could’ve been better spent composing one on an eligible player.

 

[VanIslander]

See you guys next week.

 

[pappyline]

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.

Isn't this whole exercise about reaching a consensus?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

See you guys next week.

Please don't be that guy. Nothing in this thread indicated that Roy was anywhere near cracking the usual suspects in the top quartet. I suspect we'll have plenty of time to discuss Roy vs. he-who-shall-remain-nameless in the next round of voting, when it really matters. For the purpose of the current conversation, it matters not-at-all whether Roy finishes 5th, or finishes 10th.

Lots of people feel the way you do about that matter. [Not me, though.] It will be a spirited exchange- but we shouldn't sell that wine before its time!

 

[seventieslord]

Isn't this whole exercise about reaching a consensus?

No.

 

[overg]

What I am still hoping to see is a deep dive comparison between Howe and Orr. Maybe I'm just extremely bad at reading tea leaves, but my sense is that Gretzky is going to end up #1 and Lemieux is going to end up #4.

I believe that HoH has traditionally deemed Orr the superior player, but since the last time they were directly compared back in 2009, a lot of work has been done to show just how dominant Howe was at his peak. Which I suspect will mean the #2 and #3 spots are really in play.

One honest question I have . . . before Gretzky appeared, was Howe or Orr considered the best player of all time? My impression is that those "within" the NHL (players, coaches, journalists) considered Howe the best of all time, while perhaps those "outside" (namely, fans) preferred Orr. Does that seem fair, or am I off base? Regardless of the answer, I don't think it's dispositive. Sometimes history adds extra context, and eyewitness perceptions, while extremely valuable, lack the wisdom of hindsight. Still, knowing how the pre-Gretzky world viewed things provides an interesting data point.

The "longevity" angle between the two is obviously in Howe's favor. It's also is pretty apparent that Orr is considered to have had the higher peak. So I guess the real question is, how much more dominant was Bobby Orr than Gordie Howe?

 

[overg]

No.

I really, really, really, hope the answer is no. The discussions and debates are what are so fascinating and educational about these projects. There is really no further reason for either if a consensus is ever reached. We could just slap the list up on Wikipedia, sticky a thread on reddit/hockey, and be done with it.

This project should hopefully move those reading it *toward* a consensus . . . that just means everyone is learning something. But actually *reaching* a consensus? That would essentially mean hockey would be "solved," and what's the fun in that?

 

[MXD]

No.

... Well, ideally, yes. It just won't happen.

 

[The Macho King]

I don't see the point as consensus? We're still voting. The result isn't one of consensus but voting totals after reasoned debate. I will definitely *not* agree with the final result in all aspects, but that's okay.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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.

When I mention he finished second to Gretzky in hart voting why wouldn’t they strengthen his claim. Gretzky is universally regarded as the goat player. So basically the goat player is the reason Lemieux doesn’t have 5 harts

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

But I do see where your coming from

 

[quoipourquoi]

The point is to better inform ourselves so that every participant and reader could theoretically - if asked to do so - create a better top-100 list than the one they sent me two weeks ago.

The creation of a list that literally no one will agree with 100% is and has always been secondary to the goal of HOH projects to shape more informed posters through the process itself.

You are all in a team-building retreat; some of you just don’t know it yet.

 

[Captain Bowie]

When I mention he finished second to Gretzky in hart voting why wouldn’t they strengthen his claim. Gretzky is universally regarded as the goat player. So basically the goat player is the reason Lemieux doesn’t have 5 harts

For the sake of completeness. Simply stated that is making too many assumptions that the reader has the information you did not provide.

 

[pappyline]

I don't see the point as consensus? We're still voting. The result isn't one of consensus but voting totals after reasoned debate. I will definitely *not* agree with the final result in all aspects, but that's okay.

You are right. it will not be a consensus, I used the word incorrectly.

 

[ImporterExporter]

One could argue that Howe is the most dominant all around forward of all time rather easily.

His 7 year VsX is better than everyone not named Gretzky and Esposito.
Won 6 Hart's (earliet at age 23 and last one at 34) and had 6 finalist nods.
Won 6 Art Rosses (including 4 in a row) including 103 points in 70 games at aged 40 when he finished 3rd in the scoring race.
21 time AS
4 Cups
Most physically imposing and dominant player in history. Didn't need a bodyguard to protect his ass.
Well rounded in all 3 zones
Played in an era when he was facing multiple dynasties, many times (Montreal and Toronto) a season unlike the the 70's-80's when teams could feast on many expansion level squads.

 

[Batis]

I have one question regarding the defensive effort of Gretzky in his prime. Did Gretzky generally show more effort on the defensive side of the game during the playoffs compared to the regular season? The reason why I ask this is that when watching Gretzky play against the Soviets internationally (which I have done alot lately) he most of the time worked very hard defensively. So I figured that Gretzky perhaps withheld his defensive effort to games where it truly was needed to win.

