Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

[Stephen]

I think you just need to realize that this list is based on hard evidence, and not "what if's" (and I don't mean that in a bad way...I'm a big subscriber to what-if theories). And for listing the greatest careers, that may be a valid method. If it were a list of top 100 greatest players ever, then I would have issue with it.

I feel Eric Lindros was a top-50 player, but I also realize that he did not have a top-50 career. There is a difference, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the word "career" is in the title.

Cam Neely

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=3930

Alexei Yashin

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=5819

Hard evidence tells me that Neely played in an era during Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux, Bourque and other's primes, so he probably wouldn't get a sniff of the Hart if he scored 70, or had been healthy.

Hard evidence also tells me that Neely was a much more dominant scorer in his injury filled career than Yashin was, and his peak was more impressive, more enduring, despite terrible injuries.

 

[lemieux32*]

Yes. Let's analyze:

You think this three year stretch is one of the greats in NHL history???

Quote:
2001-02 Vancouver Canucks NHL 81 40 50 90 50 5th G, 4th A, 2nd Pts, 5th Hart Balloting
2002-03 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 48 56 104 52 2nd G, 8th A, 2nd Pts, 2nd Hart Balloting
2003-04 Vancouver Canucks NHL 78 35 49 84 58 7th G, 9th A, 4th Pts, 5th Hart Balloting

and you think it is better then this stretch?

Quote:
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 52 61 113 14 5th G, - A, 7th Pts, - Hart
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 73 71 64 135 30 2nd G, 9th A, 2nd Pts, - Hart
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 78 68 63 131 22 1st G, 9th A, 4th Pts, - Hart


(- means out of top 10)


Kurri was the better goal scorer, Naslund was the better playmaker, and Naslund was better in overall points. The clincher is that Naslund was seriously considered for three Hart Trophies and Kurri was never considered for any.

You can't take point totals at face value - you need perspective. Players from the 80s will always have higher totals, that was the way hockey was played back then. When you look at the real impact of Naslund's 2002-2004 vs Kurri's 84-86 it is clear that Naslund had the better three year stretch.

A few points (just for fun since you have already proven that you won't listen to anyone who disagrees with you):
1) For being such a poor playmaker Kurri has more assists in every season. Even in adjusted numbers they would be very close to Naslund.
2) Anyone will tell you that playing with arguably the most talented team ever hurt Kurri when it came to awards. Having a consistant Hart winner, multi-Norris winner, multi-Pearson winner, etc. makes it less likely for others to win awards.
3) 50 goals in 50 games played (53 team games) in 84-85. Led the league in 85-86 in goals. Held the NHL record for goals by a RW in a season with 71.
4) Playoff stud, Stanley Cup wins.

I could go on, but to simply take Hart voting as the reason that those three seasons by Naslund where better then Kurri's is just plain silly. To say those three seasons are among the best three season stretch is just stupid.

(expecting another silly reply or you to get all pissy...which will it be?)

 

[Sens Rule]

Yes. Let's analyze:

Which is the better three year stretch?

Naslund

2001-02 Vancouver Canucks NHL 81 40 50 90 50 5th G, 4th A, 2nd Pts, 5th Hart Balloting 6 playoff games 1 goal and 1 assist.
2002-03 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 48 56 104 52 2nd G, 8th A, 2nd Pts, 2nd Hart Balloting 14 playoff games 5 goals 9 assists
2003-04 Vancouver Canucks NHL 78 35 49 84 58 7th G, 9th A, 4th Pts, 5th Hart Balloting 7 playoff games 2 goals 7 assists

Kurri

1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 52 61 113 14 5th G, - A, 7th Pts, - Hart 19 games 14 goals (Leads NHL) 14 assists 2nd in playoff points Team WINS STANLEY CUP
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 73 71 64 135 30 2nd G, 9th A, 2nd Pts, - Hart 18 playoff games. 19 goals (ties NHL record and leads NHL) 12 assists 3rd in playoff scoring. Team WINS STANLEY CUP
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 78 68 63 131 22 1st G, 9th A, 4th Pts, - Hart 10 games 2 goals and 10 assists.

It is clear to me that Kurri had the better three year stretch but it could be argued Naslund was close to it in his three years. Stretch it to 4 seasons, 5 seasons, 6 seasons, 7 seasons 8 seasons and on and on and Kurri comes out with a far better career, a longer and better peak. Far more success. There is no way that one can legitimately argue Naslund has had a better career than Kurri. It is impossible and to even try to argue for Naslund is ridiculous.

