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

[BenchBrawl]

I feel like Ray Bourque, great as he was, stands out in two bad ways:

1) He's the one who had the least star power out of that group

2) Him and Hull are the worst playoff performers out of that group

When talking about Top 10 players especially, star power and playoff performances are high on my list of priorities, which is why he's currently the most likely to be voted last by me.But the night is young...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bobby Orr was not injury prone the same way Mario Lemieux was.Injuries ended Orr's career but that's a different thing.

I agree with this reasoning. If you put yourself in a GM's shoes, I think there's obvious value in having your top players perform at a consistent level, year after year. (That's why many of us rank Lafleur so highly - his prime was fairly short, but for those six years, you knew exactly what you were getting). Orr had his career shortened, but while he was playing, he was consistent and generally healthy. Lemieux, for the most part, wasn't.

Orr had nine consecutive years as a Norris finalist (with eight consecutive wins). He had seven consecutive years as a Hart finalist (with nine consecutive years placing 6th or higher). He had six straight years as a top three scorer. He had five assist titles in six years (finishing second the one year he didn't win). Yes, it's a shame that he was effectively done at age 26 - but while Orr was playing, you knew what you were getting each year.

I realize that Lemieux ultimately played in more games than Orr. But they were spread across a long period of time, with frequent, lengthy, and unpredictable injuries, illnesses, and voluntary retirements. He never had a six or seven year streak of consistent dominance like Orr. He was never even a Hart finalist more than twice in a row (though you can say it's four if you exclude Gretzky in 1987). Nobody is questioning Lemieux's tremendous talent, or his level of performance when he was on the ice, but I think a GM would have a difficult time planning around a superstar who, in his prime, plays 26, 64, 60, 22, 0, 70, and 76 games in consecutive seasons (and then retires for three years).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with this reasoning. If you put yourself in a GM's shoes, I think there's obvious value in having your top players perform at a consistent level, year after year. (That's why many of us rank Lafleur so highly - his prime was fairly short, but for those six years, you knew exactly what you were getting). Orr had his career shortened, but while he was playing, he was consistent and generally healthy. Lemieux, for the most part, wasn't.

Orr had nine consecutive years as a Norris finalist (with eight consecutive wins). He had seven consecutive years as a Hart finalist (with nine consecutive years placing 6th or higher). He had six straight years as a top three scorer. He had five assist titles in six years (finishing second the one year he didn't win). Yes, it's a shame that he was effectively done at age 26 - but while Orr was playing, you knew what you were getting each year.

I realize that Lemieux ultimately played in more games than Orr. But they were spread across a long period of time, with long and unpredictable injuries, illnesses, and voluntary retirements. He never had a six or seven year streak of consistent dominance like Orr. He was never even a Hart finalist more than twice in a row (you can say it's four if you exclude Gretzky in 1987). Nobody is questioning Lemieux's tremendous talent, or his level of performance when he was on the ice, but I think a GM would have a difficult time planning around a superstar who plays 60, 22, 0, 70, and 76 games in consecutive seasons (and then retires for three years).

Agreed completely.This is why a few years ago I stressed that the consecutiveness of prime years has value.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If looking at it from GM's perspective, they both won 2 Stanley Cups in the middle of their prime.

 

[quoipourquoi]

This is filtered to exclude any year where a player received less than 5% of the available votes (the intention is to avoid overstating their results based on a few random votes). Note also that this data goes back to the end of WWII (so it captures all ten players' entire careers).

While it might not affect it now, it is worth noting that the 5-3-1 ballot could prove restrictive with this type of comparison in some years, as seasons with three strong candidates can leave other great seasons fighting for those scraps and under 5%.

It’s a little weird seeing a chart with Patrick Roy’s 8th place finish in 1996-97 on a 10-7-5-3-1 ballot but not his 4th and 5th place finishes in 1988-89 and 1989-90 underneath Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman and Messier, Bourque, Hull, Gretzky. Bourque, himself, is in the same boat in 1990-91.

Had there been a 10-7-5-3-1 ballot, they both likely retain their top-5 positioning while more names are able to meet the threshold because wider ranges of opinions are recorded. Gretzky himself barely met the threshold in 1989-90 because of the 5-3-1 ballot, as the top-3 took up 166 of 189 spots on the 63 ballots - when an expansion of the ballot to reflect the expansion of the league would have capped the top-3 players at 189 of 315 spots.

