Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[bobholly39]

If I did this list again in five years, I think that Crosby could crack the top six and Ovechkin the top 10.

...and as much of a fan I am of the entire top four, I am still a little ticked that the overall vote did not have Bobby Orr at number one.

I know me and you argued back and forth quite a bit from the very, very start of the project on this point. Which again is why it bugs me a little bit that the criteria wasn't defined a bit better for what "top players" meant, since I feel we're ranking different things.

Orr had 9 seasons. Gretzky had 21 seasons. Now - Orr's 9 best seasons and Gretzky's 9 best are actually close if you consider playoffs and everything else. There's a case to say Orr > Gretzky for 9 best, but it's not a slam dunk, as peak Gretzky broke every record imaginable, quite close. However - 21 seasons of seasons of Gretzky > 9 seasons of Orr, since that extra 12 seasons has to make a difference. And considering how for me "top players" includes full career and longevity - the case for Gretzky over Orr is super straight forward.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I know me and you argued back and forth quite a bit from the very, very start of the project on this point. Which again is why it bugs me a little bit that the criteria wasn't defined a bit better for what "top players" meant, since I feel we're ranking different things.

Orr had 9 seasons. Gretzky had 21 seasons. Now - Orr's 9 best seasons and Gretzky's 9 best are actually close if you consider playoffs and everything else. There's a case to say Orr > Gretzky for 9 best, but it's not a slam dunk, as peak Gretzky broke every record imaginable, quite close. However - 21 seasons of seasons of Gretzky > 9 seasons of Orr, since that extra 12 seasons has to make a difference. And considering how for me "top players" includes full career and longevity - the case for Gretzky over Orr is super straight forward.

The only way I can respond is to rehash all the old arguments (Orr did everything... Gretzky couldn't; Orr achieved both defensive and offensive myth-like status; etc. etc. etc.) So all I can say is that we agree to disagree. I say that Bobby Orr was the most gifted combination of athletism and hockey talent in the history of the game. Gretzky, who's shot was underrated but still not super strong and who's skating was underrated but not super fast, was the most gifted offensive player of all time. I have them No. 1 and 2. And I'm not saying there's a large margin (I don't think there's a large margin with any of the top four, including the much maligned Mario), but I'd still put Orr in front.

 

[bobholly39]

The only way I can respond is to rehash all the old arguments (Orr did everything... Gretzky couldn't; Orr achieved both defensive and offensive myth-like status; etc. etc. etc.) So all I can say is that we agree to disagree. I say that Bobby Orr was the most gifted combination of athletism and hockey talent in the history of the game. Gretzky, who's shot was underrated but still not super strong and who's skating was underrated but not super fast, was the most gifted offensive player of all time. I have them No. 1 and 2.

lol you're proving my point. You basically countered me with "Orr is the better player" while I'm saying "yes but Gretzky had the better career". Apples and Oranges.

Also - Lemieux was the most gifted offensive player of all time imo.

 

[DannyGallivan]

lol you're proving my point. You basically countered me with "Orr is the better player" while I'm saying "yes but Gretzky had the better career". Apples and Oranges.

Also - Lemieux was the most gifted offensive player of all time imo.

If it's about the better career, I may put Howe in front of Gretzky. I looked at the exercise as who proved that they were the best. I did consider longevity as well... or McDavid and Kariya would have made my list. I kinda put everything into a blender... but I did emphasis peak/prime.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There's a case to say Orr > Gretzky for 9 best...

Is there?!?

Orr only won 3 Harts, was never 2nd, and only won 1 Pearson in 5 years of eligibility.

Gretzky won 8 consecutive Harts with 5 Pearsons in there.

Were the players as well as the media from Orr's era simply unaware of how great he was? Like similar to Johann Sebastian Bach he was so advanced that people in his own time couldn't even comprehend it?

JMO but for Orr to be greater than Gretzky, he'd have to have won the Hart and Pearson every healthy season (Pearson for the years it existed), and do it by far greater margins than Gretzky did.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If it's about the better career, I may put Howe in front of Gretzky. I looked at the exercise as who proved that they were the best. I did consider longevity as well... or McDavid and Kariya would have made my list. I kinda put everything into a blender... but I did emphasis peak/prime.

JMO but the whole point of being the best is to become the greatest. Greatest being something along the lines of "Contributors that give their team the greatest chances to win the most cups."

 

[daver]

Pretends like he doesn't know that Bobby Hull had a lot stiffer comp in the late 50's and 60's then Ovechkin has ever faced and passes off numbers without context. Lazy.

