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

[quoipourquoi]

I respect your feeling that way, but it's where I'm at. And I particularly don't think it's all that reductive.

If some people want to just post offensive numbers and not focus on (even acknowledge) other aspects of hockey, I could say looking at the evaluation process with that lens is more reductive then anything I'm doing or have done. Again, just an opinion like anyone else.

I don't see metrics or any reasons in terms of peer accounts to say that Orr wasn't the greatest offensive threat from the back end by miles (even over a one way Coffey), while stacking up against 99.9% of F's all time offensively, wasn't the greatest even strength or special teams player of all time.

But I think assigning the tag of “most people” who have Gretzky #1 might be the trouble part. I’m sure there are some people - perhaps myself included - who see the offensive numbers and stop in their tracks, but I wouldn’t say “most people” who have Gretzky #1 are doing that. We have some smart cookies here, and there just might be a greater weight assigned to longevity and reliability than that assigned to Orr’s complete game.

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer in the project - other than discounting each other’s ways of thinking or submitting lists with less than 28 goaltenders.

 

[BraveCanadian]

When the league added teams during Orr's era, the level was still pretty good because the NHL was decades behind in expansion anyways, and the minors were bursting at the seams with legitimate NHL talent that had no room in the artificially-low six team league.

The disparity that followed expansion doesn't show this to be the case, at all.

Outside the war years, I think most people here tend to agree that the 70s was another of the eras where the haves and havenots is quite stark.

 

[bobholly39]

This is where I'm at already to be quite frank.

Orr is the greatest all around player who ever lived. Howe is the most consistent and did it for an insanely long period of time. Gretzky the best offensively. Lemeiux lags a bit behind 99.

Gretzky gets #1 because most people stop at the numbers and don't go beyond them. IMO the wrong approach becaue it's the path of least resistance.

Can you please try and demonstrate why or how Orr's superior defense is enough to trump Gretzky's superior offense? Whether on a season by season basis, for playoffs, or for the overall prime/career? I agree it's easier to look at Gretzky's numbers because they're there to see. You're saying you went beyond them - please explain how? Convince me. Even though I value offense a lot - i'm open minded and happy to be convinced. But it has to be more than mostly only statements i've seen such as "Orr is the greatest all around player". What does that even mean? It's too simplistic an opinion imo.

Finally - I see absolutely no case for both Howe and Orr over Gretzky. In fact - I'd go as far as to say that I think it would be almost dishonest for someone to put BOTH Orr and Howe above Gretzky. If one values longevity a LOT - great, Howe gets bumped up a lot, but so does Gretzky and Orr lags behind. If one values peak a lot, great Orr gets bumped up a lot but so does Gretzky, and Howe lags behind. In what scenario can Gretzky not end up top 2? (I think he's an easy top 1 myself - but let's stick to just top 2).

 

[DannyGallivan]

We dont count games but seasons played. You can only win 1 cup per season regardless of if theres 20 70 or 84 games.

Orr has 9 seasons. He won 2 cups. Arguably only 3 truly great playoff runs

In his first 9 seasons Gretzky won 4 cups and arguably could be called the best player in the playoffs 5 times.

How is that anything but advantage Gretzky?

If you want to make arguments for Orr over Gretzky do so. If you want to unilaterally declare Orr better and refuse to budge no matter what - thats your right i suppose.

But dont bring up ridiculous claims as a supposed argument for Orr when the opposite is true.

First 9 seasons - Gretzky clear advantage in cups and playoffs.

Next 9 seasons - again clear advantage to Gretzky.

Cup wins should be a lesser point in a debate where you're choosing the best INDIVIDUAL in a TEAM game.

 

[bobholly39]

My one criticism is that I don't think each "superhuman" or even "great" season is created equal. For instance, I'd rank Orr's 70 over pretty much every other superhuman season out there, so ranking them all the same seems to miss some of that nuance.

I like the overall conceit though.

Yes agreed. I'm counting more quantity per category - then qualifying each specific individual season against itself within each category. That would be going a step beyond - which I can do, but i haven't yet. And that is definitely one limitation.

But still without this i think we're able to draw some useful conclusions.