1989 is probably the most egregious example with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman holding 185 of 189 spots on the 63 ballots, so there wasn’t even 2% to fight over, while a simple and much-needed ballot tweak 7 years later guaranteed 40% of spots to the field beyond the top-3.

I get the idea of the fear of rogue opinions tainting the sample (Naslund’s surprise 1st place vote in 2001 only got him as far as 11th place), but it’s probably the sort of thing worth an asterisk, because once we get more 1995-96-onward players, it’s much easier to meet the 5% threshold.

Players with 5%
1980: 4
1981: 2
1982: 3
1983: 5
1984: 5
1985: 5
1986: 5
1987: 5
1988: 5
1989: 3
1990: 4
1991: 3
1992: 6
1993: 4
1994: 6
1995: 5
Change in Ballot
1996: 9
1997: 9
1998: 7
1999: 9
2000: 7
2001: 10
2002: 8
2003: 8
2004: 12

Essentially, by having a percentage cutoff but not a ranking cutoff, it will under-report seasons on a 5-3-1 ballot and over-report seasons on a 10-7-5-3-1 ballot. With respect to Mats Sundin, I’m more comfortable with Patrick Roy’s 4th place Hart finish in 1988-89 than Sundin’s 12th place Hart finish in 2003-04, but Sundin would theoretically make the chart.

 

[seventieslord]

I feel like Ray Bourque, great as he was, stands out in two bad ways:

1) He's the one who had the least star power out of that group

2) Him and Hull are the worst playoff performers out of that group

When talking about Top 10 players especially, star power and playoff performances are high on my list of priorities, which is why he's currently the most likely to be voted last by me.But the night is young...

I know it's a really lefty group so saying he's possibly the worst playoff performer in the group isn't necessarily an insult. But have you seen his playoff +/- relative to his team during the 1980s? I don't think this was available until all the numbers were released recently but he was very dominant despite the relative lack of team success.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Essentially, by having a percentage cutoff but not a ranking cutoff, it will under-report seasons on a 5-3-1 ballot and over-report seasons on a 10-7-5-3-1 ballot. With respect to Mats Sundin, I’m more comfortable with Patrick Roy’s 4th place Hart finish in 1988-89 than Sundin’s 12th place Hart finish in 2003-04, but Sundin would theoretically make the chart.

We've talked about this before, and I agree that your points are completely valid. In some years, the top two or three vote-getters eat up so many of the votes that everyone else is left with almost nothing. (I don't think the 5% threshold is necessarily the problem - even a 1% threshold would exclude Roy and Chelios in a particularly tough year like 1989).

You're right though - my main concern is a rogue voter or two giving someone an undeserved placement. (A recent example - not that this would be relevant for this project - is Craig Anderson, who officially finished 9th in Hart voting in 2010, on the strength of a single voter).

If the consensus is that it's better for me to present pure rankings (without any threshold), I can do that instead of (or in addition to) the table I already posted.

 

[steve141]

Everyone will have their own twist on answering this question- but you do make a good point that the sub-forum does appear to have a history of cutting Orr ALL slack for his injuries.

I don't think we tend to cut him much slack at all actually. Many people believe that Orr was the best player that ever lived. Orr not having a full career is the only reason I have Gretzky ranked ahead of Orr. Gretzky simply did so much more.

 

[steve141]

Will Mario break into the top 3?
Will Orr slip to #3?
Can someone knock the foursome of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux out of the top 4?

I've never been comfortable with the term "The Top 4". To me Gretzky/Orr/Howe are a clear top 3, with all of them having at least somewhat credible arguments for being number 1. There is no credible argument for Lemieux at number one. '

Gretzky/Orr/Howe all peaked higher than Lemieux. I know there will be some who rank Lemieux's peak higher than Howe's but the numbers show that their offensive peak was similar, while Howe also played a good defensive game.

I have Doug Harvey at #5, and I actually think the gap between Harvey and Lemieux is smaller than the gap between Lemieux and Howe.

 

[VanIslander]

Agreed completely.This is why a few years ago I stressed that the consecutiveness of prime years has value.

Raymond Bourque's 17-year streak is staggering (Norris trophy finalist 15 times over that period - he had a 16th time as Norris finalist later as a 40 year old in Colorado).

