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

[Hockey Outsider]

Trivia

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only players since O6 who led both in goals and assists in the same season are:

Gordie Howe (2)
Phil Esposito (1)
Wayne Gretzky (5)
Mario Lemieux (2)

Note that with Esposito you have Bobby Orr's shadow, which makes the group all connected to the Big 4 directly.

On top of my head Lafleur, Jagr, Mikita and perhaps a few others came really close but never did it.

Correct, those four are the only ones from WWII onward to lead the league in goals and assists in the same season. Some close calls:

• Howe was 2 assists away from doing this a 3rd time in 1963.
• Lemieux was 2 goals away from doing this a 3rd time in 1997.
• Jagr was 3 goals away from doing this in 1999.
• St. Louis was 3 goals away in 2004.
• Moore was 4 assists away in 1958 (behind his teammate H. Richard), then 4 goals away in 1959 (behind his linemate Beliveau).
• Lafleur was 4 goals away (behind his linemate Shutt) in 1977, then 5 assists away in 1978.
• Hull was 5 assists away in 1966.
• Gretzky was 5 goals away from doing this a 6th time (or his first time, chronologically) in 1980.
• Dionne was 3 goals and 2 assists away in 1980.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sorry to interject, but what in the world is R-off?

It's the ratio of goals for to goals against while a player is off the ice (typically at even strength). It helps give context to how good a player's team was, without him on the ice.

 

[ted2019]

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.



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

In Montreal he never had another superstar player go play his Robin to his Batman. Sure, they had strong teams in Montreal in the 80's and early 90's, never said that they didn't. All I said is that he never had another superstar.

 

[ted2019]

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.

In the next day or 2, I'm going to look at Mario vs. Beliveau, Mario vs. Hull, Mario vs. Harvey. I see Bourque/Roy as the bottom 2 on my list at least. I don't see Richard as a possible replacement and he could actually become 9th or 10th on my list. I think Richard had too many "down years" as a superstar player not to say what the hey.

 

[ted2019]

It's the ratio of goals for to goals against while a player is off the ice (typically at even strength). It helps give context to how good a player's team was, without him on the ice.

Can you pop over at the thread I made and help out with a few terms that I had posted?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Can you pop over at the thread I made and help out with a few terms that I had posted?

Sure, will give that a try.

 

[DitchMarner]

This might be a matter of opinion, but I think what they did offensively is more impressive than what they may have done had they committed more to a 2-way game. And it's not like team success suffered because of it.

Your point about wasting a roster spot on a bodyguard... didn't every team have at least one of these types of players at that time, regardless if they had a superstar to protect or not?

If Gretzky had scored 12-15 fewer points per season in order to play a major role in preventing 12-15 goals against per season, would that have made any practical difference? Would it have made him a better player or just a different player? The fact is his teams were able to win in both the regular season and in the playoffs while he played the way he did in his prime. If his style had prevented his teams from being able to win the Cup, then it would be more relevant to point out the fact that he wasn't nearly as good defensively as he was offensively. As it is, his defensive shortcomings (at least in comparison to his offensive abilities) basically just provide something for hockey fans who have an OCD (not meant to be an insult - all fans have their preferences and things that they don't like) about players needing to be "well-rounded" to nitpick.

Perhaps the same can be said about his lack of physical play/toughness.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I agree as I had the player who was a goalie for Chicago/Buffalo/Detroit/Ottawa/Detroit ahead of him.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

agree. I'd be more interested in most consecutive seasons in the top-x in scoring or above VsX score XX.X.

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 80:

• 21 - Howe
• 13 - Gretzky
• 10 - Mikita
• 9 - Jagr, Esposito, Bathgate
• 7 - Beliveau, Lindsay
• 6- Orr, Hull, Ovechkin, Lafleur, Crosby, Clarke, Bossy
• 5- Lemieux, Richard, Morenz, Yzerman, Selanne, Thornton, Kurri, Mahovlich, LeClair, Barry

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 100:

• 13 - Gretzky
• 8 - Esposito
• 5 - Lalfeur, Mikita
• 4 - Howe, Richard, Jagr
• 3- Orr, Ovechkin, Dionne, Lindsay, Bathgate

 

[ted2019]

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.

Instead of most dominant, maybe the phase most consistent would be better.

 

[ted2019]

Interesting.

Howe would have had 16 if not for 62 in 64 in 1954/55.

If taking into account non-consecutive, Howe is 2nd with 17, Mario tied with a handful of guys for 3rd at 15. Beliveau 12, Hull 11, Richard 8.

I don't know if it means anything, but it's amazing Richard had 8 overall, but never more than 2 in a row.

That's why I said earlier that Richard was the biggest superstar in this grouping that had just as many down seasons as he did up.

 

[ted2019]

Sorry to interject, but what in the world is R-off?

