How Many Players Have a Claim to Being the GOAT at Each Position?

[Professor What]

Funny... now, just hours after I defended Brodeur, I see things going the other way... LOL

Anyway, the stats thing: I do consider wins to be a team stat, but I don't see goals against average like that, because, while, yes the team, especially the defense has something to do with that, it still comes down to how many of the shots the goalie stops, and as I said in the Brodeur/Hasek/Roy thread, I find shutouts to be a telling stat because it means the guys stops everything that comes his way. Ideally, when I look at the statistical side of things, I like to take all three of those stats together. Stats are never a perfect metric, but I feel like you start getting much more of a full story when you can take several things like that together, because you start getting a feel for what was due to the team and what was due to the goalie.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Funny... now, just hours after I defended Brodeur, I see things going the other way... LOL

Anyway, the stats thing: I do consider wins to be a team stat, but I don't see goals against average like that, because, while, yes the team, especially the defense has something to do with that, it still comes down to how many of the shots the goalie stops, and as I said in the Brodeur/Hasek/Roy thread, I find shutouts to be a telling stat because it means the guys stops everything that comes his way. Ideally, when I look at the statistical side of things, I like to take all three of those stats together. Stats are never a perfect metric, but I feel like you start getting much more of a full story when you can take several things like that together, because you start getting a feel for what was due to the team and what was due to the goalie.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of shutouts as a statistic. Given its binary perfection-or-nothing nature, goaltenders in high scoring eras essentially end up with shutout numbers that cannot be adjusted in any meaningful way for cross-era comparison. Benedict’s 4 shutouts in a single playoff record lasted 70+ years before being broken by 5 players in a span of 3 years. But there’s no way for us to say Player X could have had Y number of shutouts in Year Z if there’s not any data in Year Z to look at.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Personally, I’m not a big fan of shutouts as a statistic. Given its binary perfection-or-nothing nature, goaltenders in high scoring eras essentially end up with shutout numbers that cannot be adjusted in any meaningful way for cross-era comparison. Benedict’s 4 shutouts in a single playoff record lasted 70+ years before being broken by 5 players in a span of 3 years. But there’s no way for us to say Player X could have had Y number of shutouts in Year Z if there’s not any data in Year Z to look at.

The other point to make is, as a goalie faces more shots, the likelihood of a shutout decrease at an exponential rate. If you assume a modern era (the goalie's expected to stop 91% of shots), a goalie that faces 40 shots doesn't have only half the likelihood of getting a shutout compared to a goalie that faces 20 shots (a common misconception - because 20 is half of 40). The goalie who faces 20 shots is more than 6.5 times more likely to get a shutout than his counterpart who faces 40 shots. If both goalies had 65 starts, the goalie who earns 2 shutouts facing 40 shots per game has actually done a better job than the goalie who earned 9 shutouts facing 20 shots per game.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, since nobody actually faces 40 shots every night (Gump Worsley may have come close though). But the likelihood of a goalie getting a shutout falls in an exponential (rather than linear) fashion as he faces more shots - and not many people seem to understand that.

 

[Albatros]

Orr may be sacrosanct in Canada, but internationally few even know who he was. Lidström and Fetisov have a much stronger legacy in that sense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Orr may be sacrosanct in Canada, but internationally few even know who he was. Lidström and Fetisov have a much stronger legacy in that sense.

The Soviets sure knew who Orr was after 1976

 

[psycat]

If we talk greatness zero players have a case over Gretzky(if you prefer Lemieux at his best I won't argue but careerwise it's not close, Beliveau? Great player obviously but not in the same ballpark)

Only positions that's debatable are goalie and LW imo. If you wan't a full starting lineup second place D is also up for debate.

 

[VanIslander]

I was in a bar with a guy who loudly argued Brodeur & Crosby were the best players EVER at their position.

I walked out.

 

[Doctor No]

Orr may be sacrosanct in Canada, but internationally few even know who he was. Lidström and Fetisov have a much stronger legacy in that sense.

I would value the opinion of a European pundit that wasn't aware of Orr about the same level as I'd value the opinion of a North American pundit that wasn't aware of Tretiak.

Take that how you will.

 

[VanIslander]

The fact that Tretiak went into Montreal four different years and DOMINATED & ... - more importantly - impressed the Habs faithful, counts for something.

I would never totally discount a Tretiak as best goalie of all time claim,... but as "GREATEST".... Roy & Hasek have an edge at least, if not an entire shelf. An edge.