On overall sheer numbers alone it's hard to see anyone but Gretzky at #1. Even if you somehow stipulate that each of Orr's 5 best seasons is worth double the value of Gretzky's best (so 20 points vs 10) - he still ends up behind in regular season, let alone playoffs. And there's no way Orr's better seasons are worth twice as much as Gretzky. Maybe some are a "bit" better, but not much. Gretzky also easily ahead of everyone else in playoffs.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Can you please try and demonstrate why or how Orr's superior defense is enough to trump Gretzky's superior offense? Whether on a season by season basis, for playoffs, or for the overall prime/career? I agree it's easier to look at Gretzky's numbers because they're there to see. You're saying you went beyond them - please explain how? Convince me. Even though I value offense a lot - i'm open minded and happy to be convinced. But it has to be more than mostly only statements i've seen such as "Orr is the greatest all around player". What does that even mean? It's too simplistic an opinion imo.

Too simplistic? We're supposed to be "beyond" just average hockey fans here. What is so difficult about recognizing (first of all) what a complete hockey player is , and secondly how that easily applies to Orr over Gretzky?

And it is a total red herring to say that it is Orr's defense vs Wayne's offense. It is Orr's OFFENSE and DEFENSE vs Gretzky's OFFENSE and DEFENSE. Notice that I didn't even add physical play, because Orr wins by default and it shouldn't even have to get to that point anyways.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'm pretty much locked into Gretzky > Howe > Orr > Lemieux

Orr had a great peak shame his knees didn't last longer.

 

[bobholly39]

Cup wins should be a lesser point in a debate where you're choosing the best INDIVIDUAL in a TEAM game.

Of course cup wins should be a lesser point, I agree.

But the poster I quoted disagreed - but went even one step further. He was trying to assign cups per games played as some sort of useful metric - or worst - talk about what said team did after the player left and how that impacted Orr or Gretzky's legacy.

I'd still love to get a response as to how Boston not winning a cup for 40 years after Orr left impacts Orr's legacy in anyway. With or without Orr - nobody was touching arguably the 2 best dynastyes in league history from 76-83. And by 8 years later Orr has 0 effect whatsoever on the Boston roster/team. None of this should mean anything at all in our evaluation/ranking of Orr.

If you do want to assign a significant value to cup wins when ranking individual players - well guess what Gretzky is still ahead. 4 cup wins in 9 Edmonton years, vs 2 in 9 for Orr. But I agree - it shouldn't count for much, it's more about each player's individual contributions during playoffs.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Orr is more likely to drop to 4th (gasp! blasphemy!) than Lemieux is to drop out of the top 4.

Except that I thought this debate was among people who knew hockey.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Except that I thought this debate was among people who knew hockey.

Snarky comments like this do not contribute to the discussion

 

[ImporterExporter]

Can you please try and demonstrate why or how Orr's superior defense is enough to trump Gretzky's superior offense? Whether on a season by season basis, for playoffs, or for the overall prime/career? I agree it's easier to look at Gretzky's numbers because they're there to see. You're saying you went beyond them - please explain how? Convince me. Even though I value offense a lot - i'm open minded and happy to be convinced. But it has to be more than mostly only statements i've seen such as "Orr is the greatest all around player". What does that even mean? It's too simplistic an opinion imo.

Finally - I see absolutely no case for both Howe and Orr over Gretzky. In fact - I'd go as far as to say that I think it would be almost dishonest for someone to put BOTH Orr and Howe above Gretzky. If one values longevity a LOT - great, Howe gets bumped up a lot, but so does Gretzky and Orr lags behind. If one values peak a lot, great Orr gets bumped up a lot but so does Gretzky, and Howe lags behind. In what scenario can Gretzky not end up top 2? (I think he's an easy top 1 myself - but let's stick to just top 2).

When Orr was playing 35+ minutes a night at a minimum, killing penalties at a success rate that is higher than most anyone in history, putting up adjusted +/- numbers that are staggering, and not having to rely on a linemate/teammate to carry the near entire defensive burden (Kurri did that for Wayne), that's how I start getting to where I'm at in regards to Orr's defensive game. Watching tape, speaking with people who saw Orr play a lot also factor in heavily.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

I hope you're just trying to make a point, because I mentioned earlier how those who dismiss Howe as merely a guy who played forever is what the computer nerds call a "noob" (that's the right term, correct?)

I assume you're showing how both statements are limiting and ridiculous in the overall scheme of things. That I can get behind.

 

[ResilientBeast]

When Orr was playing 35+ minutes a night at a minimum, killing penalties at a success rate that is higher than most anyone in history, putting up adjusted +/- numbers that are staggering, and not having to rely on a linemate/teammate to carry the near entire defensive burden (Kurri did that for Wayne), that's how I start getting to where I'm at in regards to Orr's defensive game. Watching tape, speaking with people who saw Orr play a lot also factor in heavily.

I haven't seen any good information on exactly how much Orr was playing per game, seventies even shot down someone saying he was playing over 35 minutes. So any citation/information to back this up?

