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

[MXD]

I have dozens (hundreds?) of potential tables that I can post, but I'd like to keep things simple. I'm open to feedback, but I think there are two key tables I'd like to post at the start of each voting round.


Here's how they stack up in ten year VsX:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	TOTAL
Wayne Gretzky	169.4	169.4	158.1	154.1	152.5	144.2	141.7	121.5	120.9	115.1	144.7
Gordie Howe	155.7	132.8	130.3	124.6	115.6	111.3	108.5	106.2	98.6	97.6	118.1
Mario Lemieux	143.2	134.2	128.2	112.9	111.9	108.1	100.0	99.1	95.3	87.5	112.0
Bobby Hull	124.4	114.3	111.5	106.7	101.3	100.0	100.0	89.3	85.5	85.3	101.8
Jean Beliveau	123.9	109.6	109.1	100.0	100.0	98.7	98.6	92.5	84.4	83.1	100.0
Maurice Richard	112.7	109.8	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	94.2	93.6	88.3	80.5	97.9
Bobby Orr	154.4	139.5	134.1	111.6	107.3	97.1	59.8	58.6	36.9	21.9	92.1
Raymond Bourque	88.0	81.7	79.3	75.8	69.8	68.3	65.1	63.7	61.8	61.5	71.5
Doug Harvey	66.2	64.9	62.0	60.7	57.7	55.7	48.1	43.9	43.3	42.0	54.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For those not familiar with VsX, check this link. Roy isn't included because you can't compare goalies to other positions directly using this metric (everybody take a shot - gin).

Something of a procedural question

VsX-10 or VsX-7?

I think we would be right to completely disregard VsX-5.

Fun fact : Unless I completely derped the calculation, which is possible, Bobby Orr is, in this group at least, ahead of Bobby Hull (and Beliveau, and Richard) on VsX-7.

Does Bourbon Maple Syrup (with the waffles) counts?

 

[quoipourquoi]

We've talked about this before, and I agree that your points are completely valid. In some years, the top two or three vote-getters eat up so many of the votes that everyone else is left with almost nothing. (I don't think the 5% threshold is necessarily the problem - even a 1% threshold would exclude Roy and Chelios in a particularly tough year like 1989).

You're right though - my main concern is a rogue voter or two giving someone an undeserved placement. (A recent example - not that this would be relevant for this project - is Craig Anderson, who officially finished 9th in Hart voting in 2010, on the strength of a single voter).

If the consensus is that it's better for me to present pure rankings (without any threshold), I can do that instead of (or in addition to) the table I already posted.

Roy, too, had a rogue voter in 2002-03, taking a single first-place vote for going 22-4 down the stretch (essentially giving him more than double his voting share of 1988-89), but like the Anderson example, I don’t know that it was necessarily impactful given how far away from the top names they had placed.

More relevant would be in a specialized award like the Vezina, like Lundqvist continuing to stretch his top-6 in Vezina voting streak off of a single voter, but I don’t know that we were seeing that sort of thing from Roy in 1989, Gretzky and Roy in 1990, or Bourque in 1991 who in addition to picking up the scraps of the top-3 in Hart voting were strong 1st Team All-Stars at Defense/Goal or 2nd Team at Center.

While we may have some take it as gospel that Steve Larmer in 1991 (0-1-2 in Hart voting) was better than Joe Sakic in 1991 (0-0-3 in Hart voting), I guess I’m of the opinion that in the case of easily digestible tables, it might be better to know the rank and sort it out in the discussion if it was deserved as opposed to the situation where we may get 2 players from one season and 12 from another depending not on the players’ performance but the ballot distributed to the media.

 

[daver]

Second, scoring environment. Gretzky had an easier time to rise above the crop, because the environment he played in lent itself to scoring more than Lemieux's, as much as for the time they were both in the league than for the time where only one of them was. I remember that we digged into this with the wingers project with Michel Goulet, and what I recall for this is that the effect was absolutely real, but, while it moved the needle at Goulet's level, I high doubt it does so at Gretzky/Lemieux's level. Also, one of the bigger reasons why the Smythe division teams allowed more goals is, well... facing the Oilers. So, chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Of the two seasons that Mario is generally viewed as being on Wayne's peak level (88/89 and 92/93), based on the PPGs of the Top 50 to 100 scorers, one is arguably the easiest season for first liners to score in NHL history and the other did not stand out from any other season from the '80s as being easier.