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/copy-of-adjusted-stats-1968-2013.2562225/

 

[Canadiens1958]

I agree as I had the player who was a goalie for Chicago/Buffalo/Detroit/Ottawa/Detroit ahead of him.

Traveling man ahead of a keeper?

 

[blogofmike]

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 80:

• 21 - Howe
• 12 - Gretzky
• 10 - Mikita
• 9 - Jagr, Esposito, Bathgate
• 7 - Beliveau, Lindsay
• 6- Orr, Hull, Lafleur, Crosby, Clarke, Bossy
• 5- Lemieux, Richard, Morenz, Ovechkin, Yzerman, Selanne, Thornton, Kurri, Mahovlich, LeClair, Barry

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 100:

• 12 - Gretzly
• 8 - Esposito
• 5 - Lalfeur, Mikita
• 4 - Howe, Richard, Jagr
• 3- Orr, Ovechkin, Dionne, Lindsay, Bathgate

For context, (and if you can do it easily) how many players hit VSXs of 100 and 80 in a given year?

VsX of 100 is usually the top 2 players (McDavid/Giroux last year). In an extreme outlier season (1988-89) I believe it goes as high as 4. A VsX of 80 would have been the Top 20, down to Panarin, unless I'm wrong about it not being an outlier season.

 

[blogofmike]

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 80:

• 21 - Howe
• 12 - Gretzky
• 10 - Mikita
• 9 - Jagr, Esposito, Bathgate
• 7 - Beliveau, Lindsay
• 6- Orr, Hull, Lafleur, Crosby, Clarke, Bossy
• 5- Lemieux, Richard, Morenz, Ovechkin, Yzerman, Selanne, Thornton, Kurri, Mahovlich, LeClair, Barry

Here are the players with the most consecutive seasons with a VsX of at least 100:

• 12 - Gretzly
• 8 - Esposito
• 5 - Lalfeur, Mikita
• 4 - Howe, Richard, Jagr
• 3- Orr, Ovechkin, Dionne, Lindsay, Bathgate

Should Gretzky be 13 straight 80+ years? 1992 wasn't great but I imagine being 3rd place and 2 back of 2nd is worth 80+ VsX points.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If Gretzky had scored 12-15 fewer points per season in order to play a major role in preventing 12-15 goals against per season, would that have made any practical difference? Would it have made him a better player or just a different player? The fact is his teams were able to win in both the regular season and in the playoffs while he played the way he did in his prime. If his style had prevented his teams from being able to win the Cup, then it would be more relevant to point out the fact that he wasn't nearly as good defensively as he was offensively. As it is, his defensive shortcomings (at least in comparison to his offensive abilities) basically just provide something for hockey fans who have an OCD (not meant to be an insult - all fans have their preferences and things that they don't like) about players needing to be "well-rounded" to nitpick.

Perhaps the same can be said about his lack of physical play/toughness.

Would would agree with pretty much everything you said here.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I have a very important question about the VsX stat.

Do people mentally read it as "Vee-Ess-Ex" or as "Versus Ex"?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Should Gretzky be 13 straight 80+ years? 1992 wasn't great but I imagine being 3rd place and 2 back of 2nd is worth 80+ VsX points.

Good catch. I realized I had a formula error that excluded any rookie seasons. I've updated the post - it looks like just Gretzky (both lists) and Ovechkin (2nd list) were affected.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I have a very important question about the VsX stat.

Do people mentally read it as "Vee-Ess-Ex" or as "Versus Ex"?

It's definitely the latter. Any other pronunciation constitutes blasphemy (or, if it's not spoken out loud, it constitutes a thought crime).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Excellent and astute post.

Soviet hockey was perfect offensively and defensively for Gretzky's cerebral game. Opposing players were predictably in the right places unlike NHL players who were less disciplined playing a somewhat random game.

That said there is the political reality. Like here, in the NHL Gretzky got a pass from the media for lax defence. Canada Cup time if he neglected defence,he would have been criticized across Canada for a long time.

Finally you raise the Gretzky paradox. Playing defence produced a five assist game. As often stated, defensive hockey generates offence.

Easy concept for a top 10 candidate to understand.

Not to mention puck possession is not always done in the offensive zone.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

For context, (and if you can do it easily) how many players hit VSXs of 100 and 80 in a given year?

VsX of 100 is usually the top 2 players (McDavid/Giroux last year). In an extreme outlier season (1988-89) I believe it goes as high as 4. A VsX of 80 would have been the Top 20, down to Panarin, unless I'm wrong about it not being an outlier season.

That's a good question. A VsX of 80 roughly corresponds to a top 15 scorer nowadays. From the end of WWII to the end of the Original Six era, there were 7.6 players per season (with a VsX of at least 80). From expansion through to 1979, there were 12.4 players per season. From 1980 to the lockout, it remained 12.4 per season. From 2006 onwards it's been 14.9 per season.

For the threshold of 100, there's 2 or 3 players every season (except for 4 in 1957, 1979 and 1989; and 5 in 1971 thanks to Orr and his teammates breaking the system).

