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

[quoipourquoi]

Jean Beliveau. Longevity with the smallest gap between the first and second half of his career. Went from superstar to master.

The bottom-six in this round could probably all get into the HOF twice given their 1st half and 2nd half career breakdowns, right? Beliveau’s might be the most balanced between the two.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not intentionally so. But point taken.

In retort, I'd ask if it's fair to expect Gretzky to have put any team he played on over the edge once he was past his prime. Because really, is the difference between Gretzky and Orr or Howe that he wasn't a good enough support player when it comes to winning Cups? THAT seems a disingenuous position to take. Maybe if Gretzky was in direct competition with someone like Trottier, that would be a fair knock against Wayne. But not when comparing him to Orr, Howe, or Lemieux.

Beliveau, Harvey, Maurice Richard were difference makers post prime and an easy 15-20 others not eligible.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The bottom-six in this round could probably all get into the HOF twice given their 1st half and 2nd half career breakdowns, right? Beliveau’s might be the most balanced between the two.

Yes,first ballot.But could the same be said about the Top 4?

 

[blogofmike]

Yes,first ballot.But could the same be said about the Top 4?

Yes. Even half an Orr or Lemieux is as good as a Cam Neely.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes,first ballot.But could the same be said about the Top 4?

Based on the talent level, probably still. I think if we counted the total number of mis-fire seasons, Orr and Lemieux would maybe have more than the field, but there’s probably still enough there where 5 years was enough of a look - even if not the slam dunk that 9 years (at the beginning or end) would be for the other 8.

 

[overg]

Beliveau, Harvey, Maurice Richard were difference makers post prime and an easy 15-20 others not eligible.

But didn't all three also have vastly better support than Gretzky did post prime? Do any of them, while past their prime, get the Kings, Blues, or Rangers a Cup if you swap them with Wayne?

Once again, my criticisms here are aimed at the notion that Gretzky "only" got 4 Cups as an argument to place him below Orr, Howe, or Lemieux. Because if post-prime Cup counting, or full career Cup counting is a knock against Wayne, it's equally or more a knock against the other three.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Not sure if this is too late to matter, but I'm interested in what people think of each of the Big Four in terms of their performances at each separate game situation. I'm always interested in the breakdown of power play/penalty kill performance, and I think especially among forwards power play production tends to be overrated and penalty kill performance is often underrated.

I pulled some numbers from Overpass' spreadsheet. Note that I just took seasonal averages for the usage and TmPP+ and TmSH+ stats to run these numbers quickly, so they could be skewed a bit by a player missing time in a season. Usage is the percentage of team goals in that situation that a player is on the ice for, TmPP+ and TmSH+ is the team's success relative to league average (>1 is good for PP, <1 is good for PK, and shorthanded goals are counted), while $PPP and $SHP are adjusted points per 82 games. I also looked at some contextual numbers for Orr and Gretzky, looking at how their teams did in the last two years they were there compared to the first two years they were gone to see if that maybe gave us some additional information about their relative impacts.

Wayne Gretzky, Power Play:

Period	Usage	TmPP+	$PPP
1980-81	78%	1.03	38
1982-88	89%	1.19	44
1989-96	83%	0.99	46
1996-99	70%	1.17	37

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Context (2 yr averages with/without Gretzky):

Leaving EDM: 1.10 with, 0.98 without
Going to LA: 1.12 without, 0.99 with
Leaving LA: 0.89 with, 0.80 without
Going to NY: 1.18 without, 1.17 with

Wayne Gretzky, Penalty Kill:

Period	Usage	TmSH+	$SHP
1980-81	22%	1.03	6
1982-88	39%	0.73	12
1989-96	32%	1.01	3
1996-99	16%	1.06	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Context (2 yr averages with/without Gretzky):

Leaving EDM: 0.77 with, 0.72 without
Going to LA: 1.24 without, 0.99 with
Leaving LA: 1.08 with, 0.96 without

Summary:

It looks like the majority of Gretzky's elite special teams play came during his Edmonton peak. It appears that either Gretzky was only a great penalty killer at his peak and then dropped off later in his career, or the Oilers had a great PK unit, or some combination of the two. The Kings' special teams were very average during Gretzky's tenure, suggesting he really didn't move the needle all that much, other than helping bring a bad PK unit up to average. On the positive side, Gretzky put up decent power play scoring and contributed to a pretty good Rangers power play right up to the end of his career. Then again, this isn't necessarily Gretzky's strength or what makes his case for #1 anyway, considering he is the best even strength offensive player ever.

