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

[DannyGallivan]

Howe: Most famous for his longevity, Howe was top 5 in league scoring *20* consecutive times. If anything, that stat undersells Howe, who also brought legendary fierceness to the table, considered one of the strongest, toughest, and meanest players to ever play the game. What many don't realize is that Howe also had a peak unrivaled by anyone outside of the big 4 . . . winning scoring titles by margins almost equal to Lemieux.

Good post, but at the risk of being nit-picky I'd probably add that it is very unfortunate that How is "most famous" for his longevity. This unfortunately overshadows just how brilliant a hockey player he was to the more casual hockey fan. I have a good friend who considers himself a rabid hockey fan dismiss Howe as a top four because he thought that his top achievement was his longevity. I had to point out the Art Ross Trophies, Harts, top 10 finishes, 20 goal finishes, etc. If Howe retired in the mid-60's his legacy wouldn't take that great of a hit.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Peak/Prime (they're pretty much the same thing, aren't they?)

Well you've already conveniently ignored Orr's 8 straight Norris Trophies since Gretzky isn't eligible, so I'll give you that and say that Orr's two Art Ross Trophies as a defenseman (totally without peer) and this two Hart Trophies (something exceptionally rare among defensemen) may even exceed what Gretzky did. After all, Orr won one award (Art Ross) that virtually disqualifies defenders - TWICE (and it's an award that doesn't go by subjective votes). He also won an MVP award that has historically all but ignored defenders. By the way, if you want asterix, then put it beside Gretzky's Hart over the likes Hawerchuk, Liut, Peeters and some other players (unless the MVP is not for the Most Valuable to his team. It should be Most Outstanding Player, then Gretzky would likely have just as many yet Orr would likely have more).

Given that the Pearson/Lindsay was introduced in 70-71 and Orr only has 1 to Gretzky's 5 this is not even remotely likely.

 

[overg]

Peak/Prime (they're pretty much the same thing, aren't they?)

While there's no formal definition, around here "peak" usually refers to a player's absolute highest level of play over a 2 to 3 year period. Prime, on the other hand, would refer to a longer period of time (roughly at least 6 or 7 years) which includes years in which the player was still playing at a high level, but just not at their "best" level.

So, for instance, 1994 might still be considered part of Gretzky's prime (he did lead the league in scoring), but was quite a step down from his peak.

For some players, there's a notable difference between the two, for others, they're almost the same thing.

 

[overg]

Good post, but at the risk of being nit-picky I'd probably add that it is very unfortunate that How is "most famous" for his longevity. This unfortunately overshadows just how brilliant a hockey player he was to the more casual hockey fan. I have a good fan who considers himself a rabid hockey fan dismiss Howe as a top four because he thought that his top achievement was his longevity. I had to point out the Art Ross Trophies, Harts, top 10 finishes, 20 goal finishes, etc. If Howe retired in the mid-60's his legacy wouldn't take that great of a hit.

Even though I wrote what is being nit-picked, I completely agree with this. Howe's talent level and peak is often massively undervalued by casual fans, who think he was merely some run-of-the-mill level star who stuck around forever. The guy was much, much more than Mike Gartner on steroids.

 

[MXD]

The difference between "Prime" and "Peak", as is generally understood here, is that Raymond Bourque had a 20-year prime, while arguably having no peak.

(I know, this is wrong).

 

[ted2019]

My turn to play make a list.
Lemieux Hart placings:
85/86: 1. Gretzky, 2 Mario, 3. Howe, 4. Coffey, 5. Vanbiesbrouck
86/87. 1. Gretzky, 2. Bourque, 3. Liut, 4. Mario, 5. Gilmour
87/88: 1. Mario, 2. Fuhr, 3. Gretzky, 4.Yzerman, 5. Savard
88/89: 1 Gretzky, 2 Mario, 3. Yzerman, 4. Roy, 5. Mullen/Chelios
91/92: 1. Messier, 2. Roy, 3. Hull, 4. McLean, 5. Roenick/Mario
92/93: 1. Mario, 2. Gilmour, 3. LaFontaine, 4. Oates, 5. Turgeon
95/96: 1. Mario, 2. Messier, 3. Lindros, 4. Jagr, 5. Fedorov
96/97: 1. Hasek, 2.Kariya, 3. Mario, 4. Brodeur, 5. Selanne
00/01: 1. Sakic, 2. Mario, 3. Jagr, 4. Cechmanek, 5. Brodeur


Players that will/should be in the top 50 9.

