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

[ImporterExporter]

I'm ready to go to war in the next vote

I still have Hasek firmly in my top 15. Amazing player who did lift Buffalo on his shoulders quite often. But I do think the long standing belief among many fans that Buffalo was some dumpster fire is a misplaced argument.

Hasek also took advantage of the DPE much more than Roy who's NHL career started much earlier, hence Roy played in much more unforgiving environments.

 

[blogofmike]

Obviously you will not research. The results of the games are available online.

Gretzky bolded comment is another oxymoron. With only 4 career SCs, obviously outscoring did not work well enough most of the time.

No one in the discussion has over 4. Lemieux? 2. Orr? 2. Howe 4, and Howe has one his teammates won without him.

You went back to cup counting 4 days earlier than I called though.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

Do you have any data? I don't want to discount testimonies - but Gretzky's numbers and longevity are staggering - i need more actual data to be able to change my view on Orr vs Gretzky. Limiting it to testimonies and general opinions shouldn't be good enough for this project.

How do you calculate adjusted +/- ? For me a good way of looking at this is to look at actual +/- while also adding Power Play Goals on Ice For (available at Hockey Reference) and short handed points. I only seem to find PP Goals on ice for for seasons in which a player was top 10 in that metric, so it's hard to get every season of a player's career, but nonetheless, here is what the data looks like picking out Orr's best 7 seasons to gretzky's best 7.

Season	Plus/Minus	PP Goals On Ice for	PK Points	Total
1968-69	55	46	2	103
1969-70	54	79	5	138
1970-71	124	79	13	216
1971-72	83	69	9	161
1972-73	55	57	5	117
1973-74	84	62	4	150
1974-75	80	81	4	165
Total				1050

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Season	Plus/Minus	PP Goals On Ice for	PK Points	Total
1980-81	41	67	7	115
1981-82	80	75	8	163
1982-83	61	77	10	148
1983-84	78	70	23	171
1984-85	100	61	18	179
1985-86	71	69	18	158
1986-87	69	64	13	146
Total				1080

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky actually comes out slightly ahead. Of course - this is 7 out of 8-9 total seasons for Orr -whereas Gretzky also has at least 10 more additional seasons of value to his resume that should easily widen the gap in his favor under this metric when looking at overall career, and not just peak.

Do you have any data to support playing 35+ minutes per game? Also - i've always felt that ice-time is a means to an end - not the end. It's the "end" we should look at. If Gretzky had only played 3 minutes per game vs Orr's 45 minutes per game - in the end it's the results we look at. That's why i don't like Points/60 metrics, for example. So although playing many minutes is impressive - show me data about how many more goals it contributed to, or how many more goals he prevented as a result of extra ice time. I think that's what counts.

PK. How good was Orr at PK? How good were his Boston teams vs say Edmonton, or other teams in history, or other teams in the league? do you have any actual data to support the claim that Orr was one of the best pk'ers in history individually? Gretzky's point totals on the PK seem to suggest he was pretty good himself.

"Not having to rely on teammates to carry the burden". I mean - Esposito is better than anyone Gretzky played with - you could make the counter argument that without Esposito to finish plays and help offensively, Orr never achieves that much offense. What should it matter if Esposito helped Orr offensively, or Kurri helped Gretzky defensively? I think we need to judge results more than anything. Gretzky/Kurri got the results they did by being as efficient as a tandem as possible - and if it meant Kurri being more responsible defensively - unless you can show how Gretzky specifically hurt his team by this - shouldn't count. Same idea for Esposito and Orr's offense.

 

[bobholly39]

Just curious. Where would you rank Jean Beliveau?

In my initial list I had him 7. Open to changing that in the next round as we look more closely at all relevant players.

I didn't include him in that comparison of the big 4 though. Honestly - until someone makes a valid argument as to why we should consider someone beyond those 4 (and i don't expect it as i don't think it exists), those are the only 4 players i'm seriously looking at in this round.

 

[bobholly39]

Your point structure is designed to produce a desired result.