Kurri LED THE NHL in playoff goals 4 times. Every one of the first four Oiler Cups he was the goal scoring leader. Kurri has 5 Seasons with 10+ Playoff goals and a 6 seaons with 23+ playoff points.

Kurri played in an offensive era for sure. But these are his goal scoring and points stats regular season and playoffs in his peak: 82/83 to 89/90 Eight seasons.

82/83 96 games 53 goals 127 points
83/84 83 games 66 goals 141 points
84/85 91 games 90 goals!!!!!!! 166 points!!!!
85/86 88 games 70 goals 143 points
86/87 100 games 69 goals 133 points
87/88 99 games 69 goals 127 points
88/89 83 games 47 goals 110 points
89/90 100 games 43 goals 118 points

He AVERAGED over 8 seasons 92.5 games 63.4 goals 133.1 points.

He won 5 Stanley Cups made another finals appearance and lost in the 2nd round once. He played in 27 playoff series in the 8 years and his team won 24 of them. In 1983/84 he had the second most overall goals to Gretzky in 84/85 he had the most goals even outscoring Gretzky, In 85/86 he again had the most overall goals. in 86/87 he again led in overall goals. In 87/88 he had the third most overall goals to only Mario and Craig Simpson.

So over FIVE consecutive seasons in OVERALL goals scored in meaningful games (possibly the best measure of a forwards utility) Kurri was 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st and 3rd. And he had to compete with Gretzky, Bossy and Mario in most of those years. I didn't figure out where his point totals would rank but they would likely range from 2nd to 5th over those 5 seasons and be at least top 15 or so for the whole 8 year peak.

 

[arrbez]

Cam Neely

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=3930

Alexei Yashin

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=5819

Hard evidence tells me that Neely played in an era during Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux, Bourque and other's primes, so he probably wouldn't get a sniff of the Hart if he scored 70, or had been healthy.

Hard evidence also tells me that Neely was a much more dominant scorer in his injury filled career than Yashin was, and his peak was more impressive, more enduring, despite terrible injuries.

Well, no, hard evidence doesn't point to him being more dominant. Common sense does. Trust me, I don't think Yashin was better than Neely by any stretch of the imagination. But the Hart voting is based largely on being able to play a full season.

 

[pappyline]

Quote from Lemieux32

2) Anyone will tell you that playing with arguably the most talented team ever hurt Kurri when it came to awards. Having a consistant Hart winner, multi-Norris winner, multi-Pearson winner, etc. makes it less likely for others to win awards.

On the other hand would he have those stats if he wasn't playing with all these better players who were winning awards. I think not.

 

[Sens Rule]

Well, no, hard evidence doesn't point to him being more dominant. Common sense does. Trust me, I don't think Yashin was better than Neely by any stretch of the imagination. But the Hart voting is based largely on being able to play a full season.

Well I watched the Hart finalist Yashin play for my team the Senators in the playoffs that year and the other decent years he had in Ottawa. I also watched Neely play for Boston in the playoffs. There is simply no comparision at all.

Hart voters get to vote on a particular regular season. HHOF voters or us Hockey History Buffs can see the big picture and to even compare the 2 players at all is ridiculous. Neely was so much better than Yashin that I'd take Neely if he could only play ever second game his whole career. I'd take Neely for ONE or TWO games in a series over Yashin for the entire playoffs.

Neely is the kind of player that stats are irrelevant really, so are voting totals for All-Star and Hart trophies or injury riddled regular seasons.

If you saw Neely play in the playoffs for Boston then you can see why he is in the HHOF and why he is so highly regarded. Neely never won a Cup but he has to be one of the top playoff performers that I have EVER seen. Bourque and Neely would raise their games to a much higher level in the playoffs. Which is astounding since they were already playing at a really high level all season.

These are the top playoff performers I ever saw play in my life and 20+ years of watching the NHL. Gretzky, Mario, Bourque, Neely, Gilmour, Yzerman, Sakic, Roy.

the fact Neely and Gilmour are on this list of greater players than them is a testament to how amazing they were in the playoffs.