1979-80 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1980-81 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1981-82 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1982-83 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1983-84 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1984-85 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1985-86 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1986-87 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1987-88 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1988-89 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1989-90 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1990-91 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1991-92 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1992-93 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1993-94 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1994-95 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1995-96 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

(He had a couple of more later).

I know it's a really lefty group so saying he's possibly the worst playoff performer in the group isn't necessarily an insult. But have you seen his playoff +/- relative to his team during the 1980s? I don't think this was available until all the numbers were released recently but he was very dominant despite the relative lack of team success.

I saw Bourque be team MVP for the Bruins on two runs to the Stanley Cup Finals against the dynasty Oilers. The Boston blueline was terrible and Raymond could only do so much against a deep Edmonton squad. He and Neely were the only HHOF caliber Bruins against a dynasty squad, so don't hold a lack of cup success against him. He scored a point per game on both finals run and played heavy minutes against the best of the best. Finally, at age 40 he returned to the finals with a cup-caliber squad and he logged 28+ minutes a night in all situations to garner the cup.

Plus in terms of playoff prowess, look at his effectiveness in the 1984 Canada Cup where he led all tourney defensemen in scoring with 8 points and Canada to the trophy. Then, in the 1987 Canada Cup Bourque was a tourney all-star defenseman selection in another victory for Canada.

 

[VanIslander]

How great was Rocket Richard as a playoff hero? (remember: we are comparing him to other all-time greats, not saying he wasn't great, just how much RELATIVELY SPEAKING).

Rocket Richard led the Habs and the league in playoff goals to the cup in 1944 (late war year - perhaps some discount needed there). He again led the league in goals in the playoffs in 1947 and 1951, but they were non-cup years. The other time he led his team and the league in goals was once during the 5-year dynasty (each of Richard, Moore, Beliveau and Geoffrion led the team and league in playoff goals once during the dynasty, though Geoffrion twice led in points), and the totals of Richard's contributions offensively to it are listed below.

The top scorers for Montreal over their 5-year dynasty are:

1. Geoffrion 68 playoff points
2. Moore 57 playoff points
2. Beliveau 55 playoff points
3. Richard 44 playoff points

Even factoring in the one year Richard missed most of the playoffs, he still comes up short of the others.

Geoffrion twice led the team and league in playoff points, Beliveau and Moore once, Richard none (though, as mentioned earlier, each of the three had one postseason lead in playoff goals during the dynasty).

Richard the hero is legendary in part in the mythic sense (at least in terms of contribution to championship against the very best of his era!!!) when you look at his early years and at his dynasty years and compare what he actually scored to Geoffrion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How great was Rocket Richard as a playoff hero? (remember: we are comparing him to other all-time greats, not saying he wasn't great, just how much RELATIVELY SPEAKING).

Rocket Richard led the Habs in playoff goals to the cup in 1944 (late war year - perhaps some discount needed there). He again led the team in goals in the playoffs in 1947 and 1951, but they were non-cup years. The other time he led his team in goals was once during the 5-year dynasty (each of Richard, Beliveau and Geoffrion led the team in playoff goals once during the dynasty, though Geoffrion twice led in points), and the totals of Richard's contributions offensively to it are listed below.

The top three scorers for Montreal over their 5-year dynasty are:

1. Geoffrion 68 playoff points
2. Beliveau 55 playoff points
3. Richard 44 playoff points

Even factoring in the one year Richard missed most of the playoffs, he still comes up short of the other two.

Geoffrion twice led the team in playoff points, Beliveau once, Richard none (though, as mentioned earlier, each of the three had one postseason lead in playoff goals during the dynasty).

Richard the hero is legendary in part in the mythic sense (at least in terms of contribution to championship against the very best of his era!!!) when you look at his early years and at his dynasty years and compare what he actually scored to Geoffrion.

No one strategized to defend Geoffrion.. Name the players assigned to check Geoffrion?

Geoffrion played the point on the PP
with the advantage of being healthy and rested for the playoffs as opposed to an injury prone dynasty RS.

Geoffrion like Fred Stanfield was the beneficiary not the motor of

 

[daver]

I've never been comfortable with the term "The Top 4". To me Gretzky/Orr/Howe are a clear top 3, with all of them having at least somewhat credible arguments for being number 1. There is no credible argument for Lemieux at number one. '

Gretzky/Orr/Howe all peaked higher than Lemieux. I know there will be some who rank Lemieux's peak higher than Howe's but the numbers show that their offensive peak was similar, while Howe also played a good defensive game.