Doug Harvey HART placings:
54/55: Kennedy, Lumley , Richard, Beliveau, Harvey
55/56: Beliveau , Solan , Worsley, Kelly, Harvey
56/57: Howe, Beliveau, Bathgate , Sawchuk, Harvey
57/58: Howe, Bathgate, Harvey, H. Richard, Hall
61/62: Plante, Harvey , Hull, Howe, Bathgate

Players that will/should be in the top 50. 8

Doug Harvey NORRIS placings:
53/54: Kelly, Harvey
54/55: Harvey, Kelly , Flaman , Goldham , Bolton
55/56: Harvey , Gadsby , Kelly, Johnson, Flaman
56/57: Harvey , Kelly, Flaman , Gadsby, Mohns
57/58: Harvey, Gadsby , Flaman , Stewart , Pronovost
58/59: Johnson , Gadsby, Pronovost , Harvey, Flaman
59/60: Harvey , Stanley , Pronovost , Pilote , Johnson
60/61: Harvey , Pronovost , Stanley , Pilote, Boivin
61/62: Harvey , Pilote , Talbot , Brewer

Players that will/should be in the top 50. 2

Jean Beliveau HART placings:
54/55: Kennedy, Lumley, Richard, Beliveau, Harvey
55/56: Beliveau, Sloan , Worsley , Kelly, Harvey
56/57: Howe, Beliveau , Bathgate, Sawchuk, Harvey
58/59: Bathgate, Howe, Beliveau , Sawchuk, Moore
59/60: Howe, Hull, Hall, Beliveau , Olmstead
63/64: Beliveau , Hull, Howe, Hodge, Mikita
65/66: Hull, Beliveau, Howe , Hall, Ullman
67/68: Mikita , Beliveau , Hull, Orr, Howe
68/69: Esposito , Beliveau , Orr, Berenson , Howe

Player that will/should be in our top 50 list. 10

Maurice Richard HART placings:
44/45: Lach , Richard , Cowley , Hollett , S. Howe
46/47: Richard , Schmidt , Bentley, Broda , Rayner
49/50: Rayner, Kennedy , Richard, Abel, Schmidt
50/51: Schmidt, Richard , Kelly, Howe, Kennedy
53/54: Rollins, Kelly, Richard , Howe, Lumley
54/55: Kennedy , Lumley, Richard , Beliveau, Harvey
55/56: Finished 8th

Players that will/should be in our top 50 list. 6

Bobby Hull HART placings.
59/60: Howe, Hull, Hall, Beliveau, Olmstead
61/62: Plante, Harvey, Hull, Howe, Bathgate
63/64: Beliveau, Hull, Howe, Hodge, Mikita
64/65: Hull, Ullman Howe, Crozier, Hodge
65/66: Hull, Beliveau, Howe, Hall, Ullman
66/67: Mikita , Giacomin , Hull, H. Richard , Howell
67/68: Mikita, Beliveau , Hull, Orr, Howe
68/69: Esposito, Beliveau , Orr, Berenson, Howe/Hull
70/71: Orr, Esposito, Hull, Keon, Plante
71/72: Hull placed 7th

Players that will/should be in our top 50 list. 8

What could this mean? Harvey had a much easier road to get top 5 Norris placings. Harvey had a tougher road to get Hart votes. Lemieux had some ATG's to go through to get Hart votes, but there also more players that will be in the top 100 then anyone else. You would think that it would have been easier for Richard to Rocket pass the competition to get Hart votes, but he had a more difficult time. Hull had a murderer's row type of players to pass and to stay atop the mountain in his hey-day. Beliveau had a little easier time getting top 5 votes. I will do Howe's later tonight as I don't have the time to do so currently.

 

[VanIslander]

Who is the only 12-time Hart trophy finalist?

Nobody has had more or as many.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To your first point, maybe it's a photo finish in terms of ability (well i'd have Howe at 4 personally, but i mean between the other 3) - but ability is one component. Actual accomplishments count too. How does Gretzky not "lap" Lemieux in accomplishments?

