Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

[Michael Farkas]

I never said you said defense was all about possession. To me, none of (individual) defense is about possession. Gaining possession from the opponent is were the defensive part ends for the individual player.

Why differentiate? Gaining possession is a team task as well. Take a standard 1-2-2 forecheck...proper steering and angling by F1 and proper positioning and support on the weak side by F3 would have F2 reaping the benefits of a "takeaway."

To me, it depends on how that possession is deployed depends on how I would rank it "defensively."

Bobby Orr skating around shorthanded for two minutes has more defensive intentions to me given the circumstance of the game and the goal of the player. While Gretzky's famous "Gretzky turn" doesn't rate as defensive conscience to me - though it kept the puck away from the opposition, it doesn't make me think more of him defensively..."defense," as I will hamhandedly term it, was merely a byproduct of Gretzky's offensive prowess.

Even so, that only makes up portion of defensive acumen anyhow. No one is going to fool anybody here and make the claim that 99, 66 or Esposito were anything of note defensively.

Like the Penguins and Devils in recent years, aggressive forecheck teams that like to control the puck (well, the Pens had gotten away from that a little bit, but that's another story)...attack zone possession time led to fewer shots against...it was a defensive tactic (forecheck) that was the means that led them to that end, but neither are "defensive teams" in the traditional sense of the word. Unlike a team like Boston or Tortorella's Rangers. Boston defends a different line, controls their in-zone coverage with much more detail than the Penguins, focus on shot quality not quantity.

Differences in perception can come from this. Patrice Bergeron is an excellent defensive player, excellent at faceoffs and because of his team's style (not that he's against this by any stretch either) comes back deeper in his zone...he's more noticeable there...he's more noticeable in the NZ because of what the Bruins do under Claude Julien. A player like Sidney Crosby is up on the forecheck, not because he's a careless floater, but because that's his team's style. He's less likely to make a play in the NZ if he's the F2 in a 2-1-2 swing.

TL;DR version: There are so many factors to consider about defensive play from forwards that if you address it for one using one metric you might be (un)intentionally obfuscating the real truth. This would require video research on the player in question to get a true picture of their level of defensive acumen in the context of his team's tactics. Cherry picking some Lemieux plus/minus numbers from a top-heavy Penguins team in a year where the league was in a strange transition, doesn't cut it. Anecdotes of Phil Esposito being big and slow in the offensive zone with the puck between his hoofs, doesn't cut it. Wayne Gretzky being the all-time leader in shorthanded goals, doesn't cut it. Everyone picking on a different part of what makes up a good defensive player isn't gaining any traction for anyone really.

The most obvious answer, in this case, is probably the right one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How about leadership?

Aside from his scoring, what did Gretzky bring? His defense and 2 way play were worse than Espo's.

Wayne was a leader and made teams better on his own, although even that affect might be at times exaggerated.

Wayne also had a higher peak, way better start and aged better than Phil.

As little defense that Wayne played it's hard to have a 2 way game worse than Phil's out of this group of 9 players, Phil was just horrible outside of the slot and really is the product or Orr IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Again, compare Mario's 161-point 95-96 directly to Gretzky's 168-point 88-89 and Yzerman's 155-point 88-89.

# points | Gretzky | Lemieux | Yzerman
0 points|0-5-2, -14|2-5-0, -7|2-5-3, -10
1 point|10-11-2, -20|10-10-0, -15|6-15-1, -16
2 point|13-7-1, +16|7-6-1, -3|9-9-5, -2
3 point|7-5-1, +4|11-1-1, +5|11-5-0, +21
4 point|7-2-1, +11|9-1-0, +14|5-0-2, +16
5 point|1-0-0, +3|4-0-0, +10|0-0-1, +3
6 point|2-0-0, +9|x|1-0-0, +5
7 point|1-0-0, +4|2-0-0, +5|x

Is there a meaningful pattern here that shows Gretzky and Yzerman were benefiting their teams in a way Lemieux wasn't? Their spreads are similar, their team effects are similar, and the differences that do exist seem trivial.

Their point spreads (in terms of #s of games):

#points | Gretzky | Lemieux | Yzerman
0 point|9%|10%|13%
1 point|29%|29%|28%
2 points|27%|20%|29%
3 points|17%|19%|20%
4 points|13%|14%|9%
5 points|1%|6%|1%
6 points|3%|0%|1%
7 points|1%|3%|0%

The most significant difference between Gretzky and Lemieux is that Gretzky had 6 more 2-point games, whereas Lemieux distributed those games across the other categories. That strikes me as highly trivial.

They had virtually identical numbers in 4+ point games:

Gretzky 11-2-1, +27
Lemieux 15-1-0, +29
Yzerman 6-0-3, +24



I just don't see how this could support the thesis that Mario was scoring his points in some unusual proportion, or having some unusual negative effect in spite of his scoring numbers.




Not really. I firmly believe that +/- is utterly worthless in this kind of analysis. By which I mean, throw-it-in-the-garbage-and-use-a-different-stat worthless. I have never seen an argument laid out with +/- that wasn't essentially an example of confirmation bias. But that is another topic

You are missing the elephant in the room though, Steve led his teams forwards in plus minus and both the Oilers and Pens were still excellent teams, 5-5, on the PP whatever without Wayne or Mario.