Bobby Orr, Power Play:

1968-75: 97% usage, 1.53 TmPP+, 42 $PPP

Leaving BOS: 1.59 with, 1.01 without

Bobby Orr, Penalty Kill:

1968-75: 65% usage, 0.79 TmSH+, 4 $SHP

Leaving BOS: 0.84 with, 0.78 without

Summary:

I don't think there's any question that Bobby Orr was elite on the power play. Losing Orr and Esposito took the Bruins' power play from an all-time great level to league average. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how to rate Orr's penalty killing. He was definitely elite at shorthanded scoring for a defenceman, but the team did continue to have success on the penalty kill without him, and Bruins were certainly more dominant relative to the rest of the league on the power play than they were while killing penalties.

Mario Lemieux, Power Play:

Period	Usage	TmPP+	$PPP
1985-87	86%	0.83	36
1988-01	95%	1.18	51

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Mario Lemieux, Penalty Kill:

Period	Usage	TmSH+	$SHP
1985-87	3%	1.10	0
1988-01	36%	1.06	11

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Summary:

Lemieux might not have been elite on the power play right out of the gate, but after that he has a very strong case for being the best power play scorer ever. He definitely had a big impact on his team's numbers, e.g.:

Pittsburgh Team PP+ (with GP by Lemieux):
1993: 1.18 (60 GP)
1994: 1.02 (22 GP)
1995: 1.14 (0 GP)
1996: 1.53 (70 GP)
1997: 1.38 (76 GP)
1998: 1.01 (0 GP)
1999: 1.04 (0 GP)
2000: 0.90 (0 GP)
2001: 1.21 (43 GP)

However, on the penalty kill, either Mario played his entire career with pretty bad teammates, or he wasn't really that effective despite scoring a lot shorthanded.

Gordie Howe:

Unfortunately I don't have easy-available detailed breakdowns for Howe like for the others. I'd be interested in hearing more from people who watched him, but I think Howe was probably very good on both units. Howe's power play scoring looks strong, the Red Wings had a mostly above average power play through the 1960s and Howe was usually near the top of the league in power play scoring (top-5 in power play scoring every year from 1956 to 1965).

For the penalty kill, we know from the plus/minus data that Howe played fairly regularly on the PK every season from 1960 to 1970, and from Howe's shorthanded scoring he probably played regularly in the '50s as well. For what it is worth, the Red Wings had a very good PK unit from the early fifties until about 1962, but their numbers were more average after that.

 

[bobholly39]

Its really disappointing to see how many voters seem unwilling to argue and discuss and are rather content with stating opinions without backing them up and seem to simply be waiting to vote the same way they intended to at start.

If thats the goal here we can just post results after round 1 without bothering with round 2.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Its really disappointing to see how many voters seem unwilling to argue and discuss and are rather content with stating opinions without backing them up and seem to simply be waiting to vote the same way they intended to at start.

If thats the goal here we can just post results after round 1 without bothering with round 2.

Some people are inflexible, but as long as you feel that you’re learning and having fun, you’re doing it right.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Its really disappointing to see how many voters seem unwilling to argue and discuss and are rather content with stating opinions without backing them up and seem to simply be waiting to vote the same way they intended to at start.

If thats the goal here we can just post results after round 1 without bothering with round 2.