BIG problem with your #2. We're not here to judge a player's game - but rather their career. Was Orr the perfect hockey player? Maybe. Patrice Bergeron is arguably also a more "perfect" hockey player than Sidney Crosby or maybe even Mario Lemieux. But this isn't about a player not having holes in their resume - it's about what they DID with their abilities. Even the eye test is great - but only insomuch as you use it to consider what the player accomplished, and not just how great they looked when they played.

Gretzky didn't play defense (whether he could or not is subjective - but he didn't, for the most part). He still won 9 Hart Trophies to Orr's 3. To claim "well Orr had no holes" is kind of moot if Gretzky with holes in his defensive game - was still able to accomplish something significant 6 mores times than Orr - looking at nothing but Harts.

To your 3rd point - i'm not just looking at numbers. The reason I like Gretzky is because he's #1 in all major career categories imo among the 4 (and in the categories you might argue he's not - i'd counter with he's a 1b to whoever you have as 1a).

Playoffs? He's easily #1.
Peak? Again, #1. Do you prefer Orr? Ok but based on sheer offensive domination and length of peak, Gretzky would at worst be a 1b to Orr's 1a, so small gap.
Career/prime? Gretzky (insomuch as by career prime you don't just mean longevity - in which case Howe would win).
International play? Gretzky #1 again.

To come back to your Orr vs Gretzky - even if you give it to Orr for peak, Gretzky's gap in playoffs is quite big. As is his gap in international play. As is his career/prime (due to Orr's early retirement).

I agree with your point 4 about Lemieux often being downplayed - but I think vs Gretzky his case is nonexistent. With Howe and Orr? Yes - let's discuss that comparison.

Not what the thrust of the project is about.

Specifically avoiding abilities is grade school cute.

Accomplished is a catch all word for how abilities were applied and converted. Team or individual achievements? We are discussing a team sport.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Bobby Orr has 9 historically relevant seasons

Wayne Gretzky has as many hart trophies as Orr has relevant seasons. That's pretty much where the argument should die, if Bobby was healthy it would be a different story.

I have yet to see an argument that proves that what Orr did on D is at all comparable to Gretzky. The onus is on you to provide proof counter to conventional wisdom not us to defend what is a widely held belief.

The case for Bobby Orr is pretty simple: He was the best player in history at outscoring the other team while he was on the ice. I happen to have Overpass' adjusted plus/minus spreadsheet, so here's the data (all of the following numbers are estimated numbers at even strength only based on NHL plus/minus data):

From 1969 to 1975, with Orr on the ice, Boston scored 929 and allowed 420. With Orr off the ice, Boston scored 781 and allowed 710.

From 1982 to 1988, with Gretzky on the ice, Edmonton scored 1088 and allowed 638. With Gretzky off the ice, Edmonton scored 1028 and allowed 855.

I'm not cherry-picking the time frames, those are the best seven seasons for both guys, they just happened to be consecutive. Using the Pythagorean expected points formula, we can get the following estimates of the strengths of their teams in expected points per 82 games:

EDM with prime Gretzky on the ice: 122 pt team
EDM with prime Gretzky off the ice: 97 pt team

BOS with prime Orr on the ice: 136 pt team
BOS with prime Orr off the ice: 90 pt team

Now, it's likely that there are other variables that impact these numbers. Perhaps the Oilers had better depth than the Bruins, or perhaps Orr played more minutes with Esposito than other defenders did, which would boost his on-ice numbers relative to the off-ice ones. Then again, Gretzky probably had a similar dynamic with Coffey. I think it's likely that the above comparison undersells Gretzky a bit relative to Orr, but I'm still fairly confident that Orr was the better 5-on-5 player. I also don't think this is is a statistical fluke, as suggesting that Orr was a transcendent even strength player certainly matches the eye test.

I don't think Orr was worse than Gretzky on special teams either. By at least one measure, Orr's era-adjusted power play scoring numbers are better than Gretzky's over those 7 seasons, although PP scoring is hugely contextual and depends on teammates and opportunities. Both players also played big shorthanded minutes on very good PK units and scored a lot of shorthanded points.