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Although I can't find an online link, The Hockey News, in one of their "speciality magazines" a few years back, named their "Best of Everything". Their panel placed Orr as the top Offensive defenseman (predictable) AND the top Defensive defenseman of all time. So, that's their panel of 50 or so "experts". For the record (and this may come up as we get deeper into the list), Orr was called the second greatest skater, behind Paul Coffey.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Snarky comments like this do not contribute to the discussion

Neither did the one liner I was responding to.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I haven't seen any good information on exactly how much Orr was playing per game, seventies even shot down someone saying he was playing over 35 minutes. So any citation/information to back this up?

Working on it. Should have something this weekend.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

The greatest players are almost stupidly humble. It's a nice quirk about the culture of hockey. They almost always say player A was better than them, or downplay their own accomplishments. Great people know to let others speak well of them.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Although I can't find an online link, The Hockey News, in one of their "speciality magazines" a few years back, named their "Best of Everything". There panel placed Orr as the top Offensive defenseman (predictable) AND the top Defensive defenseman of all time. So, that's their panel of 50 or so "experts". For the record (and this may come up as we get deeper into the list), Orr was called the second greatest skater, behind Paul Coffey.

The hockey news also published a top 50 since 1967 in which Orr was second to Gretzky

The hockey news also published a top 100 players of all time with voters like, Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Al Abour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Frank Selke, Harry Sniden and Red Storey.

They also put Gretzky at #1. So if you're going to take hard to quantify categorizes as gospel from the Hockey News, you should also consider their best player of all time lists in which Gretzky routinely comes in first.

 

[Nick Hansen]

The hockey news also published a top 50 since 1967 in which Orr was second to Gretzky

The hockey news also published a top 100 players of all time with voters like, Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Al Abour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Frank Selke, Harry Sniden and Red Storey.

They also put Gretzky at #1. So if you're going to take hard to quantify categorizes as gospel from the Hockey News, you should also consider their best player of all time lists in which Gretzky routinely comes in first.

They also had Frank Nighbor at #100, whom some are putting in their top 15 here I believe?

List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

There will be two lists... the correct list, which I submitted, and the consensus list.

 

[ResilientBeast]

They also had Frank Nighbor at #100, whom some are putting in their top 15 here I believe?

List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're missing my point.

If he's going to toss out the Hockey News saying someone was the best defensive defenceman of all time (something hard to quantify) he should consider that they have Gretzky > Orr

 

[The Macho King]

The hockey news also published a top 50 since 1967 in which Orr was second to Gretzky

The hockey news also published a top 100 players of all time with voters like, Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Al Abour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Frank Selke, Harry Sniden and Red Storey.

They also put Gretzky at #1. So if you're going to take hard to quantify categorizes as gospel from the Hockey News, you should also consider their best player of all time lists in which Gretzky routinely comes in first.

Too add on to this, if we were going by THN or other rankings, we wouldn't have any purpose beyond just discussing their lists.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm pretty much locked into Gretzky > Howe > Orr > Lemieux

Orr had a great peak shame his knees didn't last longer.

My ranking (as of now) as well. But has anyone even considered a lesser player (as in not Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux) with greater longevity over Orr? Like... does anyone have a magic formula for how much more individually talented Jean Beliveau would have to be to be ranked above Orr?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I'm pretty much locked into Gretzky > Howe > Orr > Lemieux

Orr had a great peak shame his knees didn't last longer.

I know a d man winning the art ross has only happened with Orr but it’s not like he would have came anywhere close to a healthy Lemieux or Gretzky

 

[DannyGallivan]

The hockey news also published a top 50 since 1967 in which Orr was second to Gretzky

The hockey news also published a top 100 players of all time with voters like, Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Al Abour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Frank Selke, Harry Sniden and Red Storey.

They also put Gretzky at #1. So if you're going to take hard to quantify categorizes as gospel from the Hockey News, you should also consider their best player of all time lists in which Gretzky routinely comes in first.

I just added context to Orr being the greatest defensive d-man as well (someone earlier wanted back-up as to why some of us were claiming Orr was among the greatest defensive d-men, and that's what I was doing). And I doubt every one of those panelists had 1. Gretzky, 2. Orr... I'm not sure what the scoring was, but it's pretty safe to see a good number of them having Orr at number one (or even Howe).

That's what this exercise is looking like. Although there are the Orr pushers (myself being one of them), I expect more of the list submitters will put Gretzky at number one. I don't agree with it, but it is looking like that. Again, it's the model you respect the most... just raw numbers, or raw numbers in context too all the details that make hockey so great.