Four players, 4/3/2/1 would suffice.

Yeah I think for these 4 players rewarding for the extra human peak was important for me in my evaluation, as I believe this is what really sets those guys apart from the rest. If you turn all of Gretzky's ~200 points seasons into still Art Ross wins, but with ~130-140 points total instead - it completely changes his stature as a player. Same idea with Orr, Lemieux and even Howe. So to me it's important to highlight this above and beyond peak.

4/3/2/1 doesn't accomplish this at all. You'd be saying two of Gretzky's 1997 season (97 points) is as valuable as his 215 point seasons. Another way of looking at this would be to say you'd pick John Leclair (also 97 points in 1997) for 2 seasons instead of Gretzky's best season of all time. I just don't see it.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean... I’m really not getting why it’s impossible to follow the rule of not talking about ineligible players.

If you can’t come up with what to do with Patrick Roy because Bobby Hull, Doug Harvey, Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, and Ray Bourque play different positions, then I’m not sure how you put together top-120 lists with all six of those players to begin with.

You are in a project that necessitates cross-positional comparisons. Comparing Patrick Roy to Ray Bourque - players that were divisional rivals and later teammates - should be the easiest thing in the world.

 

[bobholly39]

Totally tongue in cheek, just like you suggesting that Lemieux had a chance of finishing ahead of Orr in this debate.

He's ahead for me. At least until someone can show some actual data about Orr's defensive ability/contributions outside of just generic statements that it was "good" - or even "very good".

 

[blogofmike]

Put Orr on a dynasty in the 80's and I'd bet my house he'd have pushed absurd boundaries. He was a 140 point player at a time when scoring was around a goal less per game. Put him in a league with even more weak teams to beat up on and completely wide open offensive flow and he'd likely have pushed 190-200 point seaons...at least once.

Which is to say he would be better offensively than Gretzky and Lemieux? And I suppose by extension, Esposito and Lafleur and Dionne would be too?

Except we saw them play. They didn't make it. Lafleur, Dionne, Perreault scored what they scored. The NEW talent of the WHA/79 Class improved the league and there were more scorers. This is in contrast to 1967 when the old guys started reaching new heights and the new guys became punching bags.

Here's your talent gap: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/team-1968-vs-team-1980.2557391

The teams of the 1980s weren't as bad as the dregs of the early expansion era. Orr was on a 399 GF team that murdered expansion teams and Orr got 139 points.

80s teams didn't often get to 399 GF. Even the Islanders. The Oilers did, but getting help from that guy is cheating in this discussion.

 

[bobholly39]

Do you have any data? I don't want to discount testimonies - but Gretzky's numbers and longevity are staggering - i need more actual data to be able to change my view on Orr vs Gretzky. Limiting it to testimonies and general opinions shouldn't be good enough for this project.

How do you calculate adjusted +/- ? For me a good way of looking at this is to look at actual +/- while also adding Power Play Goals on Ice For (available at Hockey Reference) and short handed points. I only seem to find PP Goals on ice for for seasons in which a player was top 10 in that metric, so it's hard to get every season of a player's career, but nonetheless, here is what the data looks like picking out Orr's best 7 seasons to gretzky's best 7.

Season	Plus/Minus	PP Goals On Ice for	PK Points	Total
1968-69	55	46	2	103
1969-70	54	79	5	138
1970-71	124	79	13	216
1971-72	83	69	9	161
1972-73	55	57	5	117
1973-74	84	62	4	150
1974-75	80	81	4	165
Total				1050

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Season	Plus/Minus	PP Goals On Ice for	PK Points	Total
1980-81	41	67	7	115
1981-82	80	75	8	163
1982-83	61	77	10	148
1983-84	78	70	23	171
1984-85	100	61	18	179
1985-86	71	69	18	158
1986-87	69	64	13	146
Total				1080

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky actually comes out slightly ahead. Of course - this is 7 out of 8-9 total seasons for Orr -whereas Gretzky also has at least 10 more additional seasons of value to his resume that should easily widen the gap in his favor under this metric when looking at overall career, and not just peak.