If you care a lot about longevity and career value, then you probably don't rate Orr first anyway, but if you're a peak/prime guy that's the basic statistical argument for Orr at #1. I have Orr at 1 and Gretzky at 2, both some distance ahead of #3.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Some Bobby Orr data that probably already exists...(edit: updated with the remainders)

Orr vs. O6 teams..."Hosers" = expansion teams, of course. (like with my other stuff, this was done manually...compiled in good faith)

1968	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-
Road	16	4	7	11	11
Home	18	6	11	17	9
Hosers	12	1	2	3	8
1969
Road	17	5	6	11	-6
Home	18	9	10	19	23
Hosers	32	7	27	34	38
1970
Road	20	5	18	23	-9
Home	20	10	18	28	13
Hosers	36	18	51	69	50
1971
Road	15	2	15	17	9
Home	15	9	19	28	33
Hosers	58	26	68	94	82
1972
Road	14	6	11	17	21
Home	14	5	12	17	14
Hosers	48	26	57	83	48
1973
Road	9	4	8	12	-1
Home	10	2	16	18	4
Hosers	44	23	48	71	52
1974
Road	14	3	13	16	2
Home	13	6	26	32	18
Hosers	47	23	51	74	64

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Yes, suggesting similar breakdowns against top 5 opposing teams would be revealing.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The case for Bobby Orr is pretty simple: He was the best player in history at outscoring the other team while he was on the ice. I happen to have Overpass' adjusted plus/minus spreadsheet, so here's the data (all of the following numbers are estimated numbers at even strength only based on NHL plus/minus data):

From 1969 to 1975, with Orr on the ice, Boston scored 929 and allowed 420. With Orr off the ice, Boston scored 781 and allowed 710.

From 1982 to 1988, with Gretzky on the ice, Edmonton scored 1088 and allowed 638. With Gretzky off the ice, Edmonton scored 1028 and allowed 855.

I'm not cherry-picking the time frames, those are the best seven seasons for both guys, they just happened to be consecutive. Using the Pythagorean expected points formula, we can get the following estimates of the strengths of their teams in expected points per 82 games:

EDM with prime Gretzky on the ice: 122 pt team
EDM with prime Gretzky off the ice: 97 pt team

BOS with prime Orr on the ice: 136 pt team
BOS with prime Orr off the ice: 90 pt team

Now, it's likely that there are other variables that impact these numbers. Perhaps the Oilers had better depth than the Bruins, or perhaps Orr played more minutes with Esposito than other defenders did, which would boost his on-ice numbers relative to the off-ice ones. Then again, Gretzky probably had a similar dynamic with Coffey. I think it's likely that the above comparison undersells Gretzky a bit relative to Orr, but I'm still fairly confident that Orr was the better 5-on-5 player. I also don't think this is is a statistical fluke, as suggesting that Orr was a transcendent even strength player certainly matches the eye test.

I don't think Orr was worse than Gretzky on special teams either. By at least one measure, Orr's era-adjusted power play scoring numbers are better than Gretzky's over those 7 seasons, although PP scoring is hugely contextual and depends on teammates and opportunities. Both players also played big shorthanded minutes on very good PK units and scored a lot of shorthanded points.

If you care a lot about longevity and career value, then you probably don't rate Orr first anyway, but if you're a peak/prime guy that's the basic statistical argument for Orr at #1. I have Orr at 1 and Gretzky at 2, both some distance ahead of #3.

Wouldn't such an analysis be positionally biased as well as highly contextual based on coaching and usage rates of the other 4 skaters on the ice? As well based on league GPG and scoring rates?

Additionally you've taken a 7 year snapshot of both players. Which is 7/9 of Orr's actually relevant seasons and almost less than half of Gretzky's.

1969 GPG - 2.98
1975 GPG - 3.43

vs

1982 GPG - 4.01
1988 GPG - 3.71

Gretzky's prime/peak whatever you want to call it coincided with an explosion in offence that lead to some of the highest seasons in terms of GPG which would likely influence those numbers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If I understand your argument, the bolded is wrong. Both in 1951 and 1953, the Red Wings, in both cases the best team in the league during the RS and decidedly so in 1953 (their 1951 season was actually even better, and possibly one of the best RS by pts% at that point), would be eliminated in the first round by a non-.500 team that would subsequently bow out to the eventual Stanley Cup Winner in 5 games, each year.

Yeah, there are reasons to have expected the Orr' Bruins to win more than they did; however, they did run into the 15-year Canadiens sortof-dynasty in 1971, into a very solid Rangers team in 1973 (Bruins not the best team in their division that season) and into the Flyers in the Finals in 1974. Those are much better teams than the ones that took out the Red Wings during Howe's prime/dynasty years.