And we have conclusive evidence of those teams being still great without either guy either the year before or after the years in question.

What would that Detroit team be without Steve Yzerman?

Okay so you don't like plus/minus, are you going to discount r on, r off as well or just looking at Mario's fantasy numbers and not the whole picture?

It isn't like Mario's defense doesn't show up in the plus/minus numbers or is distorted by it either.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You are missing the elephant in the room though, Steve led his teams forwards in plus minus and both the Oilers and Pens were still excellent teams, 5-5, on the PP whatever without Wayne or Mario.

And we have conclusive evidence of those teams being still great without either guy either the year before or after the years in question.

What would that Detroit team be without Steve Yzerman?

Okay so you don't like plus/minus, are you going to discount r on, r off as well or just looking at Mario's fantasy numbers and not the whole picture?

It isn't like Mario's defense doesn't show up in the plus/minus numbers or is distorted by it either.

That season of Gretzky's was with the Kings and they most decidedly were not a very good team defensively.

Also if someone discounts +/- then by extension they have to discount r-on and r-off since they are based on +/-.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defense

Why differentiate? Gaining possession is a team task as well. Take a standard 1-2-2 forecheck...proper steering and angling by F1 and proper positioning and support on the weak side by F3 would have F2 reaping the benefits of a "takeaway."

To me, it depends on how that possession is deployed depends on how I would rank it "defensively."

Bobby Orr skating around shorthanded for two minutes has more defensive intentions to me given the circumstance of the game and the goal of the player. While Gretzky's famous "Gretzky turn" doesn't rate as defensive conscience to me - though it kept the puck away from the opposition, it doesn't make me think more of him defensively..."defense," as I will hamhandedly term it, was merely a byproduct of Gretzky's offensive prowess.

Even so, that only makes up portion of defensive acumen anyhow. No one is going to fool anybody here and make the claim that 99, 66 or Esposito were anything of note defensively.

Like the Penguins and Devils in recent years, aggressive forecheck teams that like to control the puck (well, the Pens had gotten away from that a little bit, but that's another story)...attack zone possession time led to fewer shots against...it was a defensive tactic (forecheck) that was the means that led them to that end, but neither are "defensive teams" in the traditional sense of the word. Unlike a team like Boston or Tortorella's Rangers. Boston defends a different line, controls their in-zone coverage with much more detail than the Penguins, focus on shot quality not quantity.

Differences in perception can come from this. Patrice Bergeron is an excellent defensive player, excellent at faceoffs and because of his team's style (not that he's against this by any stretch either) comes back deeper in his zone...he's more noticeable there...he's more noticeable in the NZ because of what the Bruins do under Claude Julien. A player like Sidney Crosby is up on the forecheck, not because he's a careless floater, but because that's his team's style. He's less likely to make a play in the NZ if he's the F2 in a 2-1-2 swing.

TL;DR version: There are so many factors to consider about defensive play from forwards that if you address it for one using one metric you might be (un)intentionally obfuscating the real truth. This would require video research on the player in question to get a true picture of their level of defensive acumen in the context of his team's tactics. Cherry picking some Lemieux plus/minus numbers from a top-heavy Penguins team in a year where the league was in a strange transition, doesn't cut it. Anecdotes of Phil Esposito being big and slow in the offensive zone with the puck between his hoofs, doesn't cut it. Wayne Gretzky being the all-time leader in shorthanded goals, doesn't cut it. Everyone picking on a different part of what makes up a good defensive player isn't gaining any traction for anyone really.

The most obvious answer, in this case, is probably the right one.

Keeping the other team from scoring and gaining possession are the two key elements of defense. Issue is the center's role in the overall scheme of things.

Eye-catching play or stats - Orr ragging the puck or Gretzky's SHG record are attractive but they have to be supported by the overall team results starting with goals against.

Jean Beliveau played 17 NHL seasons of 35 games or more. The Canadiens goalies, defensemen, linemates and teammates flowed thru but there was a constant defensive team strength driven by Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard.

Over the 17 seasons(excluding partials of single digit games) that Jean Beliveau played for the Montreal Canadiens the team finishes in goals against were 1st - 9 times, 2nd - 1 time, 3rd - 5 times,4th, 5th, 6th - 1 time each. No other center or team can match this performance.

Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard drove the defense. Managing the forward triangle to near perfection, adapting to the different demands in the defensive zone as imposed by the changing defensemen. Compensating for weaknesses by playing high, low, intermediate depth, left or right. No other centers in the history of the game sustained such a high level of defensive performance as they did over the 16 seasons they played as teammates.

EDIT(Addition): It is not about +/- but about goals being scored against.

 

[Hardyvan123]

the Argument for Mario is that his dominance offensively overcomes his lack of defense and yes this was true when he was really at the top of his game, and his team mates were better. but it simply wasn't true for his entire career.

If we all agree here that defensive play has some importance in making a top player of all time then Marios' weakness or lack of longevity in this regard surely matters along with his time missed.

He quite simply didn't have nearly the 2 way impact that Orr had for instance.

^ The thing is, I'm willing to get on board with that if you can demonstrate it. To this point I don't see a compelling argument that supports the notion that Mario's massive scoring output was offset by some sort of gross deficiency in his own zone.

