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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Something of a procedural question

VsX-10 or VsX-7?

I think we would be right to completely disregard VsX-5.

Fun fact : Unless I completely derped the calculation, which is possible, Bobby Orr is, in this group at least, ahead of Bobby Hull (and Beliveau, and Richard) on VsX-7.

Does Bourbon Maple Syrup (with the waffles) counts?

I don't think this post was ever adequately answered in this thread.

The general guideline is to use 10 year VsX when comparing post-expansion (post-1967) players to each other, based on the assumption that the average post-expansion player has a 10 year prime.

7-year VsX is the preferred standard for any comparison involving a pre-expansion player, as the average offensive prime was shorter back then - estimated to be (wait for it) 7 years.

VsX only goes back to 1926-27 (the great consolidation of talent into the NHL as the last competitor folded). But there are VsX-like formulas for earlier times... In the really early days, 7 years is too long and we probably should use a 5 year standard.

 

[blogofmike]

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.

Don't suppose you'd happen to have Messier's 80-88 R-on hand wouldya?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think this post was ever adequately answered in this thread.

The general guideline is to use 10 year VsX when comparing post-expansion (post-1967) players to each other, based on the assumption that the average post-expansion player has a 10 year prime.

7-year VsX is the preferred standard for any comparison involving a pre-expansion player, as the average offensive prime was shorter back then - estimated to be (wait for it) 7 years.

VsX only goes back to 1926-27 (the great consolidation of talent into the NHL as the last competitor folded). But there are VsX-like formulas for earlier times... In the really early days, 7 years is too long and we probably should use a 5 year standard.

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.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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?

Maybe the players are just even more biased towards forwards than the media? Historically, it's even less likely for a non-forward to win the Lindsay than the Hart. It makes a certain kind of sense - most of the voters are forwards (12 F, 6 D, 1 G on the modern starting roster, for example).

 

[VanIslander]

So, Orr's awesomeness wasn't so transcendent?

His greatness didn't overcome a now-posited possible positional bias in the eyes of those Orr played with time and again, year after year, until his 9th season?

How could players think Orr was head and shoulders above other players and not vote for him as the best player? ... Maybe Orr wasn't seen THEN as being as transcendent as post-career praise suggests!! Maybe the gap between Orr and his contemporaries WASNT SO MUCH BIGGER than Howe or Gretzky had.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

All I was doing was the math.

Not a knock on anyone.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So, Orr's awesomeness wasn't so transcendent?

His greatness didn't overcome a now-posited possible positional bias in the eyes of those Orr played with time and again, year after year, until his 9th season?

Or maybe too many players are not very rigorous in their voting? It's a possibility.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

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.

In the past, I've seen this used as a sideways-knock on Lemieux, i.e.: "oh, his offense is so power-play dependent." Whatever else has come to pass here, I'm grateful that we've been spared that line of argumentation, so far. Now, the glib thing to say is that a power-play goal, like any other goal, adds a '1' to the scoreboard. Seriously, though, I get it... even-strength goals are more valued for a few reasons that don't need elaboration here. However, I have to point out that Lemieux induced all manner of restraining-foul penalties, either by his puck-managing presence or the space he freed up for his teammates, who were then fouled by players who reacted late due to that fact that there was additional rotational attention paid to Lemieux.

Lemieux could influence a misalignment of the defense without touching the puck.

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.

Most valuable penalty-killer is the goaltender, so it's said. For half of Lemieux's career, it was Barrasso, which was fine. The other half- just "oh, dear..."

 

[Canadiens1958]

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?

Given that various conspiracy theories running rampant on the board - Vezina and AST voting, shorting assists in certain arens, etc. this is surprising.

Only one defenceman has ever won the Pearson and its progeny awards. Bobby Orr in 1975:

Ted Lindsay Award - Wikipedia

Forwards are biased against defencemen but in 1975 were fooled by the numbers into thinking that Orr was WHA exiled forward.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Given that various conspiracy theories running rampant on the board - Vezina and AST voting, shorting assists in certain arens, etc. this is surprising.