Well, the ranking of Howe, Gretzky and Orr is largely dependent on how you view the big picture, and it's much harder to ''back'' global preferences.Once your preferences are stated, it's obvious what the rankings should be considering those three are wildly different globally.

So the type of argument more likely to change my mind is the type which changes my global preferences on what I value in a career.This happened to me when I flipped Howe and Orr after considering just how important Gordie's physicality was in his era.

This is not true all the way down the list, because many players are more or less the same globally.Gretzky, Howe and Orr are so close it's really difficult to rank them IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

But didn't all three also have vastly better support than Gretzky did post prime? Do any of them, while past their prime, get the Kings, Blues, or Rangers a Cup if you swap them with Wayne?

Once again, my criticisms here are aimed at the notion that Gretzky "only" got 4 Cups as an argument to place him below Orr, Howe, or Lemieux. Because if post-prime Cup counting, or full career Cup counting is a knock against Wayne, it's equally or more a knock against the other three.

Whose fault is that? Gretzky who moved from team to team bringing an aging entourage or the other players who joined new teams mentoring new,promising younger players?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'd think every great hockey player in history did a play of this sort sometimes in their career. I do it sometimes in my floorball team. Erik Karlsson has done it multiple times at the highest level.

I really don't understand the purpose of cutting a single moment and declare it more or less unique. Orr, Richard and Beliveau wasn't superhuman. I am sorry.

edit: I now saw it was PK, so that's not too bad. Still, a player like Mike Richards has a more impressive PK shift than that.

Yeah and Mike Richards plays in an era where people can watch games on their smart phones. Any game. Any time. Anywhere.

The tape be kinda limited on players like Orr, at least compared to today.

Orr did that kind of stuff, regularly. Whether it's visual, anecdotal, whatever. We know he was making plays like that night in and night out.

The point is Orr was dominant everywhere on the ice. Often. Gretzky wasn't. I'm sorry but it's reality.

 

[kruezer]

Is there a case for Hull to crack the top 4? Not saying there should be but he has been discussed probably the least of all in this thread. Curious if anyone thinks it’s possible. Looking through the PP data that I was earlier it was clear he was a dominant ES scorer. Is there a case to make up for his lack of PO success?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Hull's postseason just doesn't get there. You could argue 4th on the basis of being, IMO, the greatest goal scorer ever in league history but he really lacks that one (or couple like the usual top 4) defining run(s).

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

And here comes my second data dump for the evening, as I found out that NHL.com has full plus/minus numbers going back to 1960, for the regular season and playoffs, which means we can look at adjusted plus/minus for the playoffs as well, to see how each player performed when the games meant the most and when they were playing only good opposition. Remember, these are even strength goals for/against only.

Adjusted Even Strength Plus/Minus in the Playoffs:

Player	Yrs	GP	GF/GA(on)	GF/GA(off)	R-On	R-Off	Adj +/-
Orr	1968-75	74	+118/-68	+83/-78	1.73	1.07	+44
Gretzky	1980-88	120	+193/-109	+186/-130	1.77	1.43	+31
Gretzky	1989-97	88	+93/-87	+110/-123	1.07	0.89	+17
Gretzky	1980-97	208	+286/-196	+296/-253	1.46	1.17	+53
Lemieux	1989-01	115	+109/-77	+156/-145	1.42	1.07	+25
Howe	1960-70	65	+52/-41	+66/-96	1.26	0.69	+28

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky in Edmonton actually has a slightly higher even strength on-ice goals ratio than Orr, which is impressive. However, the off-ice numbers for Edmonton are great as well (the Oilers dynasty really did do most of their damage at 5-on-5 or 4-on-4, especially pre-1987). During his later career, Gretzky's playoff numbers are also quite a bit better than his regular season numbers. Late career Gretzky was pretty much zero in terms of adjusted plus/minus during the regular season, but in the playoffs he held his own even while his teammates were getting outscored. There is no question that Gretzky was a great playoff performer, very possibly the best ever, but then again I think all of the Big Four were pretty great in the playoffs and the gap between them and Gretzky might not be as big as it seems just based on offensive numbers and team success.