Edit - forgot Messier

 

[Stephen]

Well, no, hard evidence doesn't point to him being more dominant. Common sense does. Trust me, I don't think Yashin was better than Neely by any stretch of the imagination. But the Hart voting is based largely on being able to play a full season.

Well, I'm not sure about that: Neely's half season totals in 1994 were still better than Yashin's absolute best, and that's clearly better, even if we're talking about a lower scoring era. Anyway, as the Kurri/Naslund debate shows, this list has more holes than a fishnet.

 

[Sens Rule]

Well, no, hard evidence doesn't point to him being more dominant. Common sense does. Trust me, I don't think Yashin was better than Neely by any stretch of the imagination. But the Hart voting is based largely on being able to play a full season.

Mario did get quite a few Hart votes and a 2nd all Star nod in his 42 or 43 game comeback season. Of course that is Mario.

 

[arrbez]

Mario did get quite a few Hart votes and a 2nd all Star nod in his 42 or 43 game comeback season. Of course that is Mario.

Lemieux was just a freak. Even after 3.5 years retirement, he was still EASILY the best offensive player in the league when he returned. 76 points in 43 games, and that includes shaking off 3+ years of rust...that's nuts.

The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Lemieux's abilities.

 

[Sens Rule]

Lemieux was just a freak. Even after 3.5 years retirement, he was still EASILY the best offensive player in the league when he returned. 76 points in 43 games, and that includes shaking off 3+ years of rust...that's nuts.

The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Lemieux's abilities.

Remember how FAT or at least far bigger he looked too in that year? He was so much bigger than he had been. His face was so much fatter.

Mario's playing weight was supposedly 245 or so when he came back - about 20 lbs or so more than when he retired. I would bet that that was a lie. I bet Mario was about 260 lbs when he started his comeback.

Many will say "imagine what would have been if he played those 3.5 season". And of course that is fun to imagine.

I wonder though if the 3.5 seasons off really helped him get healthier. Even though he put on alot of weight 3.5 years of not getting cross checked in the back, not taking so much punishment would have seen him feel so much healthier. His body would have almost healed.

I wonder if Mario would have been able to score at the pace he did for 43 games at that age if he had not retired for so long. Would 3.5 years more of wear and tear have seen him more diminished as a player than 3.5 years of relaxing and golfing?

While he was younger then when he came back, I wonder if Mario decided to sign a contract just before the signing freeze at the trade deadline with Pittsburgh next year and just played mostly the PP and a bit at ES for a half dozen regualr season games and then all of the playoffs how good could he still be?

For one game even right now, Mario could still be one of the best players in the world. He would inevitably break down if he played for any period of time, and he would be slower but I think he could still do it.

He could be the Pens Roger Clemens - just show up for the playoffs and have some fun.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Lemieux was just a freak. Even after 3.5 years retirement, he was still EASILY the best offensive player in the league when he returned. 76 points in 43 games, and that includes shaking off 3+ years of rust...that's nuts.

The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Lemieux's abilities.

I don't need to think to be impressed with Lemieux's abilities. The most physically blessed player of all-time.

One of his accomplishments which seems to be forgotten was that 46-game point streak in 1989-90. Incredible. The countdown was on to him breaking Gretzky's 51-game point streak. But added to the drama was Lemieux's back problems, which really surfaced that season. Entering every Pens game, there were two questions: would Mario extend his point streak, or would this be the game that he sits because of his back pain, which was growing more excrutiating by the day. He hit the 46-game mark, and then had to quit early in Game 47. I believe he missed most of the rest of the season.

As for the Neely vs. Yashin debate: no contest. Yashin couldn't hold a candle to Neely. Yashin had the one big year. But the lasting and most significant memory for Yashin that season? His failure to figure out Mike Peca in the playoffs. Yashin couldn't do anything against Peca. And he wasn't alone. Jason Allison (at the time one of the best playmaking centres in the league) and Mats Sundin were in the same boat. The bottom line is that Yashin put up the big points in the regular season, but once the most important hockey started, Yashin was a non-factor. You never said that about Neely.

Neely played the best hockey of his career in the 1991 playoffs. He was a dominant player in 1990. And he was the primary reason that Boston ended their 40-year jinx against Montreal in 1988. Playoffs are much more important than regular season. Neely dominated. Yashin wilted.