Only one defenceman has ever won the Pearson and its progeny awards. Bobby Orr in 1975:

Ted Lindsay Award - Wikipedia

Forwards are biased against defencemen but in 1975 were fooled by the numbers into thinking that Orr was WHA exiled forward.

"Conspiracy theory" = anything that challenges the rigid beliefs you've held for 10000 years

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

We can't all be as open-minded as you.

 

[The Panther]

I wanted to compare the very best seasons/playoffs of each of the big 4. Initially I was going to do this just for myself - but I figure I did all of the research and I may as well post it to see if it's helpful for anyone else.

So I did a breakdown of individual seasons and playoffs for each of the big 4 players, and awarded points for each season. This was based on personal preference/subjective – and I heavily reward offense usually, but tried to be as objective as possible nonetheless.

What really sets the big 4 (and really – it’s Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky as I maintain Howe is mostly longevity) apart is their absolutely ridiculous peak – heights that no other players touched. That’s why to me they’re in the big 4 , and so it was important for me to reward what I consider super human performances (or video game stats). So I took apart each player’s regular season, and then each player’s playoffs, and awarded it a grade on the following scale:

Superhuman - 10
Great - 5
Good - 2
OK - 1
Zero - 0

Superhuman is the special stuff. 215 points, 199, ross for Orr, 1953 for Howe or 1955 playoffs. The types of seasons/records that no one else approached outside of these 4 (and mostly 3) players.

Great – This is for great seasons where you won a ross, or a Norris, or a hart, or a smythe – or where you maybe finished 2nd in one of those but your stats were worthy of being in this category. The “human” stuff – so for Gretzky his first “great” season is 1988 (after his rookie year) where he only scored 149 points.

Good – Good seasons worthy of adding to a player’s resume, but a step below “great”. Because I want to really reward peak for the big 4 (and even more – video game worthy stats) – I’m only awarding 2 points here. For Gretzky 1992 (121 point in 74 games) is his first “good” season.

Ok – Seasons worthy of adding longevity to a player, but without necessarily being at the very top of the league. Sticking to Gretzky – 1994-1995 with 48 points in 48 games is “ok”.

Zero – Not enough games played (ie Orr after 1975) or simply a really bad year not really worth of adding much (ie Howe’s rookie year in 1947 – 22 points in 58 games).

Here are the results:

Player	Total Score - Regular season	Total Score - Playoffs	Total Combined Score
Wayne Gretzky	121	83	204
Mario Lemieux	76	41	117
Gordie Howe	71	45	116
Bobby Orr	67	29	96

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Average per ranked season	Average per ranked playoffs	Total average
Wayne Gretzky	6.05	5.19	5.67
Mario Lemieux	6.33	5.13	5.85
Gordie Howe	2.96	2.81	2.90
Bobby Orr	7.44	3.63	5.65

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Number of ranked seasons	Number of ranked playoffs	Total Ranked
Wayne Gretzky	20	16	36
Mario Lemieux	12	8	20
Gordie Howe	24	16	40
Bobby Orr	9	8	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Regular seasons	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	3	4	4	9
Mario Lemieux	5	0	3	4	5
Gordie Howe	1	6	10	7	1
Bobby Orr	3	0	1	3	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Playoffs	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	1	6	4	5
Mario Lemieux	0	0	3	3	2
Gordie Howe	3	4	8	3	1
Bobby Orr	0	2	2	2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also here’s the specific breakdown per season/playoff per player - i'm sure some will disagree with rankings of specific seasons/playoffs:

Gretzky Regular Season:
Superhuman: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. 87, 89, 91
Great: 80, 88, 90, 94
Good: 92, 96, 97, 98
Ok: 93, 95, 99
Zero:

Gretzky Playoffs:
Superhuman: 83, 84, 85, 87, 88
Great: 81, 86, 89, 83
Good: 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97
Ok: 80
Zero:

Lemieux Regular Season:
Superhuman: 88, 89, 92, 93, 96
Great: 86, 90, 97, 01
Good: 85, 87 2003
Ok:
Zero: 91, 94, 2002, 2004, 2006

Lemieux Playoff:
Superhuman: 91, 92
Great: 89, 93, 96
Good: 94, 97, 2001
Ok:
Zero:

Howe Regular Season:
Superhuman: 53
Great: 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63
Good: 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 ,66, 68, 69, 70
Ok: 48, 49, 50, 55, 67, 71
Zero: 47

Howe Playoffs:
Superhuman: 55
Great: 49, 64, 65
Good: 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61
Ok: 58, 65, 66, 70
Zero: 47, 48, 50

Orr Regular Season:
Superhuman: 70, 71, 72, 74, 75
Great: 68, 69, 73
Good: 67
Ok:
Zero: 76, 77, 79

Orr Playoffs:
Superhuman: 70, 72
Great: 71, 74
Good: 69, 75
Ok: 68, 73
Zero:


Conclusions I draw:
1. Gretzky is really in a class of his own. Peak + longevity + playoffs - no one touches him.
2. Averages are interesting – but keep in mind for Gretzky if you only average his best 9 season he scores a perfect 10, so you have to take that into account when the average includes a player's decline, vs not (Orr).
3. Orr really comes up short on longevity, anyway you look at it. He does so vs Howe and Gretzky obviously - but against Lemieux too.
4. A big belief of mine is enough longevity can trump "better" player - and this is where Howe makes a run at both Orr and Lemieux, despite my belief he wasn't "better".

This is an interesting approach, but I have to ask why you have Lemieux as "superhuman" in 1992 and Gretzky as "Great" in 1988...?

Same number of games played, Gretzky had a higher PPG and a better plus/minus and his team was better.

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky gets #1 because most people stop at the numbers and don't go beyond them. IMO the wrong approach becaue it's the path of least resistance.

That's a ridiculous statement to anyone who regularly saw Gretzky in his prime. You could subtract 25 points per season off Gretzky's totals in his prime years, and he's still the greatest player of all time in terms of peak and prime.

 

[Canadiens1958]

"Conspiracy theory" = anything that challenges the rigid beliefs you've held for 10000 years.

Or thinking beyond the box of your rigid ATD induced calculations. No alternative fantasies allowed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

This is an interesting approach, but I have to ask why you have Lemieux as "superhuman" in 1992 and Gretzky as "Great" in 1988...?

Same number of games played, Gretzky had a higher PPG and a better plus/minus and his team was better.

Difference maker.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's a ridiculous statement to anyone who regularly saw Gretzky in his prime. You could subtract 25 points per season off Gretzky's totals in his prime years, and he's still the greatest player of all time in terms of peak and prime.

Suggesting Gretzky was compiling meaningless points?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Suggesting Gretzky was compiling meaningless points?

I mean, does it really matter how much meaning each one of his points had? Should he simply stop trying to score once he team was up 2 goals?

 

[57special]

...because?

How about
1. Better skater: Orr
2. Better shooter: Orr
3. Better passer: tie
4. Better vision: Gretzky
5. Better defensively: c'mon, we're joking, right?
6. Tougher: Orr

People forget that although Orr was the poster boy for rushing defensemen, he wasn't some kind of "rover". He was so fast that he could get back and defend after rushing the puck by himself. He was dominant in every area of the ice.

...and people always forget context. HE WAS A DEFENSEMAN. As good as Gretzky's numbers were, he was a centre. It is simply mind-boggling to think a d-man could win the Art Ross, not once, but twice!

Gretzky was a better passer than Orr. No shame in that. Probably a better shooter, too. You don't get all those goals without a great shot.

 

[ted2019]

My thinking with Lemieux/Beliveau/Hull

Mario Lemieux: Possibly the greatest talent ever. He came back from injury and illness and proved he was a top 10 player ever. Was an offensive juggernaut, but was rarely physical and didn't play too much defense. Was a one man show until Paul Coffey came to town and then the playoff appearances started to come Mario's way. By the time he won his back to back cups, the Penguins were a complete team and loads of stars. In my eyes, his lack of defense hurts him and his lack to physical play does as well. Even though he wasn't a physical player, he was a tough individual who beat cancer and showed lots of heart in doing so. In some ways the negatives and positives cancel themselves out, but in some ways, the negatives show up brightly. It depends on how the individual voter finds each and how important they are to them.

