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

[BM67]

Interesting observation. Orr's knee vs Gretzky's back.

Orr:

NHL.com - Stats

Gretzky:

NHL.com - Stats

Gretzky reduced sample space:
NHL.com - Stats

Note the huge ratio difference +/- shown by Gretzky home and away. Contrary to Orr and another player who suffered two major broken legs.Both show normal deployment and performance.

Seems like Gretzky may have had a home and away back.

Ratio? The ratio is only bad because one of Gretzky's numbers is so close to 0. Orr has 97 fewer pluses on the road over a 217 game span, and Gretzky has 74 more minuses over a 562 game span. Beliveau is +117 in 748 games, with a +113/+4 H/R split. Does Beliveau have a road back too?

 

[bobholly39]

That's my point. Ideally, all the info is available on the same thread.

How hard is it to click on 2 threads though? I don't think it's necessary to edit/merge into 1. Just post the link to both threads in succession after results of vote 1 - no issue.

1. It creates a LOT of work for whoever is tasked with editing it down to 1000 posts
2. Why delete certain posts? It should be a free discussion. Maybe if someone starts to get particularly offensive or annoying we can do so but i don't think any line was really crossed in the first thread.

 

[bobholly39]

Same here. And yes, I voted.

I am in Minneapolis this weekend, playing two shows, so my participation is limited. I am still convinced there are two people in the list of 10 who should not be.

Are you upset that 2 of your guys didn't make the cut - or are you specifically upset that 2 of the 10 listed don't belong anywhere near a top 10, regardless of the 2 players you'd like to see instead?

If it's a former well....too bad i suppose. Most people are probably in your situation with some of their top 10 missing - and I expect the next round will clear that up anyways as we add more players, as we start voting for 5 on, which is what matters.

But if it's the latter i'd love to hear your opinion on which 2 players you think don't belong in the top 10 and why. This should be relevant to the discussion here. I didn't have this exact top 10 but i can't really see any player that i feel doesn't belong at all in a top 10, let alone 2.

 

[Canadiens1958]

z

Ratio? The ratio is only bad because one of Gretzky's numbers is so close to 0. Orr has 97 fewer pluses on the road over a 217 game span, and Gretzky has 74 more minuses over a 562 game span. Beliveau is +117 in 748 games, with a +113/+4 H/R split. Does Beliveau have a road back too?

Not discussing Beliveau. Different era and deployment plus
incomplete data. From 1960 onward only.

Gretzky pre-injury:

NHL.com - Stats

Best case scenario, back injury had no effect. Just aging.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Come on everyone, the main point of this project is to present information about the players listed that future posters can read.

If you are thinking of posting something, before you hit "post reply," take a minute to think whether your post will help future readers understand why the 10 candidates in the OP are going to end up ranked the way they are. If your post does nothing of the sort, maybe you shouldn't post it in this thread.

 

[Sentinel]

Are you upset that 2 of your guys didn't make the cut - or are you specifically upset that 2 of the 10 listed don't belong anywhere near a top 10, regardless of the 2 players you'd like to see instead?

If it's a former well....too bad i suppose. Most people are probably in your situation with some of their top 10 missing - and I expect the next round will clear that up anyways as we add more players, as we start voting for 5 on, which is what matters.

But if it's the latter i'd love to hear your opinion on which 2 players you think don't belong in the top 10 and why. This should be relevant to the discussion here. I didn't have this exact top 10 but i can't really see any player that i feel doesn't belong at all in a top 10, let alone 2.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I don't think Harvey and Bourque belong anywhere near the Top 10 because other players (not defensemen) are more deserving.

 

[ted2019]

Come on everyone, the main point of this project is to present information about the players listed that future posters can read.

If you are thinking of posting something, before you hit "post reply," take a minute to think whether your post will help future readers understand why the 10 candidates in the OP are going to end up ranked the way they are. If your post does nothing of the sort, maybe you shouldn't post it in this thread.

So then the homers or fanboys for their particular team or cause, who post numbers or no relevant information that pertains to a topic they are responding to, should read this thread or heed this warning?

 

[ted2019]

I can honesty say that since I participate in my first list on here ( centers & wingers projects) to now, I've learned more on this board then if I had gone to a Doctorate class for this stuff. I have always found the history of my favorite sport fascinating, but living in a state that doesn't have the books on the history of the NHL and soviet hockey readily available, the knowledge on here and the way that stats can be used to make a point has been invaluable and makes me to always want to find more research.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Come on everyone, the main point of this project is to present information about the players listed that future posters can read.