As for Naslund vs. Kurri, it does show a flaw in the system. Naslund was nowhere near the player that Kurri was in their respective primes. Naslund wasn't even the best LW in the league. (A much weaker position than 80s RW, which also had Bossy and Kerr). I would have taken Patrick Elias over Naslund. A better two-way player and playoff performer. Naslund might have had Hart votes, but I'd take Kurri's all-round game and historical playoff performances over Naslund's Hart Trophy votes any day.

And Kurri was much more than just Gretzky's lackey. He had one of the best one-timers the game has ever seen. A great shooter, and a brilliant player, too. Excellent playmaker. Very, very smart. And a Selke-worthy player. The perfect running mate for Wayne.

 

[slade]

edit- side note:


waynes numbers are absolutely disgusting.

1979-80 Edmonton Oilers NHL 79 51 86 137
1980-81 Edmonton Oilers NHL 80 55 109 164
1981-82 Edmonton Oilers NHL 80 92 120 212
1982-83 Edmonton Oilers NHL 80 71 125 196
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 74 87 118 205
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 80 73 135 208
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 80 52 163 215
1986-87 Edmonton Oilers NHL 79 62 121 183
1987-88 Edmonton Oilers NHL 64 40 109 149
1988-89 Los Angeles Kings NHL 78 54 114 168
1989-90 Los Angeles Kings NHL 73 40 102 142
1990-91 Los Angeles Kings NHL 78 41 122 163
1991-92 Los Angeles Kings NHL 74 31 90 121
1992-93 Los Angeles Kings NHL 45 16 49 65
1993-94 Los Angeles Kings NHL 81 38 92 130
1994-95 Los Angeles Kings NHL 48 11 37 48
1995-96 Los Angeles Kings NHL 62 15 66 81
1995-96 St. Louis Blues NHL 18 8 13 21
1996-97 New York Rangers NHL 82 25 72 97
1997-98 New York Rangers NHL 82 23 67 90
1998-99 New York Rangers NHL 70 9 53 62

 

[lemieux32*]

Quote from Lemieux32

2) Anyone will tell you that playing with arguably the most talented team ever hurt Kurri when it came to awards. Having a consistant Hart winner, multi-Norris winner, multi-Pearson winner, etc. makes it less likely for others to win awards.

On the other hand would he have those stats if he wasn't playing with all these better players who were winning awards. I think not.

Having watched Kurri quite a bit, I can honestly say he would have been one of the best scorers in the game no matter who he had played with. Sure his overall points would have been lower, but he still would have been one of the best.

 

[Sens Rule]

Let's look at his regular season and playoff points together


Waynes numbers are absolutely disgusting.

1979-80 Edmonton Oilers NHL 82 53 87 140 1.71 PPG
1980-81 Edmonton Oilers NHL 89 62 116 185 2.08
1981-82 Edmonton Oilers NHL 85 97 127 224 2.64
1982-83 Edmonton Oilers NHL 96 83 151 234 2.44
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 93 100 140 240 2.58
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 98 90 165 255 2.60
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 90 60 174 234 2.60
1986-87 Edmonton Oilers NHL 100 67 150 217 2.17
1987-88 Edmonton Oilers NHL 83 52 140 192 2.31
1988-89 Los Angeles Kings NHL 89 59 131 190 2.13
1989-90 Los Angeles Kings NHL 80 43 107 152 1.90
1990-91 Los Angeles Kings NHL 90 45 133 178 1.98
1991-92 Los Angeles Kings NHL 80 33 95 128 1.60
1992-93 Los Angeles Kings NHL 69 31 74 105 1.52
1993-94 Los Angeles Kings NHL 81 38 92 130 1.60
1994-95 Los Angeles Kings NHL 48 11 37 48 1.00
1995-96 LA Kings/Blues NHL 93 25 93 118 1.27
1996-97 New York Rangers NHL 97 35 82 117 1.21
1997-98 New York Rangers NHL 82 23 67 90 1.10
1998-99 New York Rangers NHL 70 9 53 62 0.89

In his first 15 Seasons from 79/80 to 93/94 he AVERAGED 87 games 61 goals 125 assists and 186 points. He also played on FOUR Canada Cups in that 15 years and 1 World Hockey Championship and the 1987 All-Star competition vs the Russians. And he played in Every All-Star Game that was held in that run. That is a heck of a lot of meaningful hockey games from age 18-33 years old.