Jean Beliveau: Just as Mario, he was big and strong, but he used his size in more ways then Lemieux did. He was a captain on his team, just like Mario, but he was considered to be one of the best, if not the best captains in hockey history. He lead a stablemate of stars and had as much class and poise as any player in league history. One of the most consistent superstars in league history, he was also one of the most complete players as well. Beliveau could dig pucks out of the corner, backchecked on every shift. Beliveau was physical when he had to be and the opposition learned early on to not mess with him. As former Rangers coach Phil Watson said about Beliveau. "I've been watching Jean Beliveau closely and I haven't been able to find his weakness - not yet anyway. But I know he's got one because every hockey player has one. If I don't find it out this season, maybe I will next season. Beliveau can skate, he can carry the puck, he can make plays and he can score. But there must be something he can't do. You study a player like Beliveau. Can he pass as well to his left as to his right? Does he have to turn to make a pass? Does he backcheck? Does he dig the puck out of the corners? Is he timid?"

Bobby Hull: He looked like a Greek God, he could skate like the wind, had a shot that could literally kill you, He would punish the opposition with thundering checks, he was Bobby Hull. He was hockey's ultimate hockey player, blending together the talents of his most famed predecessors - the speed of Howie Morenz, the goal scoring prowress of Maurice Richard, the strength and control of Gordie Howe. Out of the 3 players, Hull was probably the worse playmaker in the group, but he was more defensive responsible then Lemieux. Just like Beliveau, he played himself into being a complete player as he got older.

These will be my 4th/5th/6th players, just not sure on what order they will be in as of yet.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

It's not immediately relevant for me now- but I have to be convinced that Béliveau is the best player on his OWN team before I consider him for a slot as high as number 5. [I mean... he could well be... but it's not clearly obvious like it is with the other two.]

 

[Canadiens1958]

My thinking with Lemieux/Beliveau/Hull

Mario Lemieux: Possibly the greatest talent ever. He came back from injury and illness and proved he was a top 10 player ever. Was an offensive juggernaut, but was rarely physical and didn't play too much defense. Was a one man show until Paul Coffey came to town and then the playoff appearances started to come Mario's way. By the time he won his back to back cups, the Penguins were a complete team and loads of stars. In my eyes, his lack of defense hurts him and his lack to physical play does as well. Even though he wasn't a physical player, he was a tough individual who beat cancer and showed lots of heart in doing so. In some ways the negatives and positives cancel themselves out, but in some ways, the negatives show up brightly. It depends on how the individual voter finds each and how important they are to them.

Jean Beliveau: Just as Mario, he was big and strong, but he used his size in more ways then Lemieux did. He was a captain on his team, just like Mario, but he was considered to be one of the best, if not the best captains in hockey history. He lead a stablemate of stars and had as much class and poise as any player in league history. One of the most consistent superstars in league history, he was also one of the most complete players as well. Beliveau could dig pucks out of the corner, backchecked on every shift. Beliveau was physical when he had to be and the opposition learned early on to not mess with him. As former Rangers coach Phil Watson said about Beliveau. "I've been watching Jean Beliveau closely and I haven't been able to find his weakness - not yet anyway. But I know he's got one because every hockey player has one. If I don't find it out this season, maybe I will next season. Beliveau can skate, he can carry the puck, he can make plays and he can score. But there must be something he can't do. You study a player like Beliveau. Can he pass as well to his left as to his right? Does he have to turn to make a pass? Does he backcheck? Does he dig the puck out of the corners? Is he timid?"

Bobby Hull: He looked like a Greek God, he could skate like the wind, had a shot that could literally kill you, He would punish the opposition with thundering checks, he was Bobby Hull. He was hockey's ultimate hockey player, blending together the talents of his most famed predecessors - the speed of Howie Morenz, the goal scoring prowress of Maurice Richard, the strength and control of Gordie Howe. Out of the 3 players, Hull was probably the worse playmaker in the group, but he was more defensive responsible then Lemieux. Just like Beliveau, he played himself into being a complete player as he got older.

These will be my 4th/5th/6th players, just not sure on what order they will be in as of yet.

Excellent observations.

Quick question. How do you think moving to LW after entering the NHL as a center impacted Hull's career?