If you are thinking of posting something, before you hit "post reply," take a minute to think whether your post will help future readers understand why the 10 candidates in the OP are going to end up ranked the way they are. If your post does nothing of the sort, maybe you shouldn't post it in this thread.

Last time this project was done, it seemed that there was a lot of good (relevant) information brought to light. So far in this version, it seems like a number of posters have simply picked their favorites and then tried to manipulate any numbers or formulas or theories to support said favorites. Some even scoff at perceptions gained by actually seeing players play the game. Not nearly as enjoyable or educational as the last version. Hopefully things will improve going forward.

I have read over my post. I think it does help future readers understand the rankings.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm curious if any participants changed their order based on the discussions we've had so far. Anyone?

I haven't changed any of my rankings. That being said, I've read every single post in this thread and am trying to keep an open mind.

As I said before, I haven't changed my rankings of 5-10, as there's been very little discussion about them. I haven't changed my rankings of 1-4 because I (and presumably everyone here) is already familiar with their cases. I suspect we'll see more changes in the 2nd vote and beyond.

 

[blogofmike]

z



Not discussing Beliveau. Different era and deployment plus
incomplete data. From 1960 onward only.

Gretzky pre-injury:

NHL.com - Stats

Best case scenario, back injury had no effect. Just aging.

12 straight years of 100 ES point paces (hitting 90 twice in injury shortened seasons). Then in 1991-92 he ages a lot overnight as he starts a string of ES totals in the 60s.

May need to look at Beliveau on the road more closely next round though.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Actually, at this point it might just be better to throw a complete table showing each individual season's score of the players' best 10-15 years so we can see each player's progression from best season to worst.

It doesn't seem to be any harder to do this for the excel ninjas.

On the first page (of the first thread), I presented ten years' worth of data for each player. Going forward, I can easily do 15 years (it'll make the thread wider & harder to read on a phone, but I think that's fine - better to present more than less, within reason).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Come on everyone, the main point of this project is to present information about the players listed that future posters can read.

If you are thinking of posting something, before you hit "post reply," take a minute to think whether your post will help future readers understand why the 10 candidates in the OP are going to end up ranked the way they are. If your post does nothing of the sort, maybe you shouldn't post it in this thread.

Trying hard to be understanding but you did allude that a "Best Hockey" player existed for each season from 1956 to 1967. Kindly hit submit with the list as requested or withdraw the claim about Hull and Beliveau.

Thank you.

 

[BenchBrawl]

On the first page (of the first thread), I presented ten years' worth of data for each player. Going forward, I can easily do 15 years (it'll make the thread wider & harder to read on a phone, but I think that's fine - better to present more than less, within reason).

Right, that was perfect.I said 15 years but I could have said 10 too.My main point was about being able to visualize the progression as opposed to concentrate it in one number (which was useful in ATD playoffs but unnecessarily artificial here).

A sidenote about mobile users: Perhaps it would be better if posters waited to be on their PC before posting, that might partially solve the problem raised by @TheDevilMadeMe

I'm not saying you can't make a good post on your phone, but the probability is smaller.Mobile destroyed the internet after all.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don’t think reporting an 8th place ranking from 2 votes is necessary, but I also don’t think reporting as few as 2 players in some seasons and as many as 12 players in others is the answer either.

Sure, Patrick Roy had a pretty solid 1996-97 (Vezina nominee on the President’s Trophy winner), but is it more notable than his 1988-89 and 1989-90? Of course not. And the actual Hart ranking doesn’t say that it is either - just the subsequent disqualification of the two seasons because of the acknowledged limitations of the ballot used in those years.

I mean, if we’re adding a condition that would disqualify a 3rd place Hart finish in 1980-81 where a player scored 135 points just because there have been random votes that resulted in peculiar placements 8, 9, or 10 names down the ranking in other years, then the altered publication of Hart rankings is probably doing more damage than alleviating the theorized problem.

At the very least, I’d say report a minimum number of names each year (I think top-5 was the standard used throughout the positional projects), and then apply the minimum - because you’re probably correct in picking up relevant allocation of Hart shares beyond those top rankings.

