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

[VanIslander]

I just voted.

I was impressed by some of the discussion in this thread. Arguments for Howe and Lemieux were illuminating. I wish there had been more discussion of the Habs. Two of them I had clearly outside the top 10 and no one has argued for them this round. I guess only the top 4 count this round so no biggie. Next round I expect to be much more dynamic than this one has been.

BTW,... how many administrators will have a file of the voting of each and every voter? Should be at least two.

 

[Batis]

I am still somewhat torn regarding in which order I will rank Howe/Orr for 2/3 place here. Does Howe's incredible elite longevity make up for Orr's edge when it comes to peak performance? I still can't decide but right now I am leaning towards having Howe in 2nd place and Orr in 3rd place considering how high of a peak Howe still had to accompany that insane elite longevity.

It really is a shame that we don't have more footage from Howe's absolute peak in the early 50's since I really would have loved to be able to watch full games of peak Howe.From the available footage the greatest game that I have seen Howe play is the game 7 of the Stanley Cup semifinals against Chicago Blackhawks in 1965. Even if Detroit came up short in that game and that series as a whole may not have been one of the finest hours in his playoff career the 37-year old Howe put up a great performance in that game 7.

This first clip really shows the strenght of Howe and his patience with the puck when he while playing shorthanded 3 skaters to 4 keeps the puck away Hull and company.



Here Howe takes the puck away from Hull on two occasions before scoring a great goal.



Here Howe gets an assist on the powerplay.

 

[VanIslander]

Wow.

And that's Howe in his 19th NHL season. 19th.

Phil Esposito argued that Gordie Howe was the greatest all-around player who ever played (in the same breath after saying Orr was the greatest defenseman). (There's a nice video you can google of Espo detailing his opinion in an interview.)

 

[bobholly39]

This seems to lead me to believe your understanding of the game is somewhat suspect.

Though it does sound like you would make a good high school teacher.

Thanks for the insult. Also for the career advice - and I'm sure if i wanted to be a high school teacher I probably could, but i think I'll pass.

Put both Orr and Howe ahead of Gretzky.

Am not at all dishonest and I resent the assumption.

However, I am also a good Christian so I forgive you.

A more useful contribution might have been to respond explaining/justifying why you have them both as top 2, to counter the logic suggested in my previous post about it being hard to understand.

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

Apparently not.

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.

Good question. I can say that both rankings were ones i hesitated on. Of Lemieux's superhuman's seasons - this was the one that most gave me pause about bumping down, and out of Gretzky's great seasons this is also the one that most gave me pause about bumping up (along with his 93 playoffs).

I think the Ross ended up being a big difference. I know end of season award placement was often an influence - though normally more in choosing between "great" and "good".

For Gretzky I wanted to differentiate between superhuman and great - and this was the most likely season for the cutoff.

I know when I made the call as much as possible I was looking at each player individually - vs against each other. So I didn't necessarily directly compare these 2 seasons - as much as try to decide each on its own merit. Also when I analyzed Howe's peak (which I consider below) - although an argument can be made that all 4 of 51-54 are comparable - i only highlighted one as superhuman. Not necessarily because 53 stands above the rest - but because as a whole I wanted to highlight his peak with at least one superhuman season - but not necessarily more. I think I made a somewhat similar call with Gretzky in 88 - where I wanted there to be a cutoff for "great" and this seemed like a good fit.

Looking back now I think what you say makes sense and it doesn't necessarily make sense to have one season as great, and the other as superhuman - but i'm unsure as to which to bump up, or down.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Also when I analyzed Howe's peak (which I consider below) - although an argument can be made that all 4 of 51-54 are comparable - i only highlighted one as superhuman. Not necessarily because 53 stands above the rest - but because as a whole I wanted to highlight his peak with at least one superhuman season.