Orr's numbers are down from the regular season, both offensively and defensively, and the gap is certainly closer between him and the others in the playoffs. It might be fair to say that either he or his team was better than the others at outscoring weak competition during the regular season. However, he was also clearly very good against great teams as well, considering that he still has the best numbers on a per-game basis, and he did it against the toughest playoff competition of any of these players (average playoff opponent weighted by games played was .617 for Orr, compared to .559 for Gretzky in Edmonton, .586 for late-career Gretzky, .557 for Lemieux and .586 for Howe post-1960).

Lemieux has the lowest per-game adjusted plus/minus number of the group. I kind of expected that, however, this doesn't take into account power play scoring, where Lemieux would make up ground for sure.

Howe's numbers in the 1960s are very impressive, by far the biggest surprise of doing this exercise to me. He was outscoring the other team by a lot, even though the Wings were getting destroyed when Howe was on the bench. Those are Howe's age 31-41 seasons as well, so it's reasonable to expect he was even more dominant in his twenties.

I'm not saying that adjusted plus/minus is perfect, like with every stat there are contextual things to be aware of, especially the player's usage and the quality of their teammates. In this grouping, it's important to note that it is easier to outperform weak teammates than strong teammates. Subjectively, Howe's numbers relative to his team aren't quite as good as they look and Oiler Gretzky's are better than they look. But I still think there is a statistical case for Bobby Orr being a better overall player than Gretzky, at 5-on-5 and special teams combined, even when you take the playoffs into account.

 

[overg]

Whose fault is that? Gretzky who moved from team to team bringing an aging entourage or the other players who joined new teams mentoring new,promising younger players?

"Other players who joined new teams mentoring new, promising younger players" does not describe any of the Big 4. None won a Cup while playing such a role.

I suspect you're saving your breath, and I don't blame you at all for that. But if you think any players out there who are not in the Big 4 trump Gretzky because they did move into a mentoring and/or support role, I think it'd it would bring a new perspective that might be exactly the sort of "big picture" shift ImporterExporter talks about a few posts back.

I'm not a voter in this project, so no one needs to convince me of anything. I'm just chiming in with what is hopefully useful and/or interesting takes on various things being discussed. My current windmill just happens to be that Gretzky "only" winning 4 Cups is at worst a wash, if not actually a plus, compared to the players he's being compared against. That's almost exclusively been the other Big 4 members this round.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bobby Clarke (a pretty damn good defensive player himself) says the following at 4:26

"I never saw anyone beat him one on one. And it happens to every dman once in a while. I never saw anybody that could do everything the game needed at such a high level like he did"

Eddie Johnston said at 5:01

"Blocked shots as good as anyone who ever played the game"

At 5:07

"We went into one night, 10-11 shots on us, Bobby ended up blocking 18"

5:13

"He was like a tiger on defense" He was the toughest guy out there. He could fight, he could hit"

"Bobby could hit you like a freight train if he so chose."

Starting at 5:35 they talk about how dominant Orr was at ragging the puck on the PK. Might not be traditional, but it was damn effective.

Love 13:17 and beyond with Gordie Howe and his teammates talking about how tough Orr was. Unlike most superstars in the post expansion era, Orr could more than handle his own in a scrap and never backed down from anyone. He didn't need anyone watching over him.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I might have been receptive to a Howe over Lemieux argument-- but too many keystrokes were used trying to convince us that Orr's superior to Gretzky.
Howe DOES have a big longevity argument over Lemieux (and everybody else, too).
Lemieux has a significant longevity argument over Orr.
Would it be too flippant to say that if one supports Orr in the one-spot, the viewpoint might carry a Jonas Salk-grade inoculation against a longevity argument? [And I mean... even as a component of the equation(?)]

 

[blogofmike]

Perhaps @Dennis Bonvie and @overg can chime in on my ingenu- ingeni- engi-

Aw shut up.