And then if someone wants to argue that Patrick Roy wasn’t a top-5 player in 1988-89 because he only stole so many 3rd place votes from Gretzky and Lemieux and Yzerman, we can cross that bridge. Otherwise I think reporting the Hart placement of five goaltenders in 2003-04 alone (but not also 1990-91 Ray Bourque) might be a stretch.

I thought I replied to this, but I don't think I did.

Ultimately if the consensus is that the table with Hart voting data is too flawed/deceptive to be useful, I won't post it going forward. Those who found it useful can take a look at the thread I created (or hockey-reference.com).

This way, the info's there for whoever finds it interesting/relevant, but it's not given too much prominence for those who have (legitimate) issues with some of the underlying data.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actually gained an appreciation for Bobby Hull and to a degree Mario Lemieux.

Also enjoyed how other old time poster applied the recently available NHL archival data.

Next few votes will be more relaxed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please keep posting Hart voting, HO. It's just one tool in our knowledge toolbag, but it's still a useful one.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Do you think he was the only defenceman that had such an impact on opposing strategy? (Not meaning that in an accusatory way, but as an actual honest question).

Not sure If I've ever seen a legendary coach, or any coach for that matter talk about staying away from half the ice in transition and offense because of the presence of one player.

The point of bringing that Bowman quote is that it highlights what Orr did to other teams, even if he didn't have the puck.

Everybody thinks about him in an offensive light far more than defensive and yet arguably the greatest coach ever instructed his players to literally avoid Orr's side of the ice because of how good he was in his own end.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think at the beginning of each round the following information would be helpful:

ASTs
Top 10 or 20 in goals, assists and points
Hart Record
Norris Record
Vezina Record
VsX numbers

I'm not asking for anyone to do it, just saying it would be helpful as a starting pack.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not sure If I've ever seen a legendary coach, or any coach for that matter talk about staying away from half the ice in transition and offense because of the presence of one player.

The point of bringing that Bowman quote is that it highlights what Orr did to other teams, even if he didn't have the puck.

Everybody thinks about him in an offensive light far more than defensive and yet arguably the greatest coach ever instructed his players to literally avoid Orr's side of the ice because of how good he was in his own end.

Indirectly defines the weakness of the remaining Bruins. Inability to skate well enough to support Orr.

 

[VanIslander]

Actually gained an appreciation for Bobby Hull and to a degree Mario Lemieux.

Some interesting posts on those two for sure. I was intrigued by the longevity analysis of the two injured greats in a Lemieux vs. Orr comparison. And the more I look at Hull, the better he seems.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Indirectly defines the weakness of the remaining Bruins. Inability to skate well enough to support Orr.

To be fair, most of the NHL couldn't come close to keeping up with his pace, but the Bruins did seem to be an odd dynamic. I don't see (and perhaps those who actually saw the Bruins play in the 60's and 70's can add) from the tape or studying the players on Boston during Orr's time, many who skated particularly well.

I just look at his numbers and the time frame in which he played and am still searching for answers as to how a man who actually played stellar defense (while logging crazy minutes, on a progressively worse knee) could have so dominant offensively. It's mind boggling.

As Jean Beliveau said in regards to Orr. No player changed the dynamic of hockey the way Orr did. It's a big part of his legacy.

 

[MXD]

- I didn't change 1 to 4. To be fair, neither 1 or 4 were really in issue.

- I'm switching two guys between 5 and 10 since Round 1. It doesn't really matter so I'll just list them like I did in Round 1.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think at the beginning of each round the following information would be helpful:

ASTs
Top 10 or 20 in goals, assists and points
Hart Record
Norris Record
Vezina Record
VsX numbers

I'm not asking for anyone to do it, just saying it would be helpful as a starting pack.

I can easily show all that, but I was trying to avoid posting position-specific metrics like Norris, Vezina, etc. What do people think - is that useful/interesting? Or distracting/misleading?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Trying hard to be understanding but you did allude that a "Best Hockey" player existed for each season from 1956 to 1967. Kindly hit submit with the list as requested or withdraw the claim about Hull and Beliveau.

Thank you.

I said that Beliveau was far and away the best player in the league for 55-56 and Hull was far and away the best in 65-66. Most seasons don't have a player who is that much better than everyone else - except, that is, during the prime of one of the traditional Big 4.