Do you have any data to support playing 35+ minutes per game? Also - i've always felt that ice-time is a means to an end - not the end. It's the "end" we should look at. If Gretzky had only played 3 minutes per game vs Orr's 45 minutes per game - in the end it's the results we look at. That's why i don't like Points/60 metrics, for example. So although playing many minutes is impressive - show me data about how many more goals it contributed to, or how many more goals he prevented as a result of extra ice time. I think that's what counts.

PK. How good was Orr at PK? How good were his Boston teams vs say Edmonton, or other teams in history, or other teams in the league? do you have any actual data to support the claim that Orr was one of the best pk'ers in history individually? Gretzky's point totals on the PK seem to suggest he was pretty good himself.

"Not having to rely on teammates to carry the burden". I mean - Esposito is better than anyone Gretzky played with - you could make the counter argument that without Esposito to finish plays and help offensively, Orr never achieves that much offense. What should it matter if Esposito helped Orr offensively, or Kurri helped Gretzky defensively? I think we need to judge results more than anything. Gretzky/Kurri got the results they did by being as efficient as a tandem as possible - and if it meant Kurri being more responsible defensively - unless you can show how Gretzky specifically hurt his team by this - shouldn't count. Same idea for Esposito and Orr's offense.

Just to add to the above - I thought i'd provide the same table for Lemieux, as a comparison of adjusted +/-, in his best 7 seasons yet again.

Season	Plus/Minus	PP Goals On Ice for	PK Points	Total
1985-86	-8	81	0	73
1987-88	23	106	14	143
1988-89	41	110	18	169
1991-92	27	70	10	107
1992-93	55	82	9	146
1995-96	10	102	9	121
1996-97	27	54	6	87
Total				846

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As expected he falls behind Orr and Gretzky in that metric.

I dont think data is available for power play goals on ice for during Howe's era, so i can't add him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Citing that disingenuous poll is very clearly not a reflection of the talent level and how the game was in the time immediately after each expansion...the game from 1967 to 1972 is not the same as the 1980 to 1985 range. Completely different situations and completely different results...

 

[DannyGallivan]

He's ahead for me. At least until someone can show some actual data about Orr's defensive ability/contributions outside of just generic statements that it was "good" - or even "very good".

How about the reverse. Can you come up with an argument as to how Lemieux is ahead of Orr? I've taken part in thousands of words of debate between Orr vs Gretzky. Although Mario is firmly in my top four, I still consider him "Wayne lite", and therefore clearly behind Orr.

 

[daver]

I wanted to compare the very best seasons/playoffs of each of the big 4. Initially I was going to do this just for myself - but I figure I did all of the research and I may as well post it to see if it's helpful for anyone else.

So I did a breakdown of individual seasons and playoffs for each of the big 4 players, and awarded points for each season. This was based on personal preference/subjective – and I heavily reward offense usually, but tried to be as objective as possible nonetheless.

What really sets the big 4 (and really – it’s Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky as I maintain Howe is mostly longevity) apart is their absolutely ridiculous peak – heights that no other players touched. That’s why to me they’re in the big 4 , and so it was important for me to reward what I consider super human performances (or video game stats). So I took apart each player’s regular season, and then each player’s playoffs, and awarded it a grade on the following scale:

Superhuman - 10
Great - 5
Good - 2
OK - 1
Zero - 0

Superhuman is the special stuff. 215 points, 199, ross for Orr, 1953 for Howe or 1955 playoffs. The types of seasons/records that no one else approached outside of these 4 (and mostly 3) players.

Great – This is for great seasons where you won a ross, or a Norris, or a hart, or a smythe – or where you maybe finished 2nd in one of those but your stats were worthy of being in this category. The “human” stuff – so for Gretzky his first “great” season is 1988 (after his rookie year) where he only scored 149 points.