Yet still,...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I was in a bar with a guy who loudly argued Brodeur & Crosby were the best players EVER at their position.

I walked out.

i'd probably walk away too. some people just like having opinions

 

[Professor What]

Imagine some teenager out there who likes watching hockey but hasn't bothered to put any real study into its past. To that kid, Bobby Orr might be no more than a name, depending on where they live, and Vladislav Tretiak might sound like the name of the latest band to be introduced. That doesn't change anything about the greatness of either. The fact of the matter is, no matter how many people are familiar with a player on an international basis, there's no way of making a real comparison if both guys haven't been studied or researched. So, I don't think that how many people around the world know who a guy is plays into this at all. If it did, the predictions of an 8-0 whitewashing of the Soviets by the Canadians in the 1972 Summit Series would have come true.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we talk greatest zero players got a case over Gretzky(if you prefer Lemieux at his best I won't argue but careerwise it's not close, Beliveau? Great player obviously but not in the same ballpark)

Only positions that's debatable are goalie and LW imo. If you wan't a full starting lineup second place D is also up for debate.

Isn't the argument for Ovechkin over Hull even weaker than the argument for Lemieux over Gretzky?

Lemieux had his injury problems, but old Lemieux was better than old Gretzky on a per-game basis. I realize that's a flimsy reason to prefer Mario, but Ovechkin doesn't even have that.

Old Bobby Hull was still finishing high in the points race in a way that old Ovechkin has generally not been able to do.

 

[VanIslander]

... The fact of the matter is, no matter how many people are familiar with a player on an international basis, there's no way of making a real comparison if both guys haven't been studied or researched. So, I don't think that how many people around the world know who a guy is plays into this at all. If it did, the predictions of an 8-0 whitewashing of the Soviets by the Canadians in the 1972 Summit Series would have come true.

Canada was destroyed by the Soviets 8-1 in the Canada Cup final in 1981, when i was 12 years old, and i thought it odd how quickly us Canadians forgot about it!

But we incessantly refer to the 1972 Summit Series and 1987 Canada Cup.

Also the Soviet league teams kicked NHL team butts most times in touring series. Let's forget or discount them.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think you can play out the argument about SV% being the superior stat, which it might be, with thatcher demko a month ago.

there are things an outmatched team can do to win, and some of them can really inflate a goalie's SV%. this also factored into tim thomas in boston (yes, we saw it in the 2011 finals but i'm not going to go there).

so if you allow the goalie to see volume shots, basically taking a cost-benefit analysis and saying i'll trust my goalie to make easier shots he can see if i make sure he almost never faces shots he can't see or goal mouth scrambles or east-west chances, that's your best chance to win. is that a skill for a goalie to be completely dialed in and not let in any softies for (in demko's case) three games in a row? absolutely. he had a mmmffffing .985 SV%, that's three goals out of every two hundred in a league where the average team lets in around three goals a game.

but it's a *different* kind of skill than what we're talking about when we talk about hasek or roy, though obviously those two also totally dominated SV% in their peaks and to some degree you could also argue that buffalo tailored its playing style to saves hasek could make, and ditto pat burns to roy.

i guess my point is insofar as wins and GAA are team stats and need to be contextualized against team strength and style (i.e., the anti-brodeur argument), so does SV%.

 

[ESH]

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind differentiating between wings but not defensemen for this exercise. There’s 2 defensemen on the ice just like there’s 2 wingers.

 

[Professor What]

Isn't the argument for Ovechkin over Hull even weaker than the argument for Lemieux over Gretzky?

Lemieux had his injury problems, but old Lemieux was better than old Gretzky on a per-game basis. I realize that's a flimsy reason to prefer Mario, but Ovechkin doesn't even have that.

Old Bobby Hull was still finishing high in the points race in a way that old Ovechkin has generally not been able to do.

There's another side to that though. Bobby Hull's final season leading the NHL in goals was his 30-year-old season. Ovechkin led the league in his 30-year-old season and has done it three more times since then. Hull led the league in goals seven times, but Ovechkin has done it nine times. Yes, Hull had the WHA years, but the only season he had there that even might have translated to leading the NHL was 1974-75, which feels unlikely to me. When adjusted for era, Ovi's best goal scoring seasons are better than Hull's. Yes, I'm putting a lot of emphasis on one aspect of the game, but that's who both Hull and Ovechkin are. Their games are/were both built very heavily around that aspect of the game, and as such, I'm going to give it overwhelming weight when comparing them. And lets not forget that Hull had Stan Mikita at his side, while Ovechkin has never had a player of that caliber. His teammates haven't been bad, but we're talking about Stan Mikita here. I'd dare say that gave Hull a boost.