Mario's arguably 3rd best season (95/96) also saw a similar # of players above a PPG making it more like an 80's season than a DPE season.

 

[VanIslander]

VsX-10 or VsX-7?

I think we would be right to completely disregard VsX-5.

I tend to value the longer terms and give less consideration to the shorter, 5-year peak. But it is sometimes relevant.

 

[bobholly39]

Do we take into account defensive play of forwards?

If we will later (Nighbor, Fedorov, etc) then how about now.

Gordie Howe deserves some credit for the many, many accounts of his complete game. For example, Bowman says he was excellent defensively. Shall we profile his greatness without the puck? Will it make some difference?

I know some people will say it's the same thing but it is NOT.

Bonus points for strong defensive play? Sure. So give Howe bonus points, for example, and maybe give Lemieux/Gretzky none (or very little).
Subtract for weak defensive play if it wasn't your role? Nope. So I hope Gretzky and Lemieux get no deductions when assessing them based on defensive play/ability. Their coaches/teams/systems wanted them to play offense, not defense, and so we shouldn't penalize them for lack of defense.

 

[bobholly39]

To keep this simple - to me Wayne Gretzky is impossible to dislodge at #1.

Peak? He DESTROYED the league in every way imaginable. Howe had a great 1953, and few surrounding years, and very consistent prime - but Gretzky torched the league in a way far superior. And he didn't do it 1-2 years only, he did it arguable for 10 years straight, with very, very little dip in production throughout those 10 years. In fact 9 of those 10 years are enough for the greatest point total in NHL history each and every season minus Lemieux. This is staggering.

Prime? Well defending on how one define's prime - he again ranks #1 easily. Very much on the strength of his peak years - but even outside his peak he was winning Art rosses in the 90s and finishing high in scoring.

Career? He has all the records you can imagine. Points, assist, goals - in many cases records that are so ridiculous they are unlikely to ever be broken.

Playoffs? Once again - he is very tough to beat. Especially vs the other big 4 candidates (howe, orr, Lemieux). He has the best runs - and the most high level runs - out of any of them.

International stage? Again he torched all the big tournaments, winning multiple gold and always finishing top in scoring (during his prime years). Easily #1 among the 4 (and arguably all-time).

If we were doing single peak seasons - Orr can have a case. If we are to give ridiculously high importance to longevity/durability - Howe can outshine him maybe, since he played longer. But all in all I think Gretzky at #1 is an absolute slam dunk.

He has no weakness in his resume, and how can you not be #1 overall when you're #1 in every single category?

 

[bobholly39]

I can see three things :

First, goalscoring through eyetest. Not the act of scoring goals per se, but goalscoring skillset. Mario Lemieux had a skillset that lent itself to scoring goals in a ton of different ways, and the fact Gretzky scored more goals (both from a relative than a absolute view point) doesn't make him a better scorer, because, basically, reasons (though some might actually be valid).

Second, scoring environment. Gretzky had an easier time to rise above the crop, because the environment he played in lent itself to scoring more than Lemieux's, as much as for the time they were both in the league than for the time where only one of them was. I remember that we digged into this with the wingers project with Michel Goulet, and what I recall for this is that the effect was absolutely real, but, while it moved the needle at Goulet's level, I high doubt it does so at Gretzky/Lemieux's level. Also, one of the bigger reasons why the Smythe division teams allowed more goals is, well... facing the Oilers. So, chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Third, Mario Lemieux could play better defense (if asked to). This is something I clearly remember Scotty Bowman saying on the radio (in French), and I should look for a quote. The issue with this, well... it's kinda moot, since it appears not many people bothered to ask him such a thing.

So that are the reasons I can see why someone would consider Lemieux the better player. All three come up with significant caveats as well. I suppose there's a fourth : Gretzky was better surrounded. I don't think there's a possible caveat for this one, but, respectfully, I don't quite think this is a relevant argument at this level.

There are also reasons why we might consider Orr a "better" player - but this should be about the better career, right? If so - even if we agree with the above 3 points (and I get that you aren't necessarily arguing them as facts) - Gretzky accomplished so much more than Lemieux even if hypothetically one could make a case that Lemieux was the "better" hockey player.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Four Montreal Canadiens!
Which one was the greatest?
Lots of ink has been spilt on that question.

Lafleur, but he didn't make the cut.