Good – Good seasons worthy of adding to a player’s resume, but a step below “great”. Because I want to really reward peak for the big 4 (and even more – video game worthy stats) – I’m only awarding 2 points here. For Gretzky 1992 (121 point in 74 games) is his first “good” season.

Ok – Seasons worthy of adding longevity to a player, but without necessarily being at the very top of the league. Sticking to Gretzky – 1994-1995 with 48 points in 48 games is “ok”.

Zero – Not enough games played (ie Orr after 1975) or simply a really bad year not really worth of adding much (ie Howe’s rookie year in 1947 – 22 points in 58 games).

Here are the results:

Player	Total Score - Regular season	Total Score - Playoffs	Total Combined Score
Wayne Gretzky	121	83	204
Mario Lemieux	76	41	117
Gordie Howe	71	45	116
Bobby Orr	67	29	96

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Average per ranked season	Average per ranked playoffs	Total average
Wayne Gretzky	6.05	5.19	5.67
Mario Lemieux	6.33	5.13	5.85
Gordie Howe	2.96	2.81	2.90
Bobby Orr	7.44	3.63	5.65

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Number of ranked seasons	Number of ranked playoffs	Total Ranked
Wayne Gretzky	20	16	36
Mario Lemieux	12	8	20
Gordie Howe	24	16	40
Bobby Orr	9	8	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Regular seasons	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	3	4	4	9
Mario Lemieux	5	0	3	4	5
Gordie Howe	1	6	10	7	1
Bobby Orr	3	0	1	3	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Playoffs	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	1	6	4	5
Mario Lemieux	0	0	3	3	2
Gordie Howe	3	4	8	3	1
Bobby Orr	0	2	2	2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also here’s the specific breakdown per season/playoff per player - i'm sure some will disagree with rankings of specific seasons/playoffs:

Gretzky Regular Season:
Superhuman: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. 87, 89, 91
Great: 80, 88, 90, 94
Good: 92, 96, 97, 98
Ok: 93, 95, 99
Zero:

Gretzky Playoffs:
Superhuman: 83, 84, 85, 87, 88
Great: 81, 86, 89, 83
Good: 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97
Ok: 80
Zero:

Lemieux Regular Season:
Superhuman: 88, 89, 92, 93, 96
Great: 86, 90, 97, 01
Good: 85, 87 2003
Ok:
Zero: 91, 94, 2002, 2004, 2006

Lemieux Playoff:
Superhuman: 91, 92
Great: 89, 93, 96
Good: 94, 97, 2001
Ok:
Zero:

Howe Regular Season:
Superhuman: 53
Great: 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63
Good: 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 ,66, 68, 69, 70
Ok: 48, 49, 50, 55, 67, 71
Zero: 47

Howe Playoffs:
Superhuman: 55
Great: 49, 64, 65
Good: 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61
Ok: 58, 65, 66, 70
Zero: 47, 48, 50

Orr Regular Season:
Superhuman: 70, 71, 72, 74, 75
Great: 68, 69, 73
Good: 67
Ok:
Zero: 76, 77, 79

Orr Playoffs:
Superhuman: 70, 72
Great: 71, 74
Good: 69, 75
Ok: 68, 73
Zero:


Conclusions I draw:
1. Gretzky is really in a class of his own. Peak + longevity + playoffs - no one touches him.
2. Averages are interesting – but keep in mind for Gretzky if you only average his best 9 season he scores a perfect 10, so you have to take that into account when the average includes a player's decline, vs not (Orr).
3. Orr really comes up short on longevity, anyway you look at it. He does so vs Howe and Gretzky obviously - but against Lemieux too.
4. A big belief of mine is enough longevity can trump "better" player - and this is where Howe makes a run at both Orr and Lemieux, despite my belief he wasn't "better".

Was Howe's 55 playoff superhuman if it was arguably matched or bettered by Mikita or Belliveau?