I do agree that his missed games are probably the biggest strike against him. One would almost have to disregard statistics altogether and go by sheer eye-test to put him ahead of Gretzky (and I'm not saying that's not a legitimate way to go, but it's not how I personally evaluate careers).

We can't "demonstrate it per say but we can look at likelihoods and ask questions and come to reasonable solutions or conclusions based on the evidence we have.

Pittsburg the year before 96 was a 4th place team without Mario and his presence did help the PP and the team score more goals but we can't "demonstrate" that Mario made that 96 team any better than the 95 team either.

Either Way Mario's time missed is too large of a factor to keep him in the top 3 IMO, longevity has to count for something here, and I'm speaking of elite or excellent longevity not merely hanging on, something both Stan and Jean had.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That season of Gretzky's was with the Kings and they most decidedly were not a very good team defensively.

Also if someone discounts +/- then by extension they have to discount r-on and r-off since they are based on +/-.

Okay had my seasons mixed up but still everyone is talking that Kings team over Detroit's team when the 2 stars are taken out right?

And Steve was 2nd on his team in plus/minus and 1st among forwards, Wayne really was slipping a bit in terms of his overall impact that season, as I Have argued in other threads.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You are missing the elephant in the room though, Steve led his teams forwards in plus minus and both the Oilers and Pens were still excellent teams, 5-5, on the PP whatever without Wayne or Mario.

OK, so Yzerman led his team in +/- that season... what about the next season when he was -6 with 127 points? How was Shawn Burr +14 on that same team? Was it because Yzerman completely forgot how to play an effective game? Because his offense somehow suffered at the same time as his defense?

For that matter, guess who led the Pens in +/- in 1997 while scoring 122 points?


Mario also led his team in +/- in other seasons.

1987 - 3rd with +17, but only one point off the lead
1988 - +23, second place was +14
1989 - +41, then after his linemates (Errey and Brown) the next forward was +1
1992 - +27, the next forward was +12
1993 - +55, the next forward was +30

I find it absolutely inconceivable that +/- accurately reflects defensive ability when you have a guy going from +40 ahead of his non-linemates to being the worst on the team the very next season. That doesn't even pass the sniff test, let alone rigorous analysis.

And we have conclusive evidence of those teams being still great without either guy either the year before or after the years in question.

Never the less, during the year in question it's pretty clear that Lemieux's team lived and died with his performance. Given his results -- the only 160+ point performance in the past 20 years, and a 1st place finish for the team -- how is it possible to paint this as a negative season for him?

Also if someone discounts +/- then by extension they have to discount r-on and r-off since they are based on +/-.

I will at least give r-on and r-off the time of day, since it incorporates contextual factors to make the +/- figures somewhat meaningful. It's the raw +/- that I strongly oppose and wish the NHL would at least reform into a logical statistic (ie, cut out SHGs and ENGs and the like).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why differentiate? Gaining possession is a team task as well. Take a standard 1-2-2 forecheck...proper steering and angling by F1 and proper positioning and support on the weak side by F3 would have F2 reaping the benefits of a "takeaway."

To me, it depends on how that possession is deployed depends on how I would rank it "defensively."

Bobby Orr skating around shorthanded for two minutes has more defensive intentions to me given the circumstance of the game and the goal of the player. While Gretzky's famous "Gretzky turn" doesn't rate as defensive conscience to me - though it kept the puck away from the opposition, it doesn't make me think more of him defensively..."defense," as I will hamhandedly term it, was merely a byproduct of Gretzky's offensive prowess.

Even so, that only makes up portion of defensive acumen anyhow. No one is going to fool anybody here and make the claim that 99, 66 or Esposito were anything of note defensively.

Like the Penguins and Devils in recent years, aggressive forecheck teams that like to control the puck (well, the Pens had gotten away from that a little bit, but that's another story)...attack zone possession time led to fewer shots against...it was a defensive tactic (forecheck) that was the means that led them to that end, but neither are "defensive teams" in the traditional sense of the word. Unlike a team like Boston or Tortorella's Rangers. Boston defends a different line, controls their in-zone coverage with much more detail than the Penguins, focus on shot quality not quantity.

Differences in perception can come from this. Patrice Bergeron is an excellent defensive player, excellent at faceoffs and because of his team's style (not that he's against this by any stretch either) comes back deeper in his zone...he's more noticeable there...he's more noticeable in the NZ because of what the Bruins do under Claude Julien. A player like Sidney Crosby is up on the forecheck, not because he's a careless floater, but because that's his team's style. He's less likely to make a play in the NZ if he's the F2 in a 2-1-2 swing.

TL;DR version: There are so many factors to consider about defensive play from forwards that if you address it for one using one metric you might be (un)intentionally obfuscating the real truth. This would require video research on the player in question to get a true picture of their level of defensive acumen in the context of his team's tactics. Cherry picking some Lemieux plus/minus numbers from a top-heavy Penguins team in a year where the league was in a strange transition, doesn't cut it. Anecdotes of Phil Esposito being big and slow in the offensive zone with the puck between his hoofs, doesn't cut it. Wayne Gretzky being the all-time leader in shorthanded goals, doesn't cut it. Everyone picking on a different part of what makes up a good defensive player isn't gaining any traction for anyone really.