 

[VanIslander]

... and to some degree you could also argue that buffalo tailored its playing style to saves hasek could make,...

What ****'n saves couldn't Hasek make in the late 90's, and who the **** was such a great Sabres dman?

I was a newspaper reporter over those years (accredited by the NHL to attend training camps and scheduled pre- and post-game interviews). I was nowhere near Buffalo (covered Canucks training camp) but as a Vancouver fan I was OF COURSE a huge Peca fan (if you dunno that, you weren't there).

Buffalo did little to help Hasek. The dmen sucked. Hasek in public asked his dmen to get out of his way and not to screen or deflect shots. Like in Ottawa later, one expected him to be a problem. But he was so dang effective that the brass swallowed their pride and let him run his mouth (the Sens didn't). Zhitnik was like Phaneuf in hitting yet making bad decisions. But Hasek liked that he would check the passing option on odd-man rushes against (the times he wasn't caught up ice as the pinching dman!) and clear the crease of rebounds. Otherwise, he got the heck out of Hasek's way!

Hasek joined the NHL at age 26 (Roy at that age was privileged enough to be in position in the NHL to earn 5 all-star berths, 3 of them Vezinas, and a Conn Smythe) after praised championships for Czechoslovakia, and went on to have the best career NHL save percentage ever, not a single Buffalo dman within shot of hhof consideration! He should have won more than two Harts, was robbed of a cup and dominated in best-on-best Olympic play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind differentiating between wings but not defensemen for this exercise. There’s 2 defensemen on the ice just like there’s 2 wingers.

Tradition?

Awards voting and fantasy hockey both differentiate between wings but not defensemen right?

If we do differentiate:

RD: Bobby Orr
LD: Lidstrom, Potvin, Kelly, or Fetisov

This is assuming Harvey, Bourque, and Shore are RD only (even though Harvey played LD early in his career)

 

[Dissonance Jr]

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind differentiating between wings but not defensemen for this exercise. There’s 2 defensemen on the ice just like there’s 2 wingers.

Yeah, you could easily divide things up into best right-side defenseman and best left-side defenseman.

On the right side, Bobby Orr takes this. Bourque also played on the right side for most of his career (before switching in Colorado), as did I think Harvey and Shore (?).

Left side contenders include Lidstrom, Potvin, Fetisov, maybe Kelly?

Though this gets tricky — Harvey possibly played on both sides of the ice, although I think he was predominantly a RD. Some of the others might have also swapped from time to time or over the course of their career.

(Granted, this also happens with wingers: Ovechkin is obviously a left winger but has played on the right side for extended stretches at key moments in his career.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There's another side to that though. Bobby Hull's final season leading the NHL in goals was his 30-year-old season. Ovechkin led the league in his 30-year-old season and has done it three more times since then. Hull led the league in goals seven times, but Ovechkin has done it nine times. Yes, Hull had the WHA years, but the only season he had there that even might have translated to leading the NHL was 1974-75, which feels unlikely to me. When adjusted for era, Ovi's best goal scoring seasons are better than Hull's. Yes, I'm putting a lot of emphasis on one aspect of the game, but that's who both Hull and Ovechkin are. Their games are/were both built very heavily around that aspect of the game, and as such, I'm going to give it overwhelming weight when comparing them. And lets not forget that Hull had Stan Mikita at his side, while Ovechkin has never had a player of that caliber. His teammates haven't been bad, but we're talking about Stan Mikita here. I'd dare say that gave Hull a boost.

Looking strictly at goals, one would conclude that 2020 Ovechkin = 2010 Ovechkin and well... I don't think many people would do that.

FWIW, Hull only played with Mikita regularly on the PP, not at even strength.

 

[psycat]

Isn't the argument for Ovechkin over Hull even weaker than the argument for Lemieux over Gretzky?

Lemieux had his injury problems, but old Lemieux was better than old Gretzky on a per-game basis. I realize that's a flimsy reason to prefer Mario, but Ovechkin doesn't even have that.

Old Bobby Hull was still finishing high in the points race in a way that old Ovechkin has generally not been able to do.