 

[bobholly39]

How about the reverse. Can you come up with an argument as to how Lemieux is ahead of Orr? I've taken part in thousands of words of debate between Orr vs Gretzky. Although Mario is firmly in my top four, I still consider him "Wayne lite", and therefore clearly behind Orr.

Sure - look at my post #710. Gives a breakdown of how i'm thinking to rank each player. Lemieux comes out ahead of Orr.

It's still the reverse im looking for. Outside of people just stating Orr or even Howe were great defensively - i'd like some actual data and metrics shown to quantify that. The offense provided by Gretzky and Lemieux is staggering and easy to evaluate - defense is more subjective.

Guy Carbonnneau is a great defensive player but no one in their right minds compares him to Lemieux or Gretzky advantageously. Defense has some worth and value - but i've yet to see someone make a cohesive argument, or case, as to how it specifically is enough to offset the superior offense in the case of the big 4.

A random 4th liner can be an excellent defensive player and pk'er - the league in 2018 is full of them, as if the history of hockey. It's a valuable skill - but only to a point.

Not anyone can produce offense at the level of the very best players. Hence I tend to value that a lot more.

Was Howe's 55 playoff superhuman if it was arguably matched or bettered by Mikita or Belliveau?

Good question. It might not be. You'll also notice I only labeled his 1953 season superhuman, but not the other 3 surrounding it - because I wanted to highlight his peak, but i still don't think overall it's as significant as that of the other 3 players.

I think that if I did this same exercise for all 100 players we're going to rank in this project - the amount of superhuman regular seasons outside of the big 4 will be minimal. If we got to 10 overall i'd be shocked (heck it might not even be 5). I think Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux were really in a class apart.

But for playoffs? I think you'll see a lot of individual playoff runs by lesser players who can be argued in that category. Patrick Roy would certainly have some - and Beliveau and Mikita too, maybe. So i'm thinking yes on Howe's playoffs in 1955 - and maybe a couple of other players in that era also have a run worthy of that calling. Obviously - this is subjective, to each his own.

 

[Canadiens1958]

PK. How good was Orr at PK? How good were his Boston teams vs say Edmonton, or other teams in history, or other teams in the league? do you have any actual data to support the claim that Orr was one of the best pk'ers in history individually? Gretzky's point totals on the PK seem to suggest he was pretty good himself.

Based on actual PPGA.

Orr and the Bruins lower middle of the pack. O6, 5th, thru 1975, 5th to 12th.

Oilers with Gretzky, 9th only once, 1987-88 when Gretzky missed 16 games. Other years 12th-19th. Last place teams had better PKs than Edmonton. Gretzky traded, 6th.

Note SHGF are offset by the Oilers giving up goals when they were on the PP.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[DannyGallivan]

Sure - look at my post #710. Gives a breakdown of how i'm thinking to rank each player. Lemieux comes out ahead of Orr.

Ah yes, I believe my response was that you did a lot of work to try to make the subjective look objective. Again, I like the exercise in theory, but I also mentioned (as did at least one other person) and there are even different levels of "superhuman", and that Orr is not given enough credit in the system and scoring you created.

As far as "stats" for defensive play, that is a disadvantage that we all have to deal with. It's a lot easier to find stats to back up offensive prowess, clearly. But, since we're supposed to be students of the game's history, do you really require numbers to illustrate that Orr (and Howe) were clearly better in their own end than Lemeiux? Especially Orr, who was a defenseman for cryin' out loud. I really hope we don't need to crunch numbers to prove that Orr was severely better defensively than Mario Lemeiux.

That gets to the heart of my pro-Orr argument. He did everything AS A D-MAN. People forget that as they try to compare his offensive totals to a legendary offensive centre's numbers.

 

[daver]

Good question. It might not be. You'll also notice I only labeled his 1953 season superhuman, but not the other 3 surrounding it - because I wanted to highlight his peak, but i still don't think overall it's as significant as that of the other 3 players.

His other three seasons are closed to being matched by the best of Mikita, Hull and Belliveau so I would say you have categorized the appropriately. This plus his playoff resume points to a player who statistically was clearly the best of his era but did not reach the dominant heights of Mario and Wayne.