Not a Phil Watson fan but he observed Beliveau the longest.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My thinking with Lemieux/Beliveau/Hull

Mario Lemieux: Possibly the greatest talent ever. He came back from injury and illness and proved he was a top 10 player ever. Was an offensive juggernaut, but was rarely physical and didn't play too much defense. Was a one man show until Paul Coffey came to town and then the playoff appearances started to come Mario's way. By the time he won his back to back cups, the Penguins were a complete team and loads of stars. In my eyes, his lack of defense hurts him and his lack to physical play does as well. Even though he wasn't a physical player, he was a tough individual who beat cancer and showed lots of heart in doing so. In some ways the negatives and positives cancel themselves out, but in some ways, the negatives show up brightly. It depends on how the individual voter finds each and how important they are to them.

Jean Beliveau: Just as Mario, he was big and strong, but he used his size in more ways then Lemieux did. He was a captain on his team, just like Mario, but he was considered to be one of the best, if not the best captains in hockey history. He lead a stablemate of stars and had as much class and poise as any player in league history. One of the most consistent superstars in league history, he was also one of the most complete players as well. Beliveau could dig pucks out of the corner, backchecked on every shift. Beliveau was physical when he had to be and the opposition learned early on to not mess with him. As former Rangers coach Phil Watson said about Beliveau. "I've been watching Jean Beliveau closely and I haven't been able to find his weakness - not yet anyway. But I know he's got one because every hockey player has one. If I don't find it out this season, maybe I will next season. Beliveau can skate, he can carry the puck, he can make plays and he can score. But there must be something he can't do. You study a player like Beliveau. Can he pass as well to his left as to his right? Does he have to turn to make a pass? Does he backcheck? Does he dig the puck out of the corners? Is he timid?"

Bobby Hull: He looked like a Greek God, he could skate like the wind, had a shot that could literally kill you, He would punish the opposition with thundering checks, he was Bobby Hull. He was hockey's ultimate hockey player, blending together the talents of his most famed predecessors - the speed of Howie Morenz, the goal scoring prowress of Maurice Richard, the strength and control of Gordie Howe. Out of the 3 players, Hull was probably the worse playmaker in the group, but he was more defensive responsible then Lemieux. Just like Beliveau, he played himself into being a complete player as he got older.

These will be my 4th/5th/6th players, just not sure on what order they will be in as of yet.

Yes. This is very good. These were my 4, 5, 6 on my initial list, for the record. Open to new ideas, but I think we're going to end up seeing eye to eye on these at the end of the day...

 

[VanIslander]

Bobby Hull: He looked like a Greek God, he could skate like the wind, had a shot that could literally kill you, He would punish the opposition with thundering checks, he was Bobby Hull. He was hockey's ultimate hockey player, blending together the talents of his most famed predecessors - the speed of Howie Morenz, the goal scoring prowress of Maurice Richard, the strength and control of Gordie Howe. Out of the 3 players, Hull was probably the worse playmaker in the group, but he was more defensive responsible then Lemieux. Just like Beliveau, he played himself into being a complete player as he got older.

These will be my 4th/5th/6th players, just not sure on what order they will be in as of yet.

Good luck getting Hull or any of the others you profile as candidates into the 4th slot given we are limiting this round as "The Big Four" voting round rather than regular voting rounds to come. This process presumes there is no case for anyone else in the 4th all time spot than the top 4 as traditionally conceived. I don't think I've ever seen a comparison of Lemieux to Hull (Howe to Richard countless times). It could have been as interesting as it was when someone on this thread compared Lemieux to Orr.

 

[VanIslander]

Gretzky was a better passer than Orr. No shame in that. Probably a better shooter, too. You don't get all those goals without a great shot.

Gretzky was never happy with his shot, practicing it incessantly, seeing it as a weakness of his.

I'd say he scored so many goals not because of ACCURACY (he was no Bourque) or VELOCITY (he was no MacInnis) or a combination of the two (Bossy), but because he knew exactly when to shoot, reading the play to know whether to release a slapper quickly high or five hole, or whether to feign a shot and move to the side and put the puck over a sprawled netminder, etc. It was his HOCKEY SENSE that served him so well in potting goals.