 

[bobholly39]

I have dozens (hundreds?) of potential tables that I can post, but I'd like to keep things simple. I'm open to feedback, but I think there are two key tables I'd like to post at the start of each voting round.

Here's how the ten candidates stack up in terms of Hart trophy voting:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th+	Total
Gordie Howe	6	1	5	2	3		1	18
Wayne Gretzky	9	1	1	1	1			13
Mario Lemieux	3	3	1	1	1			9
Bobby Orr	3		4	1		1		9
Jean Beliveau	2	4	1	2				9
Bobby Hull	2	2	4		1			9
Maurice Richard	1	2	3					6
Ray Bourque		2			2	1		5
Doug Harvey		1	1		3			5
Patrick Roy		1	1		1		1	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This is filtered to exclude any year where a player received less than 5% of the available votes (the intention is to avoid overstating their results based on a few random votes). Note also that this data goes back to the end of WWII (so it captures all ten players' entire careers).

Here's how they stack up in ten year VsX:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	TOTAL
Wayne Gretzky	169.4	169.4	158.1	154.1	152.5	144.2	141.7	121.5	120.9	115.1	144.7
Gordie Howe	155.7	132.8	130.3	124.6	115.6	111.3	108.5	106.2	98.6	97.6	118.1
Mario Lemieux	143.2	134.2	128.2	112.9	111.9	108.1	100.0	99.1	95.3	87.5	112.0
Bobby Hull	124.4	114.3	111.5	106.7	101.3	100.0	100.0	89.3	85.5	85.3	101.8
Jean Beliveau	123.9	109.6	109.1	100.0	100.0	98.7	98.6	92.5	84.4	83.1	100.0
Maurice Richard	112.7	109.8	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	94.2	93.6	88.3	80.5	97.9
Bobby Orr	154.4	139.5	134.1	111.6	107.3	97.1	59.8	58.6	36.9	21.9	92.1
Raymond Bourque	88.0	81.7	79.3	75.8	69.8	68.3	65.1	63.7	61.8	61.5	71.5
Doug Harvey	66.2	64.9	62.0	60.7	57.7	55.7	48.1	43.9	43.3	42.0	54.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For those not familiar with VsX, check this link. Roy isn't included because you can't compare goalies to other positions directly using this metric (everybody take a shot - gin).

For the Hart table - i wonder if awarding points per rank would be more representative of strength of resume? ex Hart win - 10 points. 2nd place 9 points, 3rd place 8 points, etc. (could argue different value per rank too, such as 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 to give more merit to top 1, 2 and 3).

For the VsX - i assume games played is a big proponent here - and thus probably hurts someone like Lemieux? Is there any comparable method to compare PPG?

 

[DannyGallivan]

I don't think we tend to cut him much slack at all actually. Many people believe that Orr was the best player that ever lived. Orr not having a full career is the only reason I have Gretzky ranked ahead of Orr. Gretzky simply did so much more.

Orr was still more overpowering than Gretzky for the simple reason that Orr did everything at a legendary level. If Orr was a centre, Wayne may still have the higher numbers, but not by as much as you'd think. It may have been Orr's numbers he'd have threatened, certainly not Espo's.

However, if Wayne was a defenseman he'd be a train wreck... perhaps he'd be on a Phil Housley level at best. Orr was the best offensive AND best defensive defenseman. He could skate better than anybody, shoot better (or nearly better), pass better, plus he hit, fought, blocked shots and was just plain dominant in every facet.

If this is about "the best" (as I think it is) as opposed to the longest, most complete career, then I can't see how anybody who's ever watched hockey would pick Gretzky over Orr. It's all about the paradigm you're using.

 

[DannyGallivan]

If we were doing single peak seasons - Orr can have a case. If we are to give ridiculously high importance to longevity/durability - Howe can outshine him maybe, since he played longer. But all in all I think Gretzky at #1 is an absolute slam dunk.

This is such hyperbole. I get it, you're impressed by Gretzky's numbers. We all are. However, I can see a case for every member of the "big 4", and I see the best case not for Gretzky, but for Orr.

So, what model are you using for this exercise?

1. The best player: it's gotta be Orr.
2. The best career: it's gotta be Howe
3. The best numbers: now Wayne pops up.

 

[MXD]

There are also reasons why we might consider Orr a "better" player - but this should be about the better career, right? If so - even if we agree with the above 3 points (and I get that you aren't necessarily arguing them as facts) - Gretzky accomplished so much more than Lemieux even if hypothetically one could make a case that Lemieux was the "better" hockey player.