It's one of the reasons I just roll my eyes when the Ovi fanboys trot out the "hardware" drivel. Oh man how he had such stellar comp at LW the past 14 to push him for all those AS nods....

That and "Ovechkin is a great playmaker" always gives a good chuckle.

It's utterly comical that a player can get so much mileage off being elite at one thing, without even bothering to look at the context behind it, you know, like volume shooting, and only caring about playing energized hockey in 1 out of 3 zones....and acting like those things don't greatly enhance the odds of scoring goals vs the rest of the league.

He won Richards recently, notably in 2014/15, and tied the best goalscoring playoff run while putting in a noticeable effort in the defensive zone. Not sure we say with 100% certainty that if he played that way all of his career that his numbers would be lower.

Like Jagr, him cheating in the d-zone, especially at his peak, did keep the other team honest to a certain extent. I always position this as something that arguably lowers his overall value against Crosby who was matching OV's peak offensive production while contributing on the defensive end.

Was Bobby Hull a noted 2-way player?

 

[daver]

Of course, Bobby Hull tended to generate more of his goal scoring on his own, in an era that demanded that he carry one or two defensemen/checking forwards on his back at the same time. Ovechkin... well, he has a heavy shot alright.

I'll get right to the point. Bobby Hull was the better player. I'm not saying Ovechkin was/is a slouch. In my top 120 players of all time, I had Hull at number five and Ovechkin at number 13. Pretty good, I think.

Hull has the superior overall offensive resume; that OV could surpass his NHL goalscoring resume shouldn't change their respective rankings (unless OV adds significantly to his playoff resume).

 

[Midnight Judges]

I always position this as something that arguably lowers his overall value against Crosby who was matching OV's peak offensive production while contributing on the defensive end.

Crosby never matched Ovechkin's peak unless you stitch together quarter and half seasons and pretend they're just as good as full seasons.

Crosby has never been particularly good at defense, and certainly wasn't good defensively in his peak offensive seasons, nor was he asked to do much in that regard.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Hull has the superior overall offensive resume;...

No, he really doesn't.

Pretty much any advantage he has in PPG relative to peers can be explained by the weakness of his peers and the relatively tiny talent pool from which they came.

I'd be happy to revisit your bizarre take on how Ovechkin's 65 goal season is a tier 1 season but his 56 goal season is somehow two tiers below that.

 

[bobholly39]

Is there?!?

Orr only won 3 Harts, was never 2nd, and only won 1 Pearson in 5 years of eligibility.

Gretzky won 8 consecutive Harts with 5 Pearsons in there.

Were the players as well as the media from Orr's era simply unaware of how great he was? Like similar to Johann Sebastian Bach he was so advanced that people in his own time couldn't even comprehend it?

JMO but for Orr to be greater than Gretzky, he'd have to have won the Hart and Pearson every healthy season (Pearson for the years it existed), and do it by far greater margins than Gretzky did.

I believe Gretzky > Orr even for peak/9 best season, so i'm not going to make a devil's advocate argument for Orr here.

Point is - it's easier for me to accept Orr > Gretzky if it's just 9 seasons. If it's full career (ie - 21 gretzky seasons to 9 0rr seasons ) the argument ceases to exist, or at least is way, waaay harder to get to. And this project is supposed to be about full careers.

 

[TheEye]

It's utterly comical that a player can get so much mileage off being elite at one thing, without even bothering to look at the context behind it, you know, like volume shooting

Effectively, based on the volume, they've maintained nearly identical results thus far. Bobby Hull's shooting percentage stood at 12.6% after his first 15 years with the Blackhawks. Ovechkin is equally at 12.6% through his first 14 years with the Capitals. Bobby Hull scored 604 goals over that span. Alexander Ovechkin scored 658 goals.

If Hull's average shot totals can be extrapolated back over his first two seasons, his shooting percentage is even lower than the stated average at 12.6%. Extrapolating the shot total average back to Hull's first season he took an estimated 5237 shots over 15 seasons to attain 604 goals. Ovechkin has taken 5234 shots over 14 seasons to reach his current goal total. I don't think it's reasonable to single one player out as a volume shooter. They were both volume shooters and nearly statistically identical in that regard.

If you want to argue Hull drove the play to a greater extent, that's a completely separate discussion.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Crosby never matched Ovechkin's peak unless you stitch together quarter and half seasons and pretend they're just as good as full seasons.

Crosby has never been particularly good at defense, and certainly wasn't good defensively in his peak offensive seasons, nor was he asked to do much in that regard.

Crosby as a 19 year old put up a better season than anything 8 has done.

2010-2011 would have also been superior but we all know why that season ended at 41 games.....you know the one where he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points. But keep filling your head up with unfiltered BS.