The most obvious answer, in this case, is probably the right one.

I agree.

Just want to be sure that is understood because possession has been used here in terms of a player's defensive ability.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Wayne was a leader and made teams better on his own, although even that affect might be at times exaggerated.

Wayne also had a higher peak, way better start and aged better than Phil.

As little defense that Wayne played it's hard to have a 2 way game worse than Phil's out of this group of 9 players, Phil was just horrible outside of the slot and really is the product or Orr IMO.

First of all, I was in no way comparing the careers of Esposito and Gretzky.

If you think Gretzky was a leader equal to Esposito, we disagree.

If you think Esposito was "horrible outside of the slot" you are just wrong.

 

[Hardyvan123]

OK, so Yzerman led his team in +/- that season... what about the next season when he was -6 with 127 points? How was Shawn Burr +14 on that same team? Was it because Yzerman completely forgot how to play an effective game? Because his offense somehow suffered at the same time as his defense?

For that matter, guess who led the Pens in +/- in 1997 while scoring 122 points?

Burr was a pretty effective 2 way guy through out his career and wasn't being used in the same role as Steve was. Steve wasn't 10th on his team that year either which is what Mario was in his 96 season.

Steve was worse but Detroit was a worse team giving up more goals than they scored and had 1 scoring line. top teams could really key in on Yzerman for 2 reasons, he played a lot of minutes and the 2nd line had a huge drop off from Steve's line.

We also have the eye test to know that Steve did things like back check and play something resembling a 2 way game, something Mario rarely did.

Mario also led his team in +/- in other seasons.

1987 - 3rd with +17, but only one point off the lead
1988 - +23, second place was +14
1989 - +41, then after his linemates (Errey and Brown) the next forward was +1
1992 - +27, the next forward was +12
1993 - +55, the next forward was +30

I find it absolutely inconceivable that +/- accurately reflects defensive ability when you have a guy going from +40 ahead of his non-linemates to being the worst on the team the very next season. That doesn't even pass the sniff test, let alone rigorous analysis.

Well in 89 it really isn't that hard Mario had a more dominant season then scoring at a higher rate and benefited from Coffey and Rob Brown was a great scoring skilled player and this is before the clutch and grab era where 2 way play becomes more of a focus for all teams.

I'm not going to say that Mario was better defensively in 89 because he probably wasn't but his plus minus and his team context is an indicator that in 89 he was a more dominant player 5-5 than he was in 96. Nothing more and nothing less.

Never the less, during the year in question it's pretty clear that Lemieux's team lived and died with his performance. Given his results -- the only 160+ point performance in the past 20 years, and a 1st place finish for the team -- how is it possible to paint this as a negative season for him?

Who said it was a negative season? It was still a really great year.

It's just not as dominant as it looks on the surface both in 5-5 play and team results changing. His PP play was absolutely elite, his 5-5 play not so much, given the context of his team mates.

I will at least give r-on and r-off the time of day, since it incorporates contextual factors to make the +/- figures somewhat meaningful. It's the raw +/- that I strongly oppose and wish the NHL would at least reform into a logical statistic (ie, cut out SHGs and ENGs and the like).

Look the raw plus/minus stat can be misleading but given the context of team mates and over the length of his career, Mario's 5-5 play and dominance is less than one would expect looking at the raw numbers. His PP play however was elite, even for this group of 9 centers.

 

[Hardyvan123]

First of all, I was in no way comparing the careers of Esposito and Gretzky.

If you think Gretzky was a leader equal to Esposito, we disagree.

If you think Esposito was "horrible outside of the slot" you are just wrong.

Okay we agree on Wayne being a better leader and player of course.

Phil was horrible outside of the slot when being compared to the other 8 players in this grouping IMO and especially when compared to guys like Clarke, Mikita, Jean and perhaps several others too.

 

[seventieslord]

Actually, Espo was a possession player. He would rag the puck short-handed like Orr but in a smaller space. He was not getting taken off the puck very often.

Maybe in a microanalysis. It a metaanalysis, Espo was not great at driving the play the other way. Orr had almost the exact same rn with Esposito as without, but Espo without Orr was not pretty from a gf:ga standpoint. Of course, once the puck was in the right end of the ice...

There was a huge discussion about this last year where we broke down Orr and Esposito's numbers to better understand their effects on eachother.

I never said you said defense was all about possession. To me, none of (individual) defense is about possession. Gaining possession from the opponent is where the defensive part ends for the individual player.

Hockey is too fluid to be described so simplistically. The point of defense is not getting scored on. If you have the puck you don't get scored on. A player's defensive worth is composed of their actual raw defensive ability and how often their skills dictate they have to defend. (I.e. when they don't have the puck)

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Hockey is too fluid to be described so simplistically. The point of defense is not getting scored on. If you have the puck you don't get scored on. A player's defensive worth is composed of their actual raw defensive ability and how often their skills dictate they have to defend. (I.e. when they don't have the puck)

There is another effect that an extremely dangerous offensive player can have "defensively." Opposing forwards will start backchecking earlier, Defensemen won't pinch as much, etc. when those types of players are on the ice which all diminish the offense of that opposing team.