When asked which is the greatest game from a individual player you have seen I always answer Gretzky in game 2 of the 1987 Canada Cup Final because of the way he willed his team to victory with 5 assists and very hard work all around. Even if this shift below did not end with a goal for Canada it is still in my opinion Gretzkys best shift of the game. First two great backchecks against Makarov and Larionov early on and at the end of the shift a steal against Krutov and a great play which almost ends up in a goal for Canada.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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

I would like to see you touch on Lemieux's defensive game. Contrary to commonly-parroted beliefs in here and in many other threads, offense is not a forward's, or anyone's, sole responsibility. Contributing as much as possible to winning hockey games via offense, defense, and everything else is a player's responsibility. All aspects of the game matter for every candidate.

It would seem Lemieux contributed more offensively than just about every player in history. So he's off to an amazing start just right there. But it would also seem his offense may have come at a greater defensive cost than just about any other player in history as well, or at least the other candidates.

Lemieux's plus/minus data is abysmal for a player that produced the amount of offense that he did. That's the elephant in the room as far as #66 goes, at least for me. The data indicates he was on the ice for an enormous amount of ES goals against. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. We know Lemieux suffered at times from having weak linemates or goaltenders. We know shallow rosters would lead to situations where he would have been out there pressing for a goal and justifiably taking risks defensively because his team was trailing in the third period. We know he contributed immensely on the PP, which does not credit a player with a plus. But does this really explain away the unflattering data in its entirety? I'm not convinced that it does.

If I were concerned that "my guy" Lemieux was in danger of dropping out of the top 4, I would address this problem first and foremost. We're all familiar with Lemieux's strengths. It's his apparent weaknesses that jeopardize a top 4 position. This can apply to Gretzky's Kings days as well, and would seem to be the number one reason somebody might vote for Howe or Orr ahead of #99.

 

[Captain Bowie]

One could argue that Howe is the most dominant all around forward of all time rather easily.


Most physically imposing and dominant player in history. Didn't need a bodyguard to protect his ass.

Serious question, is this actually true? Was he actually the most physically imposing player ever? As in, there was no other player that played the game more physical than Gordie Howe?

 

[blogofmike]

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.




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?

The thing about R-on and R-off is that it came with several caveats, most of which come up when comparing players across a decade, in different team situations, in different positions.

Also, Orr ran up his R-on more against the AHL-calibre teams to an extent Gretzky did not (1979's WHA class brought several top 20 scorers, a new Hart winner, a new highest-scoring defender, and new goaltender wins leader - players who surpassed existing stars. 1967's AHL class saw guys who had been out of the NHL over a decade pop in, and the leading new scorer finish 20th - they were players who were doormats and couldn't outcompete existing stars.

Also Orr's r-off has a lot of Don Awrey. Gretzky's has a lot of Messier and Anderson.

Also Overpass found Gretzky to be the 10th best PK centre of the post 67-68 era using that SH+ metric. And in Gretzky's day he wasn't benefitting from against AHL teams giving him an artificially low average to beat (and crappy PP units to stop). And Edmonton lacked Boston's playoff PK problems - where Orr was used more than everyone you say?

If nothing else, even if we pretend that Orr wasn't racking up relative pluses against the Seals and accomplishing relatively nothing against Chicago (if you believe in the metrics you keep posting, that is bad), I would like someone to quantify what the ratios mean. To assume that without Bobby Orr, the Bruins would be stuck at his off-ice ratio is plainly wrong. 2 years after he left, the Bruins matched the ratio. There are a half dozen confounding variables that make +/- ratios imprecise - AND we can't estimate what they're worth. Because right now the adjusted P/M number isn't much more useful than regular plus/minus with lots of the same unwarranted credit and blame being assigned.

PS
Gretzky's still the greatest playoff performer of all-time and by a margin that Orr can't compete with him there.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I have one question regarding the defensive effort of Gretzky in his prime. Did Gretzky generally show more effort on the defensive side of the game during the playoffs compared to the regular season? The reason why I ask this is that when watching Gretzky play against the Soviets internationally (which I have done alot lately) he most of the time worked very hard defensively. So I figured that Gretzky perhaps withheld his defensive effort to games where it truly was needed to win.

When asked which is the greatest game from a individual player you have seen I always answer Gretzky in game 2 of the 1987 Canada Cup Final because of the way he willed his team to victory with 5 assists and very hard work all around. Even if this shift below did not end with a goal for Canada it is still in my opinion Gretzkys best shift of the game. First two great backchecks against Makarov and Larionov early on and at the end of the shift a steal against Krutov and a great play which almost ends up in a goal for Canada.

Great clip.

The issue is consistency. If Gretzky put up that kind of effort night in and night out, far more than he actually did, he would have never scored 200+ points multiple times. He probably would have never hit 180 or 190. It isn't an issue of skill. It's desire, era, coaching, etc. Same thing with Mario. They could have both been Selke players or at least near that level from day 1 but they chose (coaching was part of this as well) to ignore that aspect of the game. Anyone can just blame it on the era and say there was no point in them playing D, but I've gotten to the point where I think that's lazy analysis. Plus 99 needed a body guard for years, which is a waste of a roster spot on someone who couldn't really play the game in any meaningful manner. And again, people will argue era but if that's the case, then every star would have had some nutjob following him around the ice. Players like Howe and Orr either didn't need that or didn't have that luxury.