I mean you could probably trophy count or say that Ovechkin played in a harder era(regardless of if it's true or not), Ovechkin also have more raw goals+points. Gretzky+Lemieux played at the same time and one had a vastly superior career.

Gretzky beats Lemieux for peak year, awards, team accomplishments, fame , points, career, playoffs, durability(Yes I count that as a trait that certain players have over others, which is part of why I don't rule out Ovechkin > Crosby atleast when it comes to "greatness") while playing at more less the same time. Mario at his best was probably/arguably just as good as Gretzky at his best but it's not really relevant. With players from totally different eras(Ovechkin, Hull) with close achievements etc there are atleast cases to be made.

I would also argue that Ovechkin have a real case for being the greatest goalscorer of all time, does that(in terms of greatness) beat being a slightly better player? To me that is a little bit like prefering Roy due to his playoffs heroics over the overall slightly better Hasek, FWIW I prefer Hasek!

 

[Professor What]

My impression of the Gretzky vs Lemieux comparison has long been that, at peak play, Lemieux was a little better than Gretzky, but Gretzky's greater longevity and better health more than make up for that. I decided to run some numbers to test that. I looked at their careers and looked for seasons that "popped," (without analyzing their entire careers) for lack of a better term. I found five for Gretzky and four for Lemieux. I'm good with that, because it gives us a comparable number. I then normalized them to 80 games, three goals per game for an average team, and five assists per three goals. This is what they look like:

Gretzky
1985-86 Goals: 39, Assists: 125, Points: 164
1984-85 Goals: 56, Assists: 105, Points: 161
1981-82 Goals: 69, Assists: 91, Points: 160
1983-84 Goals: 66, Assists: 92, Points: 158
1982-83 Goals: 55, Assists: 99, Points: 154

Lemieux
1988-89 Goals: 68, Assists: 92, Points: 160
1996-97 Goals: 64, Assists: 87, Points: 151
1987-88 Goals: 57, Assists: 80, Points: 137
1992-93 Goals: 54, Assists: 71, Points: 132

At the very top, we're looking at something roughly even, though, as you go down, Gretzky starts to pull ahead.

Then, I took a look at them through a different prism. I assumed that they played every game in those seasons, rather than missing any. That's always the hang-up on Lemieux. He missed too many games. But, what if he hadn't? This is what they look like after that:

Gretzky
1983-84 Goals: 71 Assists: 99 Points: 170
1985-86 Goals: 39 Assists: 125 Points: 164
1984-85 Goals: 56 Assists: 105 Points: 161
1981-82 Goals: 69 Assists: 91 Points: 160
1982-83 Goals: 55 Assists: 99 Points: 154

Lemieux
1995-96 Goals: 75 Assists: 102 Points: 177
1992-93 Goals: 76 Assists: 99 Points: 175
1988-89 Goals: 72 Assists: 97 Points: 169
1987-88 Goals: 59 Assists: 83 Points: 142

Only one of Gretzky's changes, because he played in all 80 games in all of the seasons listed, save 1983-84. But, the overall points shift in Lemieux's favor here. I don't think that anyone would argue that the team's Gretzky was on were superior to the ones Lemieux was on, even with as strong as some of those Penguins teams were. I won't get carried away here, but I think that's worth a few points. Lemieux also had the cancer treatments in 1993, and there's no way that wasn't something of a drag on his play, even as stellar as it was, which is probably also worth a little bit. My conclusion is that if you would have had a full-career, good health Lemieux, he probably would have topped Gretzky's play. Therefore, I can see an argument for Lemieux, and I'll entertain it if someone wants to present it, but because of the seemingly constant health issues and lack of longevity, compared to Gretzky's long term durability, I think that the case that exists for Lemieux is weak and that Gretzky easily wins this battle.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

but as a Vancouver fan I was OF COURSE a huge Peca fan (if you dunno that, you weren't there).

oh i remember. i watched the 1994 WJC and thought peca, rick girard, brent tully, and ohlund were our next core.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

C: Gretzky, Lemieux
LW: Ovechkin, Hull
RW: Howe
D: Orr, Bourque, Lidstrom
G: Hasek, Roy

First being best next being the contenders.

I think Orr is the GOAT defenceman, but I also think that LQ and career length brings both Bourque and Lidstrom into the argument.

 

[Boxscore]

I was in a bar with a guy who loudly argued Brodeur & Crosby were the best players EVER at their position.

I walked out.

It's okay--someone recently argued with me, insisting that David Perron--YES, David Perron--had far better hands than Mario Lemieux.