 

[seventieslord]

There is another effect that an extremely dangerous offensive player can have "defensively." Opposing forwards will start backchecking earlier, Defensemen won't pinch as much, etc. when those types of players are on the ice which all diminish the offense of that opposing team.

True.

 

[VMBM]

If you think Esposito was "horrible outside of the slot" you are just wrong.

No kidding. Wow.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I fully understand people choosing Gretzky over Lemieux, and be advised, i do not vote in this project. When it comes to Mario i guess he did not be at 95-100 percent during very many seasons, it might even be so that besides from the 1991 and 1992 playoffs, where he obviously was'nt either, we Lemieux'ians might only have the 1988-89 one, and two half ones namely in 1992-93 after coming back from the cancer, and the first half of 1995-96 becouse he could not anymore play a full season. During these short glimpses, and i'm sure one could find even shorter ones also displaying this, maybe even his long scoring streak that got ended by an injury actually, what we have come to see is that he was better at his absolute peak than Gretzky was, especially considering the context of those specific parts of Lemieuxs career, not by much, but still. If i had voted here, then i'm not even sure that i myself would rank Lemieux higher than Gretzky, but when Lemieux was at even 95 percent he was a very scary body for anybody on the other team, seeing that frame and that 1-on-1 capazity, that playmaking and shooting capazity, coming down the ice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Players intangibles - results from NHL Coach's and Players Polls

We have coach's polls from 1958, 1965, 1971, 1974 1976, 1979, and 1984, 1993, and 1994

We have player's polls from 1981 and 1990

I'm also including results from the 1989 and 1990 THN yearbook articles

JEAN BELIVEAU

Best passer and playmaker | 2nd | 1958
Hardest Shot | 2nd | 1965
Bursting out for goals on his own | 1st | 1965

BOBBY CLARKE

Best backchecker | 3rd | 1981
Best checker | 1st | 1974
Best checker | 1st | 1976
Best defensive forward | 2nd | 1981
Best forechecker | 1st | 1981
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1974
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1976
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1979
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1981
Best on faceoffs | 4th | 1984
Best penalty killer | T-1st | 1974
Best penalty killer | 1st | 1976
Best playmaker | 3rd | 1974
Best playmaker | 1st | 1976
First player to build team around | 1st | 1976
Hardest worker | 1st | 1971
Hardest worker | 1st | 1974
Hardest worker | 1st | 1976
Hardest worker | 1st | 1979
Hardest worker | 2nd | 1984
Smartest player | 3rd | 1974
Smartest player | 2nd | 1976
Smartest player | 4th | 1979

PHIL ESPOSITO

Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1974
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1981
Best shot | 3rd | 1971
Best shot | T-1st | 1974
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1971
Most dangerous near goal | 1st | 1971
Most dangerous near goal | 1st | 1974
Most dangerous near goal | 2nd | 1976
Smartest player | 2nd | 1971
Smartest player | 4th | 1974

Esposito elite on faceoffs? Best stickhandler? Smartest? Seems far from a player who is "horrible" outside the slot to me.

WAYNE GRETZKY

Best passer | 1st | 1984
Best hockey sense | 1st | 1981
Best penalty killer | 3rd | 1984
Best playmaker | 1st | 1984
Best playmaker | 1st | 1990
Best playmaker | 1st | 1994
Best shot | 2nd | 1984
Best shooter (THN) | 2nd? | 1989
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1984
Best puckhandler | 2nd | 1990
Best stickhandler | 4th | 1994
First player to build team around | 1st | 1981
First player to build team around | 1st | 1984
First player to start a franchise | 1st | 1990
Best all around player | 2nd | 1990
Hardest worker | 4th | 1984
Most dangerous near goal | 1st | 1984
Most natural ability | 1st | 1984
Most natural talent | 1st | 1981
Smartest player | 1st | 1984
Smartest player | 2nd | 1993
Smartest player | 1st | 1994
Want on breakaway | 2nd | 1990
Toughest to defend | 1st | 1990
Best player | 2nd | 1994

MARIO LEMIEUX

Want on breakaway | 1st | 1990
First player to start a franchise | 2nd | 1990
Best all around player | 4th | 1990
Toughest to defend | 3rd | 1990
Best puckhandler | 1st | 1990
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1993
Best playmaker | 2nd | 1990
Best playmaker | 2nd | 1993
Best player | 1st | 1993
Smartest player | 1st | 1993
Best penalty killer | 2nd | 1993
Best shot | 3rd | 1994

MARK MESSIER

Hardest hitter (THN) | 1st | 1989
Best in corners (THN) | 1st | 1989
Best all around player | 1st | 1990
First player to start a franchise | 3rd | 1990
Toughest to defend | 2nd | 1990
Best on faceoffs (THN) | 2nd | 1990
Best skater | 2nd | 1990
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1994
Best penalty killer | 5th | 1994
Best power forward | 4th | 1994

STAN MIKITA

Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1971
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1974
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1976
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1979
Best playmaker | 1st | 1974
Best playmaker | 3rd | 1976
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1976
Smartest player | 1st | 1974
Smartest player | 1st | 1976

BRYAN TROTTIER

Best defensive forward | 5th | 1984
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1984
Best passer | 1st | 1979
Best playmaker | 1st | 1979
Best stickhandler | 2nd | 1979
First player to build team around | 2nd | 1979
First player to build team around | 3rd | 1981
Hardest worker | 5th | 1984
Smartest player | 2nd | 1979
Smartest player | 4th | 1984

Howie Morenz finished 1st in a writer's poll for "fastest skater" in 1934

 

[VanIslander]

We have coach's polls from 1958, 1965, 1971, 1974 1976, 1979, and 1984, 1993, and 1994

One from the 1950's but FOUR (4) from the seventies! (Clarke's career spans six of the polls!!)