I have Doug Harvey at #5, and I actually think the gap between Harvey and Lemieux is smaller than the gap between Lemieux and Howe.

Could you not say the same thing about Wayne too? Assuming peak is one season.

I think Howe's offensive peak (his 52/53 season) fits into a space below Wayne and Mario but above the best of any other forward. The fact that his 2nd and 3rd best offensive seasons are in the same tier as players like Beliveau, Hull, Esposito, Mikita,Jagr, Yzeramn, etc.... confirms that his peak was not on Wayne/Mario level, both of whom had other seasons that on the same level as their peak season.

 

[danincanada]

To me, Doug Harvey is clearly the most overrated player on this board, and in this top 10. His offense wasn’t great enough to get him here and his competition fades badly with Kelly out of the picture for Harvey’s last 4 Norris’ and 5 AS nominations.

He got to play with the top centre, arguably the top goalie, a group of top wingers, and his teammate Johnson stepped up and won the Norris instead of him during his down year when he was playing injured. The closing seasons of his NHL career interest me as well...

He gets named captain of the Canadiens after the Rocket retires but only lasts one year and is traded away. Then his former goalie Plante wins the Hart without him and Harvey finishes second, also winning his last Norris. But now we know he was a -9 that season with the Rangers and he finished 6th in team scoring with 30 points while team leader Bathgate has 84 points with a +3. Harvey was also a player coach that year but that experiment only lasts the one year. Only one year as captain of the Habs then only one year as a player coach? It doesn’t seem either franchise was thrilled with those experiences.

Overall I can’t buy into what the majority of this group of posters does either and this not only impacts Harvey but all O6 players. Step back for a moment and realize the league then is practically only Canadian with a few fringe Americans apart from Brimsek. How can a league like that, which amounts to a domestic league for talent, be weighed equally with what came later? Half of this top 10 played their key years in the O6 so there appears to be a vast over calculation of their status. I’m not surprised but someone should note it.

Take the Ovechkin/Bobby Hull comparison. In accomplishments and peer to peer comparisons they look very similar up to the age of 33. The threshold for Hull was outperforming the best from central Canada and the Prairies while for Ovechkin it’s obviously far more than that with elite players coming from all over Canada, the US, and Europe. Unless Hull is being regarded so highly due to his WHA days something is clearly wrong with the methods being used.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Of course we could count all the games Orr didn't play from age 26 to 35 or something, but that's another story.

And that, really, gets to the heart of my whole point. [Although I'd modify the framing of this somewhat and say '27-35.']

Short version of the full-length case is this...

Orr versus Lemieux in Three Acts:

Act I- ages 18 to 21-22: they're comparable. I got Orr with the edge in two years- Lemieux with the edge in two years. If ya wanna say (for the sake of argument) Orr has a slight edge (cuz his advantages are wider than Lemieux's, e.g.: playing age 21) I won't argue strenuously. Still- I'll call it comparable.

Act II- ages 21-22 to 26: it's Orr with the edge- there's daylight between them- but Lemieux is doing some historically significant things during that time, too. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that, from age 18 to this point, Orr's building his legacy with considerably more teammate-help than Lemieux.

Act III- Orr did not provide us with an Act III. To the extent that Lemieux's career continues, he is competing against a virtually blank sheet of paper. After playing age 26, Lemieux scored 709 points. Orr scored 45.

Lemieux from age 27 onwards: 2 Harts/Pearsons (Lindsays), 3 Art Ross, 4 All-Star Teams (3x 1st). My case is- Lemieux's advantage in Act III more than offsets any disadvantages in the first two Acts.

 

[Theokritos]

I know it's a really lefty group so saying he's possibly the worst playoff performer in the group isn't necessarily an insult.

Um, what do you know about the political views of those players that we don't?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Getting to the elephant in the room topic. Gretzky and Lemieux.

Snide comments aside about WWI era hockey, a major misrepresentation since the NHL was in steady decline from the introduction of the 1932-33 Salary Cap to the introduction of the center Red Line in 1943-44 the post NHL/WHA consolidation to the DPE is the weakest era.

Eras are defined by elite players / coaches and dynasty or elite level teams. The combination produces record setting RS seasons and SC Championships.

Moving forward from 1943-44.