 

[overg]

Talking about This World.

Do you realize what an inconvenience the constant colour changes are to those who are elderly, with visual impairments, etc?

Hahahah. I often have to suss out the meaning of your posts. For this one, I was trying to figure out if "constant color changes" meant something like the removal of the red line, changes to the crease shape and size, the trapezoid behind the net, or other changes to the ice color through NHL history. Or maybe you were going for something more abstract, like "constant colour changes" was a metaphor for moving goalposts or cherry-picking stats.

Then I figured out you were literally talking about the font color of his posts. And while not nearly as relevant to hockey history as some of my brainstorming, I'd have to agree with you. Those odd fonts and colors hurt my brain.

Sorry all, please do carry on.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

His other three seasons are closed to being matched by the best of Mikita, Hull and Belliveau so I would say you have categorized the appropriately. This plus his playoff resume points to a player who statistically was clearly the best of his era but did not reach the dominant heights of Mario and Wayne.

Similarly, all but one of Mario's best seasons are close to being statistically matched by the best of others. Phil Esposito, Jaromir Jagr, Steve Yzerman, and even Bernie Nicholls and Pat Lafontaine all have peak seasons that got within a stone's throw of any Lemieux season, besides the 199-pointer.

 

[kruezer]

Not that it tells us a tonne of info, but just posting this here to answer my own question from earlier about if there were any spikes in power play opportunities during the O6.

Since we don't have the statistics for number of Power Play Opportunities during the O6 (unless someone else knows where to find it). I instead looked at league wide scoring of PPG vs. Total League G for each individual season from 49-50 until 66-67. I started at 49-50 for two reasons, first its pretty firmly post-war and more importantly its when the 70 game schedule began so I can compare apples to apples from season to season. (All of this data is from NHL.com, not sure if there is 100% belief the data is all accurate).

Season	PPG	Total G	PPG %
1949-50 Total	227	1148	20%
1950-51 Total	184	1139	16%
1951-52 Total	221	1090	20%
1952-53 Total	200	1006	20%
1953-54 Total	249	1009	25%
1954-55 Total	243	1059	23%
1955-56 Total	254	1064	24%
1956-57 Total	264	1130	23%
1957-58 Total	246	1175	21%
1958-59 Total	261	1217	21%
1959-60 Total	228	1238	18%
1960-61 Total	247	1261	20%
1961-62 Total	240	1264	19%
1962-63 Total	232	1249	19%
1963-64 Total	241	1166	21%
1964-65 Total	294	1208	24%
1965-66 Total	298	1277	23%
1966-67 Total	254	1252	20%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Pretty straightforward.

Overall there is an upward trend in both PPG and Total G throughout the O6. I wonder if this goes to your point ContrarianGoaltender of there being simply better Scoring Fs as the O6 goes on.

I ran a regression to see if PPG increasing explains the Total G increasing and the correlation is very high .98 R-Squared and .92 Adj R-Squared. However, the Residual Plot is wonky, so I believe that the increase in both PPG and Total G during the O6 is being impacted by other variables, and this makes a lot of sense considering this is a hugely multi-variant situation.

That said, there were two interesting Howe-related seasons (or at least two I want to comment on)

First 50-51, again, since I don't know about PPOs, could be that PPs were bad this year or just less calls overall, but scoring this year was strongly slanted to ES. Howe won the Art Ross this in one of his dominant seasons, he had 15 total PPP. Max Bentley dropped 29 PPP points this year, the Leafs PP produced 5 of the top 6 PP scorers (Howe was the other).

Second 53-54, again Howe won the Art Ross in dominating fashion, but PP scoring was at its highest this year and Howe led the league in PPP with one more than Camille Henry.

Some other general thoughts.

After this 53-54, the Habs PP takes over, leading the league in PPG as a team from 54-55 until 60-61 with the Wings and Rangers having the 2nd/3rd best seasons behind the Habs over this time frame. Beliveau leads in PPP over this time frame over Howe by about 20 points in 15 less GP. I think it's probably fair to say Beliveau's offense was slightly more PP reliant over his prime than Howe was.