The lists sure make the 1970's players look good because their lists of accolades is longer based on this era-lopsided list of polls.

So look beyond one's initial impression and take the dearth of poll info for other eras to heart.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Hockey

The point of defense is not getting scored on.[/B] If you have the puck you don't get scored on. A player's defensive worth is composed of their actual raw defensive ability and how often their skills dictate they have to defend. (I.e. when they don't have the puck)

1986, Steve Smith says Hi! So you do get scored on when you do have the puck. Evidenced by Steve Smith and various other own goals throughout the history of hockey.

Suppose that there is some obscure metric that illustrates this defensive worth composition that may be shared for analysis?

Defense and puck possession is a relationship that no one here has qualified properly. The key element is the player knowing when to give-up the puck, followed by knowing what to do with the puck.

Puck possession on its own has little value be it offensively or defensively unless the player accomplishes something positive.

A few examples.

Bobby Orr ragging the puck to kill a penalty. Nice show but if you saw the games or find a youtube clip you will notice that the skating was random and the Bruins were skating pointlessly trying to cover defensively in case of a turnover. Why fatigue your teammates in such a fashion? Bobby Orr was a puck possession defenseman but the net result of his Bruins career was the the team drifted defensively, between 3rd and 8th in the NHL for GA, mainly around 6th. You also have Game 2 of the 1971 Quarter -finals

Wayne Gretzky - the Gretzky Turn, SH goal record. Also the Miracle on Manchester. Game 2, 1993 Finals, McSorley Stick. During the Oilers dynasty between 8th and 13th in GA. When you do not have the defensive foundation, it does not take much to turn the tide. Wheels fall off and you clutch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mario Lemieux. 1991-1994, Pittsburgh, two SCs while 18th and 20th in GA in a 21 and 22 team league. 1993 - 3rd in GA but lack of defensive basics cost them against the Islanders. Lemieux and other offensive players have hissy fits, Bowman leaves and Pens revert to usual, 19th in GA, continue underachieving.

Tikhanov Soviet Nationals - 1987 Canada Cup. Puck possession team.
Still in the best of three final, twice blew defendable three goal leads.

Possession rarely is sufficient on its own if the defensive basics are not present post possession.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Phil Esposito Defensively

Phil was horrible outside of the slot when being compared to the other 8 players in this grouping IMO and especially when compared to guys like Clarke, Mikita, Jean and perhaps several others too.

Somewhat inaccurate. From the slot perimeter, Phil Esposito was very good at impeding the transition game of the other team. His size and reach helped. Not Jean Beliveau elite but definitely well above adequate.

Basic issue with Phil Esposito was that most of his career was spent playing in Chicago and Boston where the home rinks were smaller than the NHL regulation 200 x 85. He was not very good at making the necessary defensive adjustments from a small to large rink, especially for the forward triangle which a center is supposed to manage. Mike Farkas gave a very nice example upthread - F1/F2/F3.

In his own end, Esposito's biggest problem tended to be his love for taking long shifts so changing on th fly negated his reach and size advantage at times. Very strong and reliable at simply getting the puck out of his end when necessary.

 

[jigglysquishy]

While I certainly agree that Espo was bad defensively, I think we're being far too harsh on Gretzky (and pre-94 Lemieux).

Gretzky was strong enough offensively to negate the other team's offense. He might not be Datsyuk-ing it out there, but he was effective. People keep bringing up possession in this thread, and that's pretty much exactly it.

You can't be scored on if you had the puck. And Gretzky had the puck more than any other player.

I'd also like to make a point that while Gretzky and Lemieux always gets lumped in together defensively, I think there was a noticeable gap between their play.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goals Against

There is another effect that an extremely dangerous offensive player can have "defensively." Opposing forwards will start backchecking earlier, Defensemen won't pinch as much, etc. when those types of players are on the ice which all diminish the offense of that opposing team.

Could you show how this actually converts into reducing goals against? Previously I have shown that the GA on Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux teams were far from impressive whereas Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard led teams had very impressive GA numbers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goals Against

While I certainly agree that Espo was bad defensively, I think we're being far too harsh on Gretzky (and pre-94 Lemieux).

Gretzky was strong enough offensively to negate the other team's offense. He might not be Datsyuk-ing it out there, but he was effective. People keep bringing up possession in this thread, and that's pretty much exactly it.

You can't be scored on if you had the puck. And Gretzky had the puck more than any other player.

I'd also like to make a point that while Gretzky and Lemieux always gets lumped in together defensively, I think there was a noticeable gap between their play.

Then explain why the Oilers and Kings were giving up so many goals against in the little time that the other team was fortunate to have the puck when Gretzky and to an extent Coffey, gave up possession.