O6 dynasty set regular season team point records. As did post expansion /WHA teams. Islanders, Oilers, Penguins never did. Strata below. Gretzky' and Lemieux' prolific scoring is not reflected in team dominance. Weak era individual results.

1979- onwards. Vezina, Jennings and Norris winners tend to the bottom of three tiers.

Vezina:
NHL Vezina Trophy Winners | Hockey-Reference.com

Jennings:
NHL William M. Jennings Trophy Winners | Hockey-Reference.com

Norris:
NHL James Norris Memorial Trophy Winners | Hockey-Reference.com

Norris is interesting.Post 1979-80 Potvin and Robinson battled various injuries. Bourque and Coffey hadnot matured.

Lack of quality new goaltenders.

1979-80 thru 1984-85 saw only two HHOF quality goaltenders debut - Fuhr and Roy in a 21 team league.

In a six team NHL during WWII, two future HHOF goalies made their debut. Durnan and Lumley

Prolific scoring has a context. Getzky and Lemieux are from the weakest NHL era.

 

[VanIslander]

Assuming peak is one season.

Everyone and their dog has ONE great season.

A 5-year or 7-year peak is often considered out of a whole career. (I can see the value of a 3-year peak analysis.)

But comparing Gretzky's one best season to Howe's and/or other player's one season isn't significant enough, I think. (Maybe if we were comparing players for the 258th greatest player standing).

 

[VanIslander]

My case is- Lemieux's advantage in Act III more than offsets any disadvantages in the first two Acts.

Interesting. Usually it's presumed rather than shown that Orr's early career accomplishments mean more than all of Lemieux's.

Your case shows the NEED for the other side of the argument to be shown (to convince us not to be swayed by the case):

Exactly what evidence can be marshalled to demonstrate how much more significant Orr's years were - how big a gap there is - compared to Lemieux's at a similar early age/stage of career?

Hmmm.

One tactic is to look at positional dominance, how much more Orr's years were compared to other dmen (eg., his own era Potvin's), and how Lemieux wasn't likewise so much better than other centers at his position.

QUESTION: If Gretzky never existed, would Lemieux's career be seen as greater than Orr's? (Alternatively put, Does coming in the wake of Gretzky cost Lemieux standing in our rankings?)

 

[BM67]

How great was Rocket Richard as a playoff hero? (remember: we are comparing him to other all-time greats, not saying he wasn't great, just how much RELATIVELY SPEAKING).

Rocket Richard led the Habs in playoff goals to the cup in 1944 (late war year - perhaps some discount needed there). He again led the team in goals in the playoffs in 1947 and 1951, but they were non-cup years. The other time he led his team in goals was once during the 5-year dynasty (each of Richard, Beliveau and Geoffrion led the team in playoff goals once during the dynasty, though Geoffrion twice led in points), and the totals of Richard's contributions offensively to it are listed below.

The top three scorers for Montreal over their 5-year dynasty are:

1. Geoffrion 68 playoff points
2. Beliveau 55 playoff points
3. Richard 44 playoff points

Even factoring in the one year Richard missed most of the playoffs, he still comes up short of the other two.

Geoffrion twice led the team in playoff points, Beliveau once, Richard none (though, as mentioned earlier, each of the three had one postseason lead in playoff goals during the dynasty).

Richard the hero is legendary in part in the mythic sense (at least in terms of contribution to championship against the very best of his era!!!) when you look at his early years and at his dynasty years and compare what he actually scored to Geoffrion.

Really? The Rocket's last 5 years of his 18 year career are not were he built his legacy. His 57 playoff goals, and 4 OT goals before the 5 Cup dynasty would still be number one all-time in 1960. Rocket also led the Canadiens in PO goals for the 46 and 53 Cup wins.

Plus, Dickie Moore says hello. Moore was the #2 scorer for the 5 Cup dynasty years, both RS and PO. Also the only player to be a top 5 scorer on the team in all 5 seasons, both RS and PO.

 

[MXD]

PPG arguments don't get Lemieux ahead of Gretzky anyway, so I don't see why one should even bother.

I'm having difficulty finding one off the top of my head, but, is there any way that Lemieux's resume is superior to Gretzky's?

I can see three things :

First, goalscoring through eyetest. Not the act of scoring goals per se, but goalscoring skillset. Mario Lemieux had a skillset that lent itself to scoring goals in a ton of different ways, and the fact Gretzky scored more goals (both from a relative than a absolute view point) doesn't make him a better scorer, because, basically, reasons (though some might actually be valid).