Plus he has those last 5 years of his career where he led the NHL in assists twice, had a World Cup appearance and scored 36 points in 28 playoff games.

Notice the clear Bell Curve when looking at his total points. Up every year until 84/85 then declining through the rest of his career. Shows his career progression quite well and his peak 15 seasons.

 

[pitseleh]

Well, no, hard evidence doesn't point to him being more dominant. Common sense does. Trust me, I don't think Yashin was better than Neely by any stretch of the imagination. But the Hart voting is based largely on being able to play a full season.

I don't agree that projections are common sense. There have been far too many examples of players heating up/cooling down over long stretches that they're far too unreliable to use with confidence, IMO.

 

[slade]

Let's look at his regular season and playoff points together


Waynes numbers are absolutely disgusting.

1979-80 Edmonton Oilers NHL 82 53 87 140 1.71 PPG
1980-81 Edmonton Oilers NHL 89 62 116 185 2.08
1981-82 Edmonton Oilers NHL 85 97 127 224 2.64
1982-83 Edmonton Oilers NHL 96 83 151 234 2.44
1983-84 Edmonton Oilers NHL 93 100 140 240 2.58
1984-85 Edmonton Oilers NHL 98 90 165 255 2.60
1985-86 Edmonton Oilers NHL 90 60 174 234 2.60
1986-87 Edmonton Oilers NHL 100 67 150 217 2.17
1987-88 Edmonton Oilers NHL 83 52 140 192 2.31
1988-89 Los Angeles Kings NHL 89 59 131 190 2.13
1989-90 Los Angeles Kings NHL 80 43 107 152 1.90
1990-91 Los Angeles Kings NHL 90 45 133 178 1.98
1991-92 Los Angeles Kings NHL 80 33 95 128 1.60
1992-93 Los Angeles Kings NHL 69 31 74 105 1.52
1993-94 Los Angeles Kings NHL 81 38 92 130 1.60
1994-95 Los Angeles Kings NHL 48 11 37 48 1.00
1995-96 LA Kings/Blues NHL 93 25 93 118 1.27
1996-97 New York Rangers NHL 97 35 82 117 1.21
1997-98 New York Rangers NHL 82 23 67 90 1.10
1998-99 New York Rangers NHL 70 9 53 62 0.89

In his first 15 Seasons from 79/80 to 93/94 he AVERAGED 87 games 61 goals 125 assists and 186 points. He also played on FOUR Canada Cups in that 15 years and 1 World Hockey Championship and the 1987 All-Star competition vs the Russians. And he played in Every All-Star Game that was held in that run. That is a heck of a lot of meaningful hockey games from age 18-33 years old.

Plus he has those last 5 years of his career where he led the NHL in assists twice, had a World Cup appearance and scored 36 points in 28 playoff games.

Notice the clear Bell Curve when looking at his total points. Up every year until 84/85 then declining through the rest of his career. Shows his career progression quite well and his peak 15 seasons.

i know the orr camp always likes to have the last word in this discussion; AND i realize that numbers arent everything. but how can one SERIOUSLY discount wayne dominance? i think he is a pretty clear cut #1.

 

[arrbez]

I don't agree that projections are common sense. There have been far too many examples of players heating up/cooling down over long stretches that they're far too unreliable to use with confidence, IMO.

No, not projections. I don't think Neely was going to score 85 goals or whatever he was on pace for in 1994. I think he had 50 goals in 42 games, didn't he? And then went goal-less over the last 7. That wasn't my point, though.

My point was just that common sense tells me that Neely was a better player than Yashin, whether he got to demonstrate it or not. However, I realize why this may not be reflected in terms of a ranking system that's based almost exclusively on hardware and regular season performance.

 

[#66]

I don't need to think to be impressed with Lemieux's abilities. The most physically blessed player of all-time.

One of his accomplishments which seems to be forgotten was that 46-game point streak in 1989-90. Incredible. The countdown was on to him breaking Gretzky's 51-game point streak. But added to the drama was Lemieux's back problems, which really surfaced that season. Entering every Pens game, there were two questions: would Mario extend his point streak, or would this be the game that he sits because of his back pain, which was growing more excrutiating by the day. He hit the 46-game mark, and then had to quit early in Game 47. I believe he missed most of the rest of the season.