As was also already mentioned Howe became more PP reliant for his continued offense throughout the 60s.

(forgive me for talking about a player not up for debate) but Camille Henry was a boss on the PP, as a rookie on the PP with the Rangers in 53-54 he scored 20 Goals and 32 Points, but had only 24 goals and 39 points total on the season. That has got to be some sort of % record. He doesn't keep this % level up but remains a dominant PP scorer throughout his career. For those who know, was he driving the bus on the Rangers PP? or just living off Bathgate or others? Did he play the point?

 

[bobholly39]

Ah yes, I believe my response was that you did a lot of work to try to make the subjective look objective. Again, I like the exercise in theory, but I also mentioned (as did at least one other person) and there are even different levels of "superhuman", and that Orr is not given enough credit in the system and scoring you created.

As far as "stats" for defensive play, that is a disadvantage that we all have to deal with. It's a lot easier to find stats to back up offensive prowess, clearly. But, since we're supposed to be students of the game's history, do you really require numbers to illustrate that Orr (and Howe) were clearly better in their own end than Lemeiux. Especially Orr, who was a defenseman for cryin' out loud. I really hope we don't need to crunch numbers to prove that Orr was severely better defensively than Mario Lemeiux.

That gets to the heart of my pro-Orr argument. He did everything AS A D-MAN. People forget that as they try to compare his offensive totals to a legendary offensive centre's numbers.

It's not about not believing that Orr and even Howe were better than Lemieux defensively. I believe you. but it's about showing how that defensive edge is great enough to offset the lack of offense (strictly in relation to 99 and 66). Lemieux's peak offensive season is 199 points, and then 160 points in 60 games, and so on. We know Gretzky's numbers too. Orr and Howe's two best offensive seasons are lesser (possibly significantly so, for Howe). Yes - even for Orr as a defenseman imo - offensively speaking, Lemieux's 2 best seasons and certainly Gretzky's are better than Orr's.

What it should come down to is explaining why and how Orr and Howe's superior defense helps bridge the gap for the lack of offense, in relation to Lemieux. Do this for peak seasons, for overall prime, career....whatever you like. I'd like to see some data or some specific arguments, instead of just general statement as to how great they were defensively.

 

[DannyGallivan]

It's not about not believing that Orr and even Howe were better than Lemieux defensively. I believe you. but it's about showing how that defensive edge is great enough to offset the lack of offense (strictly in relation to 99 and 66). Lemieux's peak offensive season is 199 points, and then 160 points in 60 games, and so on. We know Gretzky's numbers too. Orr and Howe's two best offensive seasons are lesser (possibly significantly so, for Howe). Yes - even for Orr as a defenseman imo - offensively speaking, Lemieux's 2 best seasons and certainly Gretzky's are better than Orr's.

What it should come down to is explaining why and how Orr and Howe's superior defense helps bridge the gap for the lack of offense, in relation to Lemieux. Do this for peak seasons, for overall prime, career....whatever you like. I'd like to see some data or some specific arguments, instead of just general statement as to how great they were defensively.

For Orr, I could make the argument he is above Lemeiux based on offense alone, since he achieved those results as a defenseman. And all these arguments, with accompanying numbers, have already been made in the Orr vs Gretzky debate.

I have a feeling all these pages of great points, counter-points and raw emotion are leading to an exercise in running on the spot. I don't think enough (if any) people will be influenced enough by the points made to change their top four. People may be easier to budge as we move to the rest of the top 10 and beyond.

 

[daver]

Similarly, all but one of Mario's best seasons are close to being statistically matched by the best of others. Phil Esposito, Jaromir Jagr, Steve Yzerman, and even Bernie Nicholls and Pat Lafontaine all have peak seasons that got within a stone's throw of any Lemieux season, besides the 199-pointer.