And I actually agree with the idea that the Bruins should have won more. But if the Bruins should've won more, then, the Red Wings REALLY, but REALLY should've won more.

(I'm strictly talking about teams here, and not about the players in those teams. Howe's production was actually good in 1951 and in 1953)

And how much more should have Gretzky or Lemieux teams won?

 

[DannyGallivan]

If you care a lot about longevity and career value, then you probably don't rate Orr first anyway, but if you're a peak/prime guy that's the basic statistical argument for Orr at #1. I have Orr at 1 and Gretzky at 2, both some distance ahead of #3.

Good post and this gets down to a lot of the loggerheads. These are two different models. I've always valued Peak. It's not that I dismiss longevity, and I fully understand the value of the very long, consistent career. But I want to see who the best was.

When two people are using different models to come up with the same answer, you're going to get predictably differing opinions many times, and debating them is not likely to sway either party.

 

[The Macho King]

And how much more should have Gretzky or Lemieux teams won?

I think there is a *very* good argument against Mario there. Wayne less so - he had to fight through an incredibly impressive dynasty to win, and after that they won 4 of 5 - which I think is just fine. His LA teams kinda sucked, so I don't knock him at all for their lack of production.

Honestly, even with Mario - it's not like he had any bad playoffs (maybe 94?), and I think the two he won gives him enough cover for the playoffs to not be a mark against him. I guess it's a little different for Orr/Howe because there was less competition (in both instances, at least early - basically only the other 06 teams). And with both, it's not only that they didn't win more, it's that they got bounced from the first round too often.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The case for Bobby Orr is pretty simple: He was the best player in history at outscoring the other team while he was on the ice. I happen to have Overpass' adjusted plus/minus spreadsheet, so here's the data (all of the following numbers are estimated numbers at even strength only based on NHL plus/minus data):

From 1969 to 1975, with Orr on the ice, Boston scored 929 and allowed 420. With Orr off the ice, Boston scored 781 and allowed 710.

From 1982 to 1988, with Gretzky on the ice, Edmonton scored 1088 and allowed 638. With Gretzky off the ice, Edmonton scored 1028 and allowed 855.

I'm not cherry-picking the time frames, those are the best seven seasons for both guys, they just happened to be consecutive. Using the Pythagorean expected points formula, we can get the following estimates of the strengths of their teams in expected points per 82 games:

EDM with prime Gretzky on the ice: 122 pt team
EDM with prime Gretzky off the ice: 97 pt team

BOS with prime Orr on the ice: 136 pt team
BOS with prime Orr off the ice: 90 pt team

Now, it's likely that there are other variables that impact these numbers. Perhaps the Oilers had better depth than the Bruins, or perhaps Orr played more minutes with Esposito than other defenders did, which would boost his on-ice numbers relative to the off-ice ones. Then again, Gretzky probably had a similar dynamic with Coffey. I think it's likely that the above comparison undersells Gretzky a bit relative to Orr, but I'm still fairly confident that Orr was the better 5-on-5 player. I also don't think this is is a statistical fluke, as suggesting that Orr was a transcendent even strength player certainly matches the eye test.

I don't think Orr was worse than Gretzky on special teams either. By at least one measure, Orr's era-adjusted power play scoring numbers are better than Gretzky's over those 7 seasons, although PP scoring is hugely contextual and depends on teammates and opportunities. Both players also played big shorthanded minutes on very good PK units and scored a lot of shorthanded points.

If you care a lot about longevity and career value, then you probably don't rate Orr first anyway, but if you're a peak/prime guy that's the basic statistical argument for Orr at #1. I have Orr at 1 and Gretzky at 2, both some distance ahead of #3.

Reduced to cold hard facts, Orr played a complete 200 foot game. Gretzky did not.

 

[The Macho King]

Reduced to cold hard facts, Orr played a complete 200 foot game. Gretzky did not.

Is someone out there making the argument that Wayne missed out on Selke trophies that I'm missing?

 

[danincanada]

Trying to find a way to see if Harvey can break the vaulted top 4.

Doesn't work. Not when his own teammate Beliveau handily beats him in Hart voting during his prime. The only time Harvey beat Beliveau in Hart voting as a teammate was '57-58 when Beliveau missed 15 games. Then Beliveau had four more top 2 Hart finishes plus a CS after Harvey left Montreal. Again, Harvey's best Hart finish had him score 30 points and be a -9 so it's questionable at best. Maybe he got too much credit for helping the Rangers make the playoffs as a player/coach. It was actually only 4 more wins and two more ties than the year before he want to New York.