As for the Neely vs. Yashin debate: no contest. Yashin couldn't hold a candle to Neely. Yashin had the one big year. But the lasting and most significant memory for Yashin that season? His failure to figure out Mike Peca in the playoffs. Yashin couldn't do anything against Peca. And he wasn't alone. Jason Allison (at the time one of the best playmaking centres in the league) and Mats Sundin were in the same boat. The bottom line is that Yashin put up the big points in the regular season, but once the most important hockey started, Yashin was a non-factor. You never said that about Neely.

Neely played the best hockey of his career in the 1991 playoffs. He was a dominant player in 1990. And he was the primary reason that Boston ended their 40-year jinx against Montreal in 1988. Playoffs are much more important than regular season. Neely dominated. Yashin wilted.

As for Naslund vs. Kurri, it does show a flaw in the system. Naslund was nowhere near the player that Kurri was in their respective primes. Naslund wasn't even the best LW in the league. (A much weaker position than 80s RW, which also had Bossy and Kerr). I would have taken Patrick Elias over Naslund. A better two-way player and playoff performer. Naslund might have had Hart votes, but I'd take Kurri's all-round game and historical playoff performances over Naslund's Hart Trophy votes any day.

And Kurri was much more than just Gretzky's lackey. He had one of the best one-timers the game has ever seen. A great shooter, and a brilliant player, too. Excellent playmaker. Very, very smart. And a Selke-worthy player. The perfect running mate for Wayne.

One game I'll never forget during that streak was a four goal game vs's the Rangers. I think that it was game 31.

Lemieux came out and it seemed like the streak was over for sure. He looked peaked, was skating gingerly and I didn't think he could finish the game. I remember Kris King and Paul Broten taking shots at him after a whistle. I'm not sure what was said on the ice but in the next 30 minutes of the game Lemieux scored 4 greal goals and then got kicked out of the game early in the third. Even after a 199 point year with Bob Errey and Rob Brown as his wingers, turning it up while he was ailing like that was just jaw dropping. The first goal was scored with such finesse that it left Bob Frose and Mark Hardy (I think), who was hooking Lemieux between the legs, looking completely outmatched. My grandfathers hardy laugh was icing on the cake.

 

[Ol' Jase]

If you have been reading the thread, I have said on more than one occasion that I am expanding things to include the top 20 players from each season. That should change things somewhat.

But, one thing that probably will always be true is that people underrate what Naslund did from 2002-2004. That was one of the great 3 year stretches in NHL history - better than any 3 year stretch Kurri had.

With all due respect, even with every bit of evidence you have presented, you haven't come close to proving this statement.

 

[arrbez]

i know the orr camp always likes to have the last word in this discussion; AND i realize that numbers arent everything. but how can one SERIOUSLY discount wayne dominance? i think he is a pretty clear cut #1.

As a career, he's certainly a clear-cut #1 over Lemieux and Orr. (Howe had the career to end all careers, but I don't think he ever reached the heights of the other 3.) But in terms of how good they were as players, it's very debatable, with no clear right answer IMO.

When playing a full season, Lemieux was certainly on par with Gretzky. Injuries make it a no-doubter in terms of career. However, on a head-to-head basis, you could easily argue that Lemieux was the better player from 1988 on.

I never got to see Bobby Orr play, but it's hard to ignore how ridiculously dominant he was from the time he stepped on the ice to the time his career was basically over at the age of 28. From what I gather, he could probably have 5 or 6 Hart trophies if defensemen were given a fare shake at them. Two Art Ross' as a defenceman, winning the Norris every marginally healthy year of his career, two Conn Smyth's, and doing it all on bum knees. His play at the 1976 Canada Cup is the stuff of legends.

 

[Sens Rule]

I never got to see Bobby Orr play, but it's hard to ignore how ridiculously dominant he was from the time he stepped on the ice to the time his career was basically over at the age of 28. From what I gather, he could probably have 5 or 6 Hart trophies if defensemen were given a fare shake at them. Two Art Ross' as a defenceman, winning the Norris every marginally healthy year of his career, two Conn Smyth's, and doing it all on bum knees. His play at the 1976 Canada Cup is the stuff of legends.

I am not sure Orr was shortchanged on his Hart's. The guys that won them were Esposito and Clarke and Clarke was in every possible way the MVP of his team - a team that was one of the best in the NHL.