If Crosby has "never been particularly good at defense" then how is he about to become just the 2nd (maybe 3rd, Kuri is the only player with a longer streak IIRC) player in NHL history to finish top 10 in scoring AND selke voting FOUR YEARS IN A ROW?

And if Sid was/is never particularly good at defense that means Ovechkin is one of the worst defensive players in the history of the sport. All things being relative.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If Crosby has "never been particularly good at defense" then how is he about to become just the 2nd (maybe 3rd, Kuri is the only player with a longer streak IIRC) player in NHL history to finish top 10 in scoring AND selke voting FOUR YEARS IN A ROW?

The same way he won a Conn Smythe playing at a 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player over another guy who was playing at a 103 point / 34 goal pace as a plus player.

The same was he got several sportsmanship award votes two Months after deliberately smacking a guy in the nuts with his stick (then lying about it) and hacking another guy's fingertip off.

The same way he got Hart votes in a season where he was third highest scorer on his team while being tied for 29th in the NHL in goals while not killing penalties or playing much of a defensive role.

Apparently there are some voters who will back him no matter what.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The same way he won a Conn Smythe playing at a 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player over another guy who was playing at a 103 point / 34 goal pace as a plus player.

The same was he got several sportsmanship award votes two Months after deliberately smacking a guy in the nuts with his stick (then lying about it) and hacking another guy's fingertip off.

The same way he got Hart votes in a season where he was third highest scorer on his team while being tied for 29th in the NHL in goals while not killing penalties or playing much of a defensive role.

Apparently there are some voters who will back him no matter what.

Cuts both ways dude.

If you think Ovechkin hasn't gotten votes by homers and anti Sid folks like yourself, you're out to lunch. 2013 was notable. How many Hart votes did Ovechkin get when he wasn't even a PPG player in the NHL, which has happened numerous times btw?

How did Ovechkin win the Smythe when he finished further behind Kuz then Sid did Kessel in points?

I mean, if we're talking about "voters who will back players no matter what".

Cuts both ways.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

lol you're proving my point. You basically countered me with "Orr is the better player" while I'm saying "yes but Gretzky had the better career". Apples and Oranges.

Also - Lemieux was the most gifted offensive player of all time imo.

Pretty sure the title of the project was top 100 players, not top 100 careers.

Why have Orr in the top 4 at all if its best careers? Plenty of guys had better careers. Orr and Lemieux are not consider part of the Big Four for their career value.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Crosby never matched Ovechkin's peak unless you stitch together quarter and half seasons and pretend they're just as good as full seasons.

Crosby has never been particularly good at defense, and certainly wasn't good defensively in his peak offensive seasons, nor was he asked to do much in that regard.

After touting Gretzky as the clear best ever, you don't see the irony of this argument?

 

[Midnight Judges]

After touting Gretzky as the clear best ever, you don't see the irony of this argument?

None what so ever. Care to connect the dots?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

None what so ever. Care to connect the dots?

First of all, your depiction of Crosby's defense play is not at all accurate.

Second, Gretzky barely played any defense for much of his career.

Thus it is quite ironic that you would criticize Crosby's defense and not even consider Gretzky's defense a factor.

 

[Midnight Judges]

First of all, your depiction of Crosby's defense play is not at all accurate.

Second, Gretzky barely played any defense for much of his career.

Thus it is quite ironic that you would criticize Crosby's defense and not even consider Gretzky's defense a factor.

No it isn’t.

Gretzky had no business getting Selke votes. He got them anyway, for reasons I’ll never agree with (likely sheer popularity). Regardless, his offensive contributions immensely outweigh his defensive lapses. And so he’s the goat.

Crosby has no business getting Selke votes. He gets them anyway, for reasons I’ll never agree with (likely sheer popularity) unless he drastically improves. Regardless, his offensive contributions vastly outweigh his defensive lapses. And so he’s a top 10 player of all time IMO.

Where is the inconsistency?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No it isn’t.

Gretzky had no business getting Selke votes. He got them anyway, for reasons I’ll never agree with (likely sheer popularity). Regardless, his offensive contributions immensely outweigh his defensive lapses. And so he’s the goat.

Crosby has no business getting Selke votes. He gets them anyway, for reasons I’ll never agree with (likely sheer popularity) unless he drastically improves. Regardless, his offensive contributions vastly outweigh his defensive lapses. And so he’s a top 10 player of all time IMO.

Where is the inconsistency?

Be serious, please.

Gretzky got 3 Selke votes in his entire career. A joke that he got those. Crosby has gotten actual Selke support multiple times.