Yep. Those are elements that would support the claim that Lemieux is the better player (and not that he had the better career), by, essentially, having us go a bit above-and-beyond the numbers.

I mean, someone has to put forth arguments for every side, right? This isn't politics.

 

[VanIslander]

Lafleur, but he didn't make the cut.

Lafleur may be the greatest Hab qua Hab, that is, the one most valuable to the franchise, invaluable to a dynasty team and setting franchise career records.

But Lafleur may not be the greatest hockey player who was a Hab, the best player of all time who happened to play in Montreal, the player with the best peak, career and talent.

I've thought the importance of Lafleur to Montreal's last dynasty might be similar to Keon's value to Toronto's last dynasty (remember in 2016 the greatest Leaf vote saw Keon on top). This takes different considerations, more focused on how a player helps the franchise than on the greatness of a player to players on other teams in his and other eras.

 

[solidmotion]

scoring environment.

just to add to that: i think lemieux's ability to dominate in several different eras bolsters his argument. 2000-01 is a well-known case in point. comes back halfway through the season after several years away in a drastically different scoring environment to the one he'd left and leads league in gpg, apg, and ppg, saves team's season (15-14-6 before his return, 27-14-3 afterwards), saves jagr's season (barely ppg before lemieux's return, almost 2ppg afterwards, won art ross), etc.

with lemieux, as with richard, it's at least as much about the myth as the actual results. the style, the stories. 92-93 is the other obvious example. and then there's 5 goals 5 ways, scoring on first shift, the goal vs the north stars... definitely the best highlight reel of all time.

i think from the kind of holistic perspective that this board rightly uses, which weighs talent and accomplishments and myth and consistency, etc., in proportion, there is no argument for lemieux over gretzky. but i would understand individuals rating lemieux at #1 if their criteria are different—eye test, clutch play, putting the team on your back, i dunno. (e.g. i think scotty bowman put lemieux higher.)

 

[bobholly39]

Orr was still more overpowering than Gretzky for the simple reason that Orr did everything at a legendary level. If Orr was a centre, Wayne may still have the higher numbers, but not by as much as you'd think. It may have been Orr's numbers he'd have threatened, certainly not Espo's.

However, if Wayne was a defenseman he'd be a train wreck... perhaps he'd be on a Phil Housley level at best. Orr was the best offensive AND best defensive defenseman. He could skate better than anybody, shoot better (or nearly better), pass better, plus he hit, fought, blocked shots and was just plain dominant in every facet.

If this is about "the best" (as I think it is) as opposed to the longest, most complete career, then I can't see how anybody who's ever watched hockey would pick Gretzky over Orr. It's all about the paradigm you're using.

Your last point - this is not about "best" player - if not you might have Connor McDavid in your top 20. It's about best overall career - and a component of career is how "good" the player was, or peak or best as you say. But it's certainly not the only piece, nor necessarily always the biggest.

Also - your analogy is probably correct. Orr as a center >>> Gretzky as a defenseman. But how is that in anyway relevant? Gretzky was a center - and pretty easily the greatest one ever. Orr was a defenseman, again greatest ever. Trying to guess how one would play in a different position doesn't mean anything.

 

[The Macho King]

So Gretz is #1 for me and he isn't budging.

I want to hear the argument for #2 - Orr v. Howe.

With Orr you have limited playing time, but arguably the second greatest peak of all time (and maybe the highest single peak season), he dominated his position in a way that no one has since, he won the Art Ross twice *as a Dman*, led the league in assists 5 times, topped 100 points 6 times, and changed the position.

For the record - Orr's accomplishments or ranking isn't based on "what ifs" - the dude accomplished.

Howe is an interesting #2 argument though. Longest prime of any player in the sport. 6 Harts, 6 Ross. 52-53 may rival Orr for single peak season if not for the lack of a Cup at the end of it.

It's an interesting discussion. Do we rate a (relatively) short, but absolutely transcendent 8 years over a long and remarkably consistent career that achieved similar highs?