Fair point, if we disregard numbers of games played. Mario in 92/93 was also on a another level completely. Jagr's best season raw points-wise was 95/96 and was still bettered by Mario despite playing 12 less games.

Like Wayne, Mario's two best playoff runs are clearly befitting his regular season peak performances. For the record, I am not in the "Mario could have matched Wayne if not for injuries" crowd. It took him longer to his peak than Wayne and was not at his peak in 89/90 before he missed games. I am not 100% certain he is ahead of Howe if he played more full seasons.

 

[overg]

It's not about not believing that Orr and even Howe were better than Lemieux defensively. I believe you. but it's about showing how that defensive edge is great enough to offset the lack of offense (strictly in relation to 99 and 66). Lemieux's peak offensive season is 199 points, and then 160 points in 60 games, and so on. We know Gretzky's numbers too. Orr and Howe's two best offensive seasons are lesser (possibly significantly so, for Howe). Yes - even for Orr as a defenseman imo - offensively speaking, Lemieux's 2 best seasons and certainly Gretzky's are better than Orr's.

What it should come down to is explaining why and how Orr and Howe's superior defense helps bridge the gap for the lack of offense, in relation to Lemieux. Do this for peak seasons, for overall prime, career....whatever you like. I'd like to see some data or some specific arguments, instead of just general statement as to how great they were defensively.

Isn't this essentially what +/- attempts to do? Compare a player's overall ability to tilt the score toward his team's favor? So for Orr vs. Lemieux, the fact that Orr's is so favorable is statistical evidence that his defense more than made up for Lemieux's offensive advantage?

I'm not suggesting +/- gives a definitive answer (we've probably all seen the 9 trillion criticisms of the stat). Merely that's its one statistical data point that addresses the issues you're raising.

 

[blogofmike]

Citing that disingenuous poll is very clearly not a reflection of the talent level and how the game was in the time immediately after each expansion...the game from 1967 to 1972 is not the same as the 1980 to 1985 range. Completely different situations and completely different results...

Disingenuous? Me ??!? Well I never...

I think I made the motive clear. And it was quick but I think I got the best of 1968 and even made sure Messier was off Team 1980 because people would remember a better version.

I am still of the opinion that 80s hockey was of a higher quality than 1970s hockey. The talent pool of 1967 was not ready for the NHL to double in size overnight and then triple from the O6 in less than a decade, and then quintuple if you count the WHA.

After the merger, the 30 pro teams of 1977 became 21 pro teams. There was access to strong European talent, even if not USSR guys. There was stronger US talent and a bumper crop of draft talent in North America, that would yield the most competitive Norris races until the early 1990s (when Bourque and Coffey were still in the hunt). The talent kept coming too. The Oilers had Gretzky and drafted well in early drafts, but there was a Stastny, Hawerchuk, and Francis to help out the other guys. Who did the Seals pick up?

Kent Nilsson walked into Atlanta and was the best player on team. Same with Mike Liut in St. Louis, and arguably Rat Bourque in Boston. Even guys who were merely good would fill roles and push guys down to more manageable roles.

The lack of strong new talent meant the E6 and later (E6+) teams were fighting for scraps - it wasn't until 1974 that an E6 team beat an O6 team in a playoff series. It wasn't until 1975 that the NHL regular season standings featured 2 non O6 teams in the top 6. E6+ were two thirds of the league - the bottom two thirds.

So there's the argument. The 1980 and later contingent was hugely talented and technically part of a contraction in the NA hockey market. The league got better. The 1968 and later guys weren't anywhere near as good, and the league kept watering things down after it was clear that the first E6 teams didn't have enough talent. What is your explanation on why the league strength was stronger in the 68-onwards era compared to the 80-onwards era?

 

[canucks4ever]

The original 6 era represents 5 out of the 10 players available for voting? Talk about overrepresentation, the nhl has been around for over 100 years and a 25 year time period is representing half of the players available for voting. I get the feeling half of the top 25 is going to be players from the 50's and 60's.