Here's how many playoff series each of the Big 4 won, broken down by their team's RS Strength. .100s were used to break it up because they're round. Howe's 1950 playoffs are excluded as he didn't really get to play in them. Also his 1980 playoffs because he's 52 and it's an L. Chronologically:

Howe	W	L	Cups	Cup %
All	13	14	3
.700+	2	1	1	50%
.600+	6	6	2	25%
.500+	4	4
<.500	1	3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Orr	W	L	Cups	Cup %
All	9	6	2
.700+	5	2	1	33%
.600+	4	3	1	25%
.500+	0	1
<.500	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky	W	L	Cups	Cup %
All	30	12	4
.700+	5	1	1	50%
.600+	15	3	3	50%
.500+	5	4
<.500	3	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Lemieux	W	L	Cups	Cup %
All	0	6	2
.700+	1	1		0%
.600+	2	2		0%
.500+	11	4	2	33%
<.500	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Teams win Cups. They only won with a .600 team, except Lemieux, though I'd say a .550 team that makes deadline moves and gets a previously injured Lemieux back might be close enough.

They all lost once with a .700 team. 51 Habs, 71 Habs, 74 Flyers, 86 Flames, and 93 Isles were the culprits.

With .600 teams (and the 2 Pens teams that won from under that) here are their team's records:

Wayne Gretzky: 20-4 (4 Cups in 8 strong shots - 50%)
Mario Lemieux: 11-3 (2 Cups in 5 strong shots - 40%)

Bobby Orr: 9-4 (2 Cups in 6 strong shots - 33%)
Gordie Howe: 8-7 (3 Cups in 10 strong shots - 30%)​

Anyways, if my work is off, please check it below. It also has series records where a team was an underdog, favourite, and when teams had the even point total regardless of seeding.