Second, scoring environment. Gretzky had an easier time to rise above the crop, because the environment he played in lent itself to scoring more than Lemieux's, as much as for the time they were both in the league than for the time where only one of them was. I remember that we digged into this with the wingers project with Michel Goulet, and what I recall for this is that the effect was absolutely real, but, while it moved the needle at Goulet's level, I high doubt it does so at Gretzky/Lemieux's level. Also, one of the bigger reasons why the Smythe division teams allowed more goals is, well... facing the Oilers. So, chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Third, Mario Lemieux could play better defense (if asked to). This is something I clearly remember Scotty Bowman saying on the radio (in French), and I should look for a quote. The issue with this, well... it's kinda moot, since it appears not many people bothered to ask him such a thing.

So that are the reasons I can see why someone would consider Lemieux the better player. All three come up with significant caveats as well. I suppose there's a fourth : Gretzky was better surrounded. I don't think there's a possible caveat for this one, but, respectfully, I don't quite think this is a relevant argument at this level.

 

[daver]

Everyone and their dog has ONE great season.

A 5-year or 7-year peak is often considered out of a whole career. (I can see the value of a 3-year peak analysis.)

But comparing Gretzky's one best season to Howe's and/or other player's one season isn't significant enough, I think. (Maybe if we were comparing players for the 258th greatest player standing).

This is more Howe vs. Mario. Howe had one season that definitively stood out among his peers in his era and two other seasons that rivalled the best seasons from Beilveau, Hull and Mikita.

Mario has one full season at his peak and another (92/93) that most accept as being at his peak. He also has two playoff runs befitting his regular season peak whereas Howe's best playoff run, at least offensively, is on par with his peers' best during that era notably Mikita and Beliveau.

It think Mario is a clear tier above Howe offensively which is why he should be in the Big 4 rather than looking into the Big 3.

 

[MXD]

How great was Rocket Richard as a playoff hero? (remember: we are comparing him to other all-time greats, not saying he wasn't great, just how much RELATIVELY SPEAKING).

Rocket Richard led the Habs in playoff goals to the cup in 1944 (late war year - perhaps some discount needed there). He again led the team in goals in the playoffs in 1947 and 1951, but they were non-cup years. The other time he led his team in goals was once during the 5-year dynasty (each of Richard, Beliveau and Geoffrion led the team in playoff goals once during the dynasty, though Geoffrion twice led in points), and the totals of Richard's contributions offensively to it are listed below.

The top three scorers for Montreal over their 5-year dynasty are:

1. Geoffrion 68 playoff points
2. Beliveau 55 playoff points
3. Richard 44 playoff points

Even factoring in the one year Richard missed most of the playoffs, he still comes up short of the other two.

Geoffrion twice led the team in playoff points, Beliveau once, Richard none (though, as mentioned earlier, each of the three had one postseason lead in playoff goals during the dynasty).

Richard the hero is legendary in part in the mythic sense (at least in terms of contribution to championship against the very best of his era!!!) when you look at his early years and at his dynasty years and compare what he actually scored to Geoffrion.

... Seems to me like it's an argument for Richard more than anything, considering he was a very old man by this point.

 

[ted2019]

I've never been comfortable with the term "The Top 4". To me Gretzky/Orr/Howe are a clear top 3, with all of them having at least somewhat credible arguments for being number 1. There is no credible argument for Lemieux at number one. '

Gretzky/Orr/Howe all peaked higher than Lemieux. I know there will be some who rank Lemieux's peak higher than Howe's but the numbers show that their offensive peak was similar, while Howe also played a good defensive game.

I have Doug Harvey at #5, and I actually think the gap between Harvey and Lemieux is smaller than the gap between Lemieux and Howe.

Someone said if we are taking all around players seriously in this round. I tend to compare Harvey vs. Mario when I have more time. I think Harvey could have a case for 4th.

 

[MXD]

I feel like Ray Bourque, great as he was, stands out in two bad ways:

1) He's the one who had the least star power out of that group

2) Him and Hull are the worst playoff performers out of that group

When talking about Top 10 players especially, star power and playoff performances are high on my list of priorities, which is why he's currently the most likely to be voted last by me.But the night is young...

There should be an "Agree" function for posts like this.