Anyway, if you list Crosby as a top 10 player, where do you rank Ovechkin? You seem to be favoring Ovie in your post above.

 

[Vilica]

Be serious, please.

Gretzky got 3 Selke votes in his entire career. A joke that he got those. Crosby has gotten actual Selke support multiple times.

Anyway, if you list Crosby as a top 10 player, where do you rank Ovechkin? You seem to be favoring Ovie in your post above.

I keep meaning to post this in the Crosby Selke discussions, because I looked up his actual results after one too many Crosby elite defensively Selke statements in other threads. As you state, Gretzky got 3 Selke votes, 1 2nd place and 2 3rd place. It also seems like back in that day, voters only filled out a Selke ballot to 3 places, as opposed to the current 5 places.

Alex Ovechkin has received 7 total Selke votes, all from 07-08 through 09-10. He got 1 1st place vote, 2 3rd place voters, 3 4th place votes and 1 5th place vote. All told, that adds up in the Selke scoring system to 30 points. (As an aside, the 1st place vote in 09-10 can kinda be justified - Ovechkin was on ice for 87 Goals For and 37 Goals Against at even strength that year, a +50 ratio that exceeds any other post-lockout season that I've found)

Here's Sidney Crosby's Selke vote totals prior to this year:

09-10 - 1 3rd, 2 4th (11 Points - t30th)
12-13 - 1 2nd, 2 3rd, 1 4th, 1 5th (21 Points - 15th)
13-14 - 2 4th, 2 5th (8 Points - t16th)
14-15 - 1 1st, 0 2nd, 1 3rd, 1 4th, 3 5th (21 Points - 19th)
15-16 - 2 1st, 2 2nd, 5 3rd, 4 4th, 2 5th (73 Points - 7th [Kopitar in 1st got 1145 Points and 77 1st place votes])
16-17 - 3 1st, 1 2nd, 2 3rd, 1 4th, 1 5th (51 Points - 10th)
17-18 - 1 3rd, 5 4th, 6 5th (26 Points - 9th)

Total over 7 Years:
6 1st place votes - 60
4 2nd place votes - 28
12 3rd place votes - 60
16 4th place votes - 48
15 5th place votes - 15
(211 total points)

For reference, 211 points ends up 4th-6th place in Selke voting most years, depending on how fragmented the vote is. There are about 150 Selke voters each year, and you have Crosby receiving Selke votes in 7 separate years, so about 1050 ballots total, and Crosby was named on 53. It's not actual Selke support, it's just a few writers throwing his name on the back end of their ballot.

That isn't to say that Crosby is bad defensively - he's good on faceoffs, he's elite at transitioning out of the defensive zone, and he spends most of his time in the offensive zone so he doesn't actually have to do any defending. He's just not a contender for best defensive forward for any reason other than name recognition.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Be serious, please.

Gretzky got 3 Selke votes in his entire career. A joke that he got those. Crosby has gotten actual Selke support multiple times.

Actually Crosby's Selke support is fairly paltry. He got 1.6% of the vote one year and 3% another year. It's 8-11 homers carrying his water out of 166 voters.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That isn't to say that Crosby is bad defensively - he's good on faceoffs, he's elite at transitioning out of the defensive zone, and he spends most of his time in the offensive zone so he doesn't actually have to do any defending. He's just not a contender for best defensive forward for any reason other than name recognition.

Nor does he kill penalties.

Although every year there seems to be a narrative saying that he does.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Is there?!?

Orr only won 3 Harts, was never 2nd, and only won 1 Pearson in 5 years of eligibility.

Gretzky won 8 consecutive Harts with 5 Pearsons in there.

Were the players as well as the media from Orr's era simply unaware of how great he was? Like similar to Johann Sebastian Bach he was so advanced that people in his own time couldn't even comprehend it?

JMO but for Orr to be greater than Gretzky, he'd have to have won the Hart and Pearson every healthy season (Pearson for the years it existed), and do it by far greater margins than Gretzky did.

Don't forget that the Hart is a totally flawed and subjective award. If you read the scribes from those days, even in the years that Orr wasn't winning the Hart, nobody was suggesting anybody else in the NHL was better... or even close. It's lazy to base your argument on trophy counting alone. You discount the historic bias against defensemen for the Hart in general. You discount that a frickin' defenseman won the Art Ross (a non-subjective trophy) TWICE! And of course, my pet argument... anybody who saw the two play could assume that Orr would have been a superstar as a centerman, but does anybody think that Gretzky would have been a decent defenseman?

... all these arguments are reprints from our voting posts. You should have taken part in the exercise, it would have been fun.