Year	Team	PTS%	Result	UD	FAV	EVEN	Series Wins
1969-70	Detroit Red Wings*	0.625	Lost NHL Quarter-Finals	0-1	0
1965-66	Detroit Red Wings*	0.529	Lost Stanley Cup Final	1-1			1
1964-65	Detroit Red Wings*	0.621	Lost NHL Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1963-64	Detroit Red Wings*	0.507	Lost Stanley Cup Final	1-1			1
1962-63	Detroit Red Wings*	0.55	Lost Stanley Cup Final	1-1			1
1960-61	Detroit Red Wings*	0.471	Lost Stanley Cup Final	1-1			1
1959-60	Detroit Red Wings*	0.479	Lost NHL Semi-Finals	0-1			0
1957-58	Detroit Red Wings*	0.5	Lost NHL Semi-Finals	0-1	0
1956-57	Detroit Red Wings*	0.629	Lost NHL Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1955-56	Detroit Red Wings*	0.543	Lost Stanley Cup Final	0-1	1-0		1
1954-55	Detroit Red Wings*	0.679	Won Stanley Cup Final		2-0		2
1953-54	Detroit Red Wings*	0.629	Won Stanley Cup Final		2-0		2
1952-53	Detroit Red Wings*	0.643	Lost NHL Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1951-52	Detroit Red Wings*	0.714	Won Stanley Cup Final		2-0		2
1950-51	Detroit Red Wings*	0.721	Lost NHL Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1948-49	Detroit Red Wings*	0.625	Lost Stanley Cup Final		1-1		1
1947-48	Detroit Red Wings*	0.6	Lost Stanley Cup Final	0-1	1-0		1
1946-47	Detroit Red Wings*	0.458	Lost NHL Semi-Finals	0-1			0
				4-9	9-5		13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Team	PTS%	Result	UD	FAV	EVEN	Series Wins
1974-75	Boston Bruins*	0.588	Lost NHL Preliminary Round		0-1		0
1973-74	Boston Bruins*	0.724	Lost Stanley Cup Final		2-1		2
1972-73	Boston Bruins*	0.686	Lost NHL Quarter-Finals		0-1		0
1971-72	Boston Bruins*	0.763	Won Stanley Cup Final		3-0		3
1970-71	Boston Bruins*	0.776	Lost NHL Quarter-Finals		0-1		0
1969-70	Boston Bruins*	0.651	Won Stanley Cup Final		3-0		3
1968-69	Boston Bruins*	0.658	Lost NHL Semi-Finals	0-1	1-0		1
1967-68	Boston Bruins*	0.568	Lost NHL Quarter-Finals	0-1			0
				0-2	9-4		9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Team	PTS%	Result	UD	FAV	EVEN	Series Wins
1996-97	New York Rangers*	0.524	Lost NHL Conference Finals	2-1			2
1995-96	St. Louis Blues*	0.488	Lost NHL Conference Semi-Finals	0-1		1-0	1
1992-93	Los Angeles Kings*	0.524	Lost Stanley Cup Final	3-1			3
1991-92	Los Angeles Kings*	0.525	Lost NHL Division Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1990-91	Los Angeles Kings*	0.638	Lost NHL Division Finals		1-1		1
1989-90	Los Angeles Kings*	0.469	Lost NHL Division Finals	1-1			1
1988-89	Los Angeles Kings*	0.569	Lost NHL Division Finals	1-0	0-1		1
1987-88	Edmonton Oilers*	0.619	Won Stanley Cup Final	1-0	3-0		4
1986-87	Edmonton Oilers*	0.663	Won Stanley Cup Final		4-0		4
1985-86	Edmonton Oilers*	0.744	Lost NHL Division Finals		1-1		1
1984-85	Edmonton Oilers*	0.681	Won Stanley Cup Final	1-0	3-0		4
1983-84	Edmonton Oilers*	0.744	Won Stanley Cup Final		4-0		4
1982-83	Edmonton Oilers*	0.663	Lost Stanley Cup Final		3-1		3
1981-82	Edmonton Oilers*	0.694	Lost NHL Division Semi-Finals		0-1		0
1980-81	Edmonton Oilers*	0.463	Lost NHL Quarter-Finals	1-1
1979-80	Edmonton Oilers*	0.431	Lost NHL Preliminary Round	0-1			0
				10-6	19-6	1-0	30

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Team	PTS%	Result	UD	FAV	EVEN	Series Wins
2000-01	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.585	Lost NHL Conference Finals	0-1	1-0	1-0	2
1996-97	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.512	Lost NHL Conference Quarter-Finals	0-1			0
1995-96	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.622	Lost NHL Conference Finals		2-1		2
1993-94	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.601	Lost NHL Conference Quarter-Finals		0-1		0
1992-93	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.708	Lost NHL Division Finals		1-1		1
1991-92	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.544	Won Stanley Cup Final	2-0	1-0	1-0	4
1990-91	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.55	Won Stanley Cup Final	1-0	3-0		4
1988-89	Pittsburgh Penguins*	0.544	Lost NHL Division Finals		1-1		1
				3-2	9-4	2-0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[VanIslander]

Howe DOES have a big longevity argument over Lemieux (and everybody else, too).
Lemieux has a significant longevity argument over Orr.
Would it be too flippant to say that if one supports Orr in the one-spot, the viewpoint might carry a Jonas Salk-grade inoculation against a longevity argument? [And I mean... even as a component of the equation(?)]

The flip side would see longevity infect every calculus and Orr drop to 4th.

 

[blogofmike]

Yeah and Mike Richards plays in an era where people can watch games on their smart phones. Any game. Any time. Anywhere.

The tape be kinda limited on players like Orr, at least compared to today.

Orr did that kind of stuff, regularly. Whether it's visual, anecdotal, whatever. We know he was making plays like that night in and night out.

The point is Orr was dominant everywhere on the ice. Often. Gretzky wasn't. I'm sorry but it's reality.