Clarke winning those Hart's was not due to the voter's not wanting to give it to a D-Man. Clarke was just that important to the Flyers and so freaking good. Clarke was perhaps the best playmaking forward in the NHL and the best defensive forward.

Someone in the last few months showed how many goals Clarke was on the ice for against in those peak years and how many he was on the ice for. It was astounding how little Clarke was scored on. He was arguably - and I mean arguably - the best defensive player in the NHL while he was finishing 2nd in scoring twice and 6th once and winning the Hart. Two of those Hart's he won over Orr and I say it was a fair vote.

Clarke was the clear leader and best player on a top team and unlike Orr he didn't have an Esposito to share the MVP honours with. He was the best playmaker in the NHL (except Orr) he was probably the best PK forward and best defensive forward.

Link to a thread that shows Clarke's defensive dominance: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=380713

The best player might have been and probably was Orr. The MVP could easily and fairly have been Clarke's without any anti-defenceman bias.

 

[Ol' Jase]

When playing a full season, Lemieux was certainly on par with Gretzky. Injuries make it a no-doubter in terms of career. However, on a head-to-head basis, you could easily argue that Lemieux was the better player from 1988 on.

I grew up watching Gretzky, and I agree 100% with this statement. On the basis of pure skill, Lemieux is the best ever. I truly believe he would have broken the 100 goals in a season barrier had he been healthy.

 

[BNHL]

I am not sure Orr was shortchanged on his Hart's. The guys that won them were Esposito and Clarke and Clarke was in every possible way the MVP of his team - a team that was one of the best in the NHL.

Clarke winning those Hart's was not due to the voter's not wanting to give it to a D-Man. Clarke was just that important to the Flyers and so freaking good. Clarke was perhaps the best playmaking forward in the NHL and the best defensive forward.

Someone in the last few months showed how many goals Clarke was on the ice for against in those peak years and how many he was on the ice for. It was astounding how little Clarke was scored on. He was arguably - and I mean arguably - the best defensive player in the NHL while he was finishing 2nd in scoring twice and 6th once and winning the Hart. Two of those Hart's he won over Orr and I say it was a fair vote.

Clarke was the clear leader and best player on a top team and unlike Orr he didn't have an Esposito to share the MVP honours with. He was the best playmaker in the NHL (except Orr) he was probably the best PK forward and best defensive forward.

Link to a thread that shows Clarke's defensive dominance: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=380713

The best player might have been and probably was Orr. The MVP could easily and fairly have been Clarke's without any anti-defenceman bias.

Espo was not even the MVP on the team when Orr was playing. The league's best defenseman was within earshot of the scoring title and his teammate is MVP? Voting Clarke MVP over Orr is much more reasonable since Orr was not on his team. Best player? Not even close folks.

 

[BNHL]

As a career, he's certainly a clear-cut #1 over Lemieux and Orr. (Howe had the career to end all careers, but I don't think he ever reached the heights of the other 3.) But in terms of how good they were as players, it's very debatable, with no clear right answer IMO.

When playing a full season, Lemieux was certainly on par with Gretzky. Injuries make it a no-doubter in terms of career. However, on a head-to-head basis, you could easily argue that Lemieux was the better player from 1988 on.

I never got to see Bobby Orr play, but it's hard to ignore how ridiculously dominant he was from the time he stepped on the ice to the time his career was basically over at the age of 28. From what I gather, he could probably have 5 or 6 Hart trophies if defensemen were given a fare shake at them. Two Art Ross' as a defenceman, winning the Norris every marginally healthy year of his career, two Conn Smyth's, and doing it all on bum knees. His play at the 1976 Canada Cup is the stuff of legends.

Too bad you never got to see him in person because some things you gotta see to believe. Simply one of a kind in every skill a hockey player can possess. At any given moment he'd be the best fighter,best skater,best passer,best shooter,best shot blocker,best checker and best scorer in the game. Every game he played he'd be in the top 3 in every skill. Madness.

 

[pappyline]

Espo was not even the MVP on the team when Orr was playing. The league's best defenseman was within earshot of the scoring title and his teammate is MVP? Voting Clarke MVP over Orr is much more reasonable since Orr was not on his team. Best player? Not even close folks.

I agree. Hard to fathom Espo winning 2 MVP's when Orr was clearly the MVP of the Bruins. Maybe there is something to the suggestion that voters treated the Hart as the foward's MVP and the Norris as the defenceman's MVP.