Likewise the Penguins when Lemieux, later with Jagr, when the other team was fortunate to have the puck they sure scored a lot for limited puck possession.

 

[overpass]

Regular season post-1967 adjusted stats​

I don't know if I'll do this for every round. I don't think these numbers are as useful for forwards as they are for defencemen, for several reasons. Regular hockey card stats mean more for forwards than they do for defencemen. PK usage for forwards can be driven by team needs/coaching philosophy as much as player skill. Plus-minus can be affected by linemates quite a bit - maybe more so for F than D, as they have two regular running mates. (matnor's compilation of linemates would be a good complement to the numbers here.)

But I can't resist running the numbers for a group that includes Gretzky, Lemieux, and several other interesting players.

A couple of notes on things that aren't adjusted for - it seems to have been easier to post extreme team numbers (TmPP+, TmSH+, R-ON) in the unbalanced 1970s. And the regular season scoring distribution for forwards was flatter in the 1980s for non-Gretzky forwards, so adjusted scoring may underrate 1980s scorers a bit.

Posted in approximate chronological order. See the end of the post for a glossary of the stats in this post.

Jean Beliveau

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
68-71 | 261 | 3.4 | 32% | 1.34 | 71 | 48 | 58 | 1.48 | 1.29 | 64% | 1.34 | 32 | 0 | N/A | 0

Posted mostly for completeness. This isn't really a fair look at Beliveau's career, considering he was 36-39 years old at this time. The numbers are pretty good - in fact it would be hard to find a better stretch by a centre over his age 36-39 years.

Stan Mikita

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
68-70 | 222 | 2.9 | 39% | 1.13 | 84 | 67 | 66 | 1.26 | 1.05 | 84% | 1.13 | 37 | 32% | 0.77 | 6
71-80 | 623 | 7.9 | 31% | 1.22 | 59 | 43 | 49 | 1.37 | 1.16 | 66% | 1.22 | 26 | 23% | 0.90 | 2

Unlike Beliveau, Mikita has over a decade of stats post-expansion. But they still miss the prime of his career. The 1968-1970 three year stretch includes an Art Ross by Mikita and the numbers were pretty good, but his case really rests on what he did pre-expansion.

Phil Esposito

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
68-72 | 378 | 4.9 | 41% | 1.52 | 106 | 58 | 78 | 1.82 | 1.35 | 93% | 1.52 | 52 | 19% | 0.83 | 4
73-75 | 235 | 3.0 | 43% | 1.44 | 96 | 72 | 76 | 1.33 | 1.53 | 98% | 1.44 | 56 | 56% | 0.75 | 12
76-81 | 434 | 5.4 | 35% | 0.94 | 59 | 74 | 39 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 65% | 0.94 | 30 | 18% | 0.99 | 1

Esposito had a really interesting career path in a lot of ways.

By the numbers, he was arguably the best forward of all time on the power play in his prime, with only Lemieux as his rival. But if that's the case, why couldn't he crack Chicago's first unit at age 23 or 24, when most scoring forwards are in their prime? Why did his power play numbers drop off fast in his mid-late 30s, when Gretzky and Lemieux were able to maintain their PP production right to age 40? Bobby Orr.

His scoring stats look pretty similar over his time with Boston, but his plus-minus and R-ON/R-OFF dropped off quite a bit around 1972, which is why I split up his Boston prime. Specifically, his goals-against increased. Interesting that he also started killing penalties at this time. Was the GA increase because he was slowing down? Or because he took on a more defensive role as Boston's depth at centre disappeared?

Bobby Clarke

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
70-71 | 153 | 2.0 | 29% | 0.94 | 52 | 45 | 38 | 1.16 | 0.86 | 50% | 0.94 | 19 | 42% | 0.96 | 3
72-78 | 543 | 6.9 | 33% | 1.52 | 73 | 32 | 60 | 2.27 | 1.23 | 71% | 1.52 | 33 | 42% | 0.73 | 6
79-84 | 451 | 5.6 | 28% | 1.36 | 57 | 37 | 41 | 1.55 | 1.30 | 47% | 1.36 | 17 | 36% | 0.88 | 3

The interesting thing about Bobby Clarke's numbers, especially in his prime years, is how good the team was when he was on the ice. Good things just happened for the Flyers when Bobby Clarke was out there, in a way that isn't reflected in his individual stats. (It probably shows up in his three Hart trophies.) His on-ice ESGA numbers were absurdly low for a first line forward, with really no other comparables in recorded history, so his team scored over twice as much at EV when he was on the ice. He played a major role in an outstanding penalty kill and also in an outstanding power play.

There are some other factors that come into play, of course. He played in the unbalanced 1970s, when great teams could put up crooked numbers against bad teams. He played with a great coach, a great goaltender, and with great linemates. And he probably played a large part in a lot of those penalties that his team had to kill off. But even so...Clarke's game wasn't pretty, but those team numbers are beautiful.