There's nothing particular about those benchmarks (ie I could have chosen 75 or 83.6 just as easily).

 

[Captain Bowie]

Here's where I'm at so far. I came into this with the conventional rankings of 99-4-9-66. Not because I was so convinced that was the right order, but because I haven't seen a compelling enough argument to convince me otherwise.

Gretzky - Always knew he was number one, never would have thought anyone would dare think otherwise until the first time I ventured to the HOH section. I have read some good compelling arguments for Bobby Orr #1, they just don't jive with how I view the game/this type if project. He had played into his mid-30's it would absolutely be a much more interesting argument, but he didn't, so it's not. Howe and Lemieux, I just don't see the arguments even with a "what if Orr played longer" sized caveat.

Orr - As stated above, the arguments for him #1 are compelling. His peak is at least in the same ballpark as Gretzky's. There is a better argument for him at #1 than at #3 or lower, and I don't really buy the #1 argument. It's a shame he couldn't have had a longer career, just for the game of hockey in general. I don't know if there's a player as close to the greatest ever in his sport that had as short a career.

Howe - When I think about just Gordie Howe, I think absolutely he was good enough to be as high as #2 on this list. However I just can't justify it being at the expense of either guy above (I realize that is a contradicting statement). His longevity cannot be understated, and yet it is probably the very thing that causes his peak play from being overlooked, and because the numbers just weren't that flashy at the time. His level of domination was not that far below that of Gretzky as it appears on paper, and that's why it feels like he could be the #2 all time player, it just doesn't flesh out that way in reality.

Lemieux - Like Howe, Lemieux certainly feels like he is good enough to be the 2nd best player of all-time. Just not at the expense of Howe or Orr. His absolute peak I feel is above Howe for sure, and in the same ballpark as Orr and Gretzky as well. And it's unfortunate that something like cancer prevented him from dominating even more/longer than he did. He is however the only one that leaves me wanting just a little bit more. It feels like he should have been the only player to score 100 goals in a season. But we can only go by what he did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If Gretzky had scored 12-15 fewer points per season in order to play a major role in preventing 12-15 goals against per season, would that have made any practical difference? Would it have made him a better player or just a different player? The fact is his teams were able to win in both the regular season and in the playoffs while he played the way he did in his prime. If his style had prevented his teams from being able to win the Cup, then it would be more relevant to point out the fact that he wasn't nearly as good defensively as he was offensively. As it is, his defensive shortcomings (at least in comparison to his offensive abilities) basically just provide something for hockey fans who have an OCD (not meant to be an insult - all fans have their preferences and things that they don't like) about players needing to be "well-rounded" to nitpick.

Perhaps the same can be said about his lack of physical play/toughness.

Explain how players like Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Dickie Moore, managed to win the Art Ross while playing excellent defensive hockey.

 

[blogofmike]

Lemieux - Like Howe, Lemieux certainly feels like he is good enough to be the 2nd best player of all-time. Just not at the expense of Howe or Orr. His absolute peak I feel is above Howe for sure, and in the same ballpark as Orr and Gretzky as well. And it's unfortunate that something like cancer prevented him from dominating even more/longer than he did. He is however the only one that leaves me wanting just a little bit more. It feels like he should have been the only player to score 100 goals in a season. But we can only go by what he did.

Being the only guy who had to compete with Gretzky was a pretty high bar to begin with.

Based on what Lemieux actually did, Wayne Gretzky may have prevented Mario Lemieux from winning up to 6 Harts and 8 Art Ross Trophies in 12 years from 1985 to 1997 (omits 1995 lockout year that he skipped). You have to project Messier down by a couple points and assume the Ross is worth the Hart in 1987.

But even with missed time, he played well enough to have earned those awards against almost any other competition. Lemieux has a 141 point year where he was second in Hart voting and it's completely worthless in this thread because a peak Gretzky scored 215 (and could have won the Ross with only his 163 assists or only his 143 even strength points or I don't know, only however many points he scored on weekdays) and won the Hart instead.

But assuming it's Lemieux's 5th-7th best year (88, 89, 93, 96, probably better than but in the ballpark of 92 or 97) is it not a better year than the other 2 had against lesser competition? Say Howe's 1960 Hart season or one of Orr's first 2 Norrises?

Or maybe I need sleep. To that end, I'd say Roy has the best shot at 4 just by being a different position and playoffs and such, but that flies in the face contemporary opinions given that the likely #4 has the same birthday no matter how difficult it is to compare goaltenders to forwards.

 

[The Panther]

If you asked me the top-5 players all time, the only one I feel secure in placing is Mario Lemieux at #4.

I can see arguments for Orr and Howe above Gretzky (although, if we're just looking at prime, there's really no argument for anyone but Gretzky at #1). And the field is quite open for #5 -- not sure who that is. But Mario I would feel confident at #4.