Most of these top 10 goals demonstrate his ability to be in the right place at the right time, sometimes receiving a pass in perfect position for an easy dump in, other times he hot potato stickhandling awkwardly into a scoring opportunity. Only one looks like shooting skill per se, and that is the slapper off the left side rush that goes just under the crossbar. Ovechkin has scored a lot more goals of that kind than Gretz has.

 

[blogofmike]

But I'd wager Boston's sometimes average PK numbers league wide had more to do with when he wasn't on the ice vs on.

Ack.

Good things happen? ALL CREDIT TO ORR!! Bad things happen? Must be someone else. That Orr fellow is unimpeachable, even if he walks around with crab apples in his cheeks.

So previously we established that Boston posted the same ES ratio 2 years after Orr left as when he won the Ross. That was a place I looked at for Orr, because I had looked there for Gretzky in August (Oilers lose 50 ESGF/ Kings gain 50 ESGF).

Now I am taking a quick look at Orr's 1973 season because I want to post on Phil Esposito. Not in a way that QPQ will hunt me down for, but in regards to Orr-sanity. The powerhouse nature of Gretzky and Howe's teams have been mentioned, but I get the feeling that a lot of people are of the belief that the Bruins lived in an Orr-centric universe, where all things grow from a star in the shape of the number 4.

It's the usual stuff about Phil being a 126 point man before Orr made the Big 4 leap, so maybe the relationship wasn't just Phil being a leech. Perhaps he was a contributing partner in some way that Orr very significantly benefits from. Given that he had more points most of the time he must have been doing something right. He did well for Canada in 1972. He more or less had the same point totals in 1973 as in 1972, and Orr was hurt. So I looked at how Boston did in those 15 games.

And this is the part I wanted to ask a stats guy.

Here's Boston in 1973:

73 Bruins	ESGF	ESGA	ESGF/G	ESGA/G	Ratio
Total	248	187	3.18	2.40	1.326
w/ Orr	188	142	2.98	2.25	1.324
no Orr	60	45	4.00	3.00	1.333

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

These are the 15 non-Orr games:

DATE	OPP	W	L	T	ESGF	ESGA
08-Oct	LAK		1		2	3
11-Oct	@DET		1		3	3
14-Oct	@NYI	1			6	3
15-Oct	PIT	1			5	4
18-Oct	@NYR		1		1	5
26-Oct	CHI		1		3	6
28-Oct	@TOR	1			2	2
29-Oct	NYI	1			9	1
02-Nov	@LAK		1		2	3
03-Nov	@CGS			1	6	5
05-Nov	@Van	1			4	2
09-Nov	DET	1			7	3
12-Nov	MTL		1		3	5
16-Nov	STL	1			4	0
04-Mar	CHI	1			3	0
		8	6	1	60	45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

First double-check that I don't have them scoring 10 instead of 1 some place.

Second, what does this mean for Orr, if the Bruins not only replicate the ratio 2 years after he's gone, but while he's there?

Third (perhaps this is for later) what does this mean about ratios?

I know, sample size of 15 games, but all we need is Ray Bourque to be gone for 20 to see this:

1988-89	GP	EVGF	EVGA	ESGF/G	ESGA/G	Ratio
Boston	80	194	185	2.43	2.31	1.05
Bourque plays	60	150	130	2.50	2.17	1.15
Bourque is out	20	44	55	2.20	2.75	0.80

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I think people know I have a quibble or two about ratios, even if I like the constituent parts of it. (Yes @seventieslord, Gretzky's off-ice comparables aren't JUST Messier. But if Gretzky's playoff R-off is 1.4-something, and Messier's R-on is around 1.5, he's probably doing a lot to set the goalposts and the guy's got more Hart Trophies than Vadnais/Smith/Sims/Awrey combined ever got Norris votes.)

But the idea that Orr is (I'm willing to bet) posting a crushing R-on/off, yet the team r-on/off remains the same when he misses time is curious. Also the idea that the Bruins replicate the same ratio without Orr 2 years later. How would these things happen? Does Boston play differently with Orr? Almost assuredly yes, but is this in a way that negatively affects their ratio (Orr's r-off when he plays?) And since I assume that the division is made to account for team strength, is that accurate?