Howe facing Hull, 1965 line match-up game 7 semis.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151576295/

 

[Canadiens1958]

I am still somewhat torn regarding in which order I will rank Howe/Orr for 2/3 place here. Does Howe's incredible elite longevity make up for Orr's edge when it comes to peak performance? I still can't decide but right now I am leaning towards having Howe in 2nd place and Orr in 3rd place considering how high of a peak Howe still had to accompany that insane elite longevity.

It really is a shame that we don't have more footage from Howe's absolute peak in the early 50's since I really would have loved to be able to watch full games of peak Howe.From the available footage the greatest game that I have seen Howe play is the game 7 of the Stanley Cup semifinals against Chicago Blackhawks in 1965. Even if Detroit came up short in that game and that series as a whole may not have been one of the finest hours in his playoff career the 37-year old Howe put up a great performance in that game 7.

This first clip really shows the strenght of Howe and his patience with the puck when he while playing shorthanded 3 skaters to 4 keeps the puck away Hull and company.



Here Howe takes the puck away from Hull on two occasions before scoring a great goal.



Here Howe gets an assist on the powerplay.

Videos should put to rest the idea that players did not engage Gordie Howe.

 

[daver]

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.

What do you mean by lack of defense? That he never won praise for his defensive abilities or that he didn't contribute defensively regardless of his relative effectiveness to do so?

 

[MXD]

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.]

Beliveau absolutely was, at certain points, the best player on his team. He wasn't always the best player on any given season. Because, frankly, if, on a 18 year-career, you're the best player on your team, every single year, when the said team includes, at some point and for a certain stretch, Doug Harvey, Maurice Richard, Jacques Plante, Henri Richard, Dickie Moore, Bernard Geoffrion (not calling him Bernie, sorry) and Frank Mahovlich, while all of them are at worse in their prime except for Mahovlich (at which point Beliveau was himself a very old man) you're closer to #1 than to #5.

I mean... you're free to rank players however you see fit. It's just that, unless I misconstrued your post, you were litterally asking Beliveau to have achieved someting no Big-4 player did, and that includes Gordie Howe.

Also, the thing about Beliveau is that he was always with his team from team for longer than every of his teammate (save H. Richard).

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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?

No there is zero case for him to crack the top 4.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I think that Hull would've been a better overall player, but might've scored a little less. He would've needed to learn position responsibilities a lot earlier in his career to be truly effective.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I wanted to compare Mario to Hull, but life gets in the way at times ( as does my wife)

 

[Michael Farkas]

He didn't contribute. Sometimes he'd chase you down when he was the one that coughed it up...but otherwise, he wasn't a start and stop player on the PK, he didn't use his body effectively to box out, he just didn't try that hard at defense...

Even when the Pens (and Lemieux I believe suggested it) changed their game plan in the 1992 Patrick Division Semis to become a passive forecheck team and go 1-1-3 or even 1-4 to turn the series around from down 3-1, you can see that Lemieux - while he's at least backchecking - he really doesn't do a lot fundamentally or technically right...

He clearly knew how, he just didn't...

 

[ImporterExporter]

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?

Sample size sir. In 73 how many games did Orr play vs miss? Well as you point out he missed 15. Comparing a large number with a relatively small number isn't going to do much for me personally.

But using your example (even if flawed somewhat) It's clear when he was out, the Bruins gave up more goals then they did when he was there. Pushing a goal more a game actually.

We can't cherry pick numbers and use them as anything meaningful.

And again, I go back to how much Gretzky meant to the Oilers vs Orr to Boston in terms of winning. Winning. Boston won 2 Cups with Orr, he couldn't play anymore and it would be decades until their next one. Yeah, lots of regular season success but they could never get over the hump when it mattered.

Yet 99 leaves Edmonton and they win another Cup with Messier leading the charge 2 years after the fact. Gretzky never could get his subsequent teams over the hump despite all his offensive brilliance.

I also point to the 76 Canada Cup in which Orr literally was on one leg. One leg and he dominated play. Tied for the tournament lead in points. Scored more than Hull, Espo, Martinec, Novy, etc. Won MVP honors and led Canada to the Gold. That's as impressive a feat as anything any other player did on the international circuit in that era.