Bryan Trottier

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
76-77 | 156 | 2.0 | 31% | 1.50 | 61 | 34 | 47 | 1.77 | 1.39 | 65% | 1.50 | 35 | 6% | 0.66 | 2
78-84 | 532 | 6.7 | 38% | 1.46 | 90 | 42 | 68 | 2.11 | 1.21 | 71% | 1.46 | 33 | 23% | 0.77 | 3
85-88 | 303 | 3.8 | 33% | 1.15 | 64 | 52 | 45 | 1.22 | 1.11 | 55% | 1.15 | 23 | 33% | 1.01 | 2
89-94 | 288 | 3.6 | 25% | 0.98 | 42 | 54 | 28 | 0.78 | 1.02 | 15% | 0.98 | 6 | 40% | 1.14 | 1

Trottier, Bossy and the Isles really dominated the league for a few years in the late 70s/early 80s.

Wayne Gretzky

Years| GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
80-81 |159 | 2.0 | 46% | 0.98 | 101 | 78 | 85 | 1.29 | 0.77 | 78% | 0.98 | 38 | 22% | 1.03 | 5
82-88| 537 | 6.7 | 50% | 1.42 | 131 | 77 | 111 | 1.70 | 1.20 | 88% | 1.42 | 44 | 39% | 0.71 | 12
89-91| 229 | 2.9 | 50% | 1.21 | 116 | 94 | 93 | 1.23 | 1.18 | 88% | 1.21 | 41 | 40% | 0.94 | 5
92-94 |200 | 2.4 | 44% | 0.91 | 82 | 91 | 63 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 83% | 0.91 | 41 | 26% | 0.99 | 5
95-99 |362 | 4.8 | 41% | 0.89 | 71 | 80 | 57 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 71% | 0.89 | 38 | 21% | 1.08 | 0

What can you say about Wayne Gretzky? The numbers are incredible, adjusted or not. Look at the numbers from 1981-82 to 1987-88 above - far and away the best even strength scorer ever, among the best power play producers ever and also extremely dangerous when his team was down a man.

Looking at a few numbers, his EV% was crazy high for a forward - he was on the ice for half of all even strength goals scored in games. This was because of his scoring prowess, but also because he either played a lot of ice time, tended to allow chances the other way, or some combination of the two. See his relatively high $ESGA/G compared to the other players in this round.

It may be surprising to some (although maybe not to most here) to learn that Gretzky was not the most productive power play scorer at his peak, although he was near the top. (Yes, these numbers are adjusted for team power play opportunities.)

Looking at the progression of his career over time, you can see a real drop in his numbers at even strength after the Suter hit in 1991. He was a minus player from that time on, and nothing special as an even strength scorer anymore for the most part, although he still had his touch on the power play.

Why did his even-strength on-ice numbers drop so much when he went from Edmonton to LA? Maybe he really missed Jari Kurri. Maybe he missed Mark Messier taking the defensive responsibilities. Maybe he just had a lot of miles on the odometer.

Mark Messier

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
80-81 | 147 | 1.8 | 26.63% | 0.98 | 46 | 58 | 35 | 0.79 | 1.06 | 17% | 1.03 | 6 | 25% | 1.05 | 2
82-88 | 500 | 6.3 | 31.15% | 1.41 | 73 | 56 | 56 | 1.31 | 1.46 | 52% | 1.17 | 23 | 40% | 0.73 | 6
89-97 | 625 | 8.1 | 38.22% | 1.12 | 75 | 61 | 58 | 1.22 | 1.07 | 66% | 1.11 | 29 | 47% | 0.87 | 7
98-04 | 484 | 5.9 | 31.14% | 0.89 | 54 | 66 | 38 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 58% | 0.93 | 23 | 40% | 1.17 | 3

Messier's Edmonton years are maybe the most misleading R-ON/R-OFF for a star player if you take the numbers at face value without remembering that Wayne Gretzky was a huge part of his R-OFF. But even if you take that into account, Messier was never really a dominant plus-minus player in the regular season.

None of his numbers as displayed this way really stand out. Maybe the most impressive thing is that he played sixteen straight years at a high level with a big role in all situations. His playoff numbers were also outstanding but aren't shown here.

Mario Lemieux

Years | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | $ESP/S | R-ON | R-OFF | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | $SH% | $TmSH+ | $SHP/S
84-87 | 215 | 2.7 | 41% | 0.90 | 76 | 73 | 65 | 1.04 | 0.82 | 86% | 0.90 | 35 | 3% | 1.09 | 0
88-97 | 530 | 6.5 | 48% | 1.07 | 111 | 79 | 89 | 1.40 | 0.88 | 95% | 1.07 | 50 | 40% | 1.03 | 11
01-06 | 170 | 2.1 | 44% | 0.80 | 84 | 86 | 67 | 0.97 | 0.75 | 90% | 0.80 | 51 | 16% | 1.16 | 1

As always with Mario Lemieux, he can only really be compared to Wayne Gretzky.

Lemieux's prime years - 1987-88 to 1996-97 are what I have identified as such above - don't look too different from Gretzky's prime. Certainly their production was more similar to each other than to anyone else. Lemieux had the very high EV% - reflecting ice time/production - the huge impact as reflected in R-ON/R-OFF, the production on both special teams units. The main differences? Gretzky was a better even-strength scorer. Lemieux was a better power play scorer.

Maybe the biggest difference is one that isn't shown here - Gretzky played almost every game, and Lemieux, to say the least, didn't. That's going to be enough to put Gretzky ahead.

Stats Glossary​

EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.