One question I have for the group - do we take any points away from Howe for only winning 4 Cups (or comparatively, Orr for only winning 2)? That Red Wings team was stacked, but outside of the early 50s they never made it through.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Your last point - this is not about "best" player - if not you might have Connor McDavid in your top 20. It's about best overall career - and a component of career is how "good" the player was, or peak or best as you say. But it's certainly not the only piece, nor necessarily always the biggest.

Also - your analogy is probably correct. Orr as a center >>> Gretzky as a defenseman. But how is that in anyway relevant? Gretzky was a center - and pretty easily the greatest one ever. Orr was a defenseman, again greatest ever. Trying to guess how one would play in a different position doesn't mean anything.

A few quick points:

1. I think there is not a lot separating the big four, so I'm not going to attack any of them during a debate. To me it's a photo finish.
2. Although in my mind it's a photo-finish, Orr was simply so much better than his peers, accomplished so much more, and after all these decades is still so relevant in this conversation, and did it all as a defensman, gives him the edge. He had no holes in his game (only his knees). None.
3. We can't just fall into the trap of looking at numbers in a vacuum. The "eye test" is also important. Context is also important.
4. Although his is not relevant to the Orr vs Gretzky debate, I think Lemieux is not given anywhere enough credit for his excellence among the big four.

 

[DannyGallivan]

So Gretz is #1 for me and he isn't budging

You can read my arguments of Orr > Gretzky to see why I think it's Orr > anybody in history.

 

[pappyline]

I feel like Ray Bourque, great as he was, stands out in two bad ways:

1) He's the one who had the least star power out of that group

2) Him and Hull are the worst playoff performers out of that group

When talking about Top 10 players especially, star power and playoff performances are high on my list of priorities, which is why he's currently the most likely to be voted last by me.But the night is young...

I think you are confusing cup counting with playoff performance.

 

[The Macho King]

You can read my arguments of Orr > Gretzky to see why I think it's Orr > anybody in history.

The "if Wayne was a Dman" argument? Not super convincing.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm 10 for 10 thus far. Glad to see Roy in the top 10. It's about time the greatest goalie ever has a place in the top 10.

I have Orr #1. No player has ever dominated at both ends of the ice the way he did. Gretzky was an offensive white wizard but Orr literally owned the ice, all of it until his knees were finally jello, which is one of the great shames in sports history. He dominated at ES, on the PP, on the kill. Didn't matter where or when he was used.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Someone said if we are taking all around players seriously in this round. I tend to compare Harvey vs. Mario when I have more time. I think Harvey could have a case for 4th.

I don't think you're gonna get a lot out of that, frankly...I'd entertain it, but the difference between Lemieux and Harvey is pretty drastic...

 

[DannyGallivan]

The "if Wayne was a Dman" argument? Not super convincing.

...because?

How about
1. Better skater: Orr
2. Better shooter: Orr
3. Better passer: tie
4. Better vision: Gretzky
5. Better defensively: c'mon, we're joking, right?
6. Tougher: Orr

People forget that although Orr was the poster boy for rushing defensemen, he wasn't some kind of "rover". He was so fast that he could get back and defend after rushing the puck by himself. He was dominant in every area of the ice.

...and people always forget context. HE WAS A DEFENSEMAN. As good as Gretzky's numbers were, he was a centre. It is simply mind-boggling to think a d-man could win the Art Ross, not once, but twice!

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm 10 for 10 thus far. Glad to see Roy in the top 10. It's about time the greatest goalie ever has a place in the top 10.

I'm seven for 10. The Rocket, Roy and Bourque weren't in my top 10. I'm a little surprised that Bourque is so high.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Players changing positions in a hypothetical environment is not a productive area of discussion in my opinion. It doesn't prove anything. Taking a player out of a position he didn't develop in and say "see, he wouldn't have been good" is, frankly, ridiculous...if Gretzky grew up a d-man, I'd bet he'd be the best or second best d-man of all time too...

Also, the notion that "oh, he's a defenseman, so therefore he was less likely to get points" (or some such) is nonsense...the breakout ran through Orr, all the offense did because they didn't have a fast center to lug it...in the same way that kids today go, "oh, why doesn't Erik Karlsson play wing?" is the same reason why Orr is disadvantaged at forward, he doesn't get more points up there, he gets less, because he used the momentum of players against them with his skating ability...cutting his ice in half would be detriment...

That said, if Orr grew up a center, I'm sure he would have been fine too...

Either way, dealing in extreme hypotheticals isn't going to get us towards a solution here I don't think...