QPQ, are you going to compare defenseman with forwards and goalies all the time or just with Lidstrom and Bourque? It would be handy with Harvey because someone has to pump the breaks on that hype.

 

[tony d]

Nice to see this started. Looking forward to the debate. My real interest will be if the top 4 ends up being who they usually are or if someone else breaks into the top 4.

 

[The Macho King]

Doesn't work. Not when his own teammate Beliveau handily beats him in Hart voting during his prime. The only time Harvey beat Beliveau in Hart voting as a teammate was '57-58 when Beliveau missed 15 games. Then Beliveau had four more top 2 Hart finishes plus a CS after Harvey left Montreal. Again, Harvey's best Hart finish had him score 30 points and be a -9 so it's questionable at best. Maybe he got too much credit for helping the Rangers make the playoffs as a player/coach. It was actually only 4 more wins and two more ties than the year before he want to New York.

QPQ, are you going to compare defenseman with forwards and goalies all the time or just with Lidstrom and Bourque? It would be handy with Harvey because someone has to pump the breaks on that hype.

The argument w/r/t Hart voting is probably positional bias (and considering Orr's Hart record it's hard to say that it doesn't have *some* merit). Dmen have been underrepresented in Hart voting since the Norris trophy became a thing.

I think it's harder to quantify exactly how a Dman is contributing all of the time, while it's rather easy to do so with a forward. A forwards job is to score points. Score a lot of them? Job well done! Meanwhile, a Dman could play one of the best games of his career and end up a 0g, 0a, +/- 0 for the night.

 

[VanIslander]

The case for Bobby Orr is pretty simple: He was the best player in history at outscoring the other team while he was on the ice... I don't think Orr was worse than Gretzky on special teams either... Both players also played big shorthanded minutes on very good PK units and scored a lot of shorthanded points...

Orr was just three times top-10 in shorthanded goal scoring his whole career(4th, 6th, 4th) while Gretzky was 6th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st his first five NHL seasons.

Orr is not clearly better than Gretzky in terms of peak or prime (if you wanna ignore career length and awesome 10th and beyond seasons).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey is a team game, one player doesn't win championships. Gretzky managed to turn a 30 win team into 42 win team after the trade.

The Oilers post Gretzky were a better team than the Oilers as reflected by the regular season standings, while Gretzky was there they only broke 40 wins 2 times.

The 94 Rangers won 52 games a total higher than any season in Los Angeles Kings history

Take Gretzky away from the dynasty Oilers who knows how many cups the Oilers would have but it would be closer to 1 than 5

Thank you.

So even with Gretzky they had serious issues that pure misguided offensive skills could not solve.

 

[DannyGallivan]

13 Times

Shore - 4
Orr - 3
Gardiner - 1
Goodfellow - 1
Siebert - 1
Anderson - 1
Pratt - 1
Pronger - 1

Yes, just over 13. 5 per cent. And only four times since the middle of WWII.

 

[danincanada]

The argument w/r/t Hart voting is probably positional bias (and considering Orr's Hart record it's hard to say that it doesn't have *some* merit). Dmen have been underrepresented in Hart voting since the Norris trophy became a thing.

I think it's harder to quantify exactly how a Dman is contributing all of the time, while it's rather easy to do so with a forward. A forwards job is to score points. Score a lot of them? Job well done! Meanwhile, a Dman could play one of the best games of his career and end up a 0g, 0a, +/- 0 for the night.

I've seen this happen many times so I tend to agree. However, it's a little different when it happens with teammates. It can happen between teammates as well, but it happening so frequently leads one to believe that Beliveau was simply the better player and "more valuable to his team". And of course, as I pointed out, Big Jean wasn't done after Harvey was toiling in the AHL.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Thank you.

So even with Gretzky they had serious issues that pure misguided offensive skills could not solve.

Ah I made a typo I meant the Kings instead of the second Oilers

If you actually read what I wrote you would've picked up that I made a typo from the context....

 

[DannyGallivan]

Orr was just three times top-10 in shorthanded goal scoring his whole career(4th, 6th, 4th) while Gretzky was 6th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st his first five NHL seasons.

Pretty good for a d-man.