*Except in the playoffs, and moreso vs the Seals and Caps, and less so against the Habs and Blackhawks

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where I'm at:

1. Gretzky. One fact puts him over the top for me - he was the most clutch player of the big 4. In my own balancing test of Gretzky's peak vs Howe's longevity as a truly elite player, I have those two men as a dead tie in the regular season. But clutch play is where Gretzky stands out over Howe, Orr, or Lemieux. Not just playoffs; the man even managed to lead 3 4 straight Canada Cups in scoring! And as Batis showed back on page 26, he sometimes even put in a defensive effort in big games!

2/3. Howe/Orr. The most interesting question of the thread. For years, I had Howe at #2 behind Gretzky. But I had Orr #2 on my round 1 list for one reason - I feel that Orr transcended the sport in a man-against-boys way that only Gretzky also managed to accomplish. But reading posts by some of the best posters on this site - Sturminator, Hockey Outsider, and seventieslord, reminded me of why I used to have Howe at #2 and probably will have Howe #2 when I vote after this round.

#4. Lemieux. This easiest ranking ever. Easy for THN; easy for me. Mario didn't have Gretzky's longevity or winning pedigree. He didn't have Orr's transcendent play all over the ice. He offensive ability looks slightly better than Howe's, but Howe kills Mario at everything else, and just has so many more truly elite seasons. But Mario was a better hockey player than any other player to date.

 

[Canadiens1958]

"Other players who joined new teams mentoring new, promising younger players" does not describe any of the Big 4. None won a Cup while playing such a role.

I suspect you're saving your breath, and I don't blame you at all for that. But if you think any players out there who are not in the Big 4 trump Gretzky because they did move into a mentoring and/or support role, I think it'd it would bring a new perspective that might be exactly the sort of "big picture" shift ImporterExporter talks about a few posts back.

I'm not a voter in this project, so no one needs to convince me of anything. I'm just chiming in with what is hopefully useful and/or interesting takes on various things being discussed. My current windmill just happens to be that Gretzky "only" winning 4 Cups is at worst a wash, if not actually a plus, compared to the players he's being compared against. That's almost exclusively been the other Big 4 members this round.

Actually Howe did win with Houston in the WHA butI didn't want to start a NHL/WHA discussion.

 

[blogofmike]

Where I'm at:

1. Gretzky. One fact puts him over the top for me - he was the most clutch player of the big 4. In my own balancing test of Gretzky's peak vs Howe's longevity as a truly elite player, I have those two men as a dead tie in the regular season. But clutch play is where Gretzky stands out over Howe, Orr, or Lemieux. Not just playoffs; the man even managed to lead 3 straight Canada Cups in scoring! And as Batis showed back on page 26, he sometimes even put in a defensive effort in big games!

2/3. Howe/Orr. The most interesting question of the thread. For years, I had Howe at #2 behind Gretzky. But I had Orr #2 on my round 1 list for one reason - I feel that Orr transcended the sport in a man-against-boys way that only Gretzky also managed to accomplish. But reading posts by some of the best posters on this site - Sturminator, Hockey Outsider, and seventieslord, reminded me of why I used to have Howe at #2 and probably will have Howe #2 when I vote after this round.

#4. Lemieux. This easiest ranking ever. Easy for THN; easy for me. Mario didn't have Gretzky's longevity or winning pedigree. He didn't have Orr's transcendent play all over the ice. He offensive ability looks slightly better than Howe's, but Howe kills Mario at everything else, and just has so many more truly elite seasons. But Mario was a better hockey player than any other player to date.

4 straight Canada Cup scoring leads

 

[VanIslander]

One thing still bothers me.

Why didn't most NHLers vote for Orr as the best player (Ted Lindsay Award) until his very last year?

(Gretzky got 5 and players awarded Mario 4 times.)

During Orr's career he was overlooked by his peers in favor of Esposito (twice), Ratelle and Clarke.

I wonder if part of the Orr mystique of praise he's gotten since his early retirement comes from the fact that his last full season ended with his 27th birthday.

Would there be more Howe awe if he hadn't played 20+seasons?