The only reasons this is a debate, IMO, is because the doctors in the 1970's had no f***ing idea what they were doing and helped facilitate an early exit from hockey for #4. That Canada Cup showed how a one legged, 28 year old Bobby Orr was as good or better than every player on the ice. Had he been healthy he would have almost surely won more Norris trophies, at least through the end of the decade and Boston would have had a much better chance at getting over the hump, considering they were still a good squad.

 

[ted2019]

What do you mean by lack of defense? That he never won praise for his defensive abilities or that he didn't contribute defensively regardless of his relative effectiveness to do so?

Lack of defense as compared to Beliveau & Hull. Also, Mario didn't exactly spend a lot of energy backchecking throughout his career.

 

[ted2019]

No there is zero case for him to crack the top 4.

Why do you ay this? Have a point to make or is it plain "homerism" ?

 

[MXD]

And I don't see any argument for Bobby Hull in the Top-4 either. I guess I could see a Orr - Howe - Gretzky - Harvey Top-4 (but it's not a case I can't really put up). I kinda think there's an argument for Beliveau at 4th (or even at 3rd) but I don't think this is something I can honestly make without placing Crosby ahead of Mario, something I won't do.

 

[MXD]

Why do you ay this? Have a point to make or is it plain "homerism" ?

The issue with Hull 4th, is, well... Whatever made you rank Hull 4th probably requires you to rank Lemieux higher than that, with the likely victim being Bobby Orr (such an argument would require some extremely heavy weight given to goals scored, and, with all due respect to Bobby Orr, he's nowhere close to the others here). I KNOW, HE IS A D-MEN AND ISN'T SUPPOSED TO SCORE 70 GOALS PER SEASON.

And Orr 5th (or below) would be... I mean... I wouldn't get it personally, and it would also probably have some ripple effects on other D-Men, and we'd be left with about twelve D-Men in the Top-100, which would be all sorts of wrong.

 

[daver]

Lack of defense as compared to Beliveau & Hull. Also, Mario didn't exactly spend a lot of energy backchecking throughout his career.

But how much does he make up for this with clearly superior offense?

 

[ImporterExporter]

And I don't see any argument for Bobby Hull in the Top-4 either. I guess I could see a Orr - Howe - Gretzky - Harvey Top-4 (but it's not a case I can't really put up). I kinda think there's an argument for Beliveau at 4th (or even at 3rd) but I don't think this is something I can't honestly make without placing Crosby ahead of Mario, something I won't do.

Had Bobby stayed in the NHL I think he'd have made a real strong case to take the 4 spot. But overall I agree with your sentiments.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But how much does he make up for this with clearly superior offense?

Enough for him to be ranked slightly ahead of them...?

 

[bobholly39]

Voting opens on midnight tonight?

Right now I have the Top 3 in this order:

1) Gordie Howe

I originally had Orr at the #1 spot, but Howe played in the wild wild west and became the sheriff in town, survived and thrived longer than anyone else, has the great peak, was feared around the league (and the league was tough) for years, dominated both physically and on the scoresheet, best player of a dynasty, had many strong playoffs runs after that, flawless ambassador and character, and played for much longer than Orr.

Only knock on him is that you get a sense that he peaked a little lower than Orr, Gretzky and even Lemieux.That he was less ''talented'', as in skating, finesse and the likes.But he was the most autonomous player in the group, needed no one for protection, created space for himself through his intimidation in a violent era and the result is the greatest career in hockey history.

2) Bobby Orr

The perfect hockey player.Tough, physical, greatest skater ever, had all the skills, shots, dangles, spinoramas, great passes, great 1-on-1 both offensively and defensively, shot-blocking, greatest PPQB, great on the PK, controlled the game to an unprecedented extent.Highest peak of all-time in my eyes.Great in the playoffs, though would have been better if Boston won a few more cups.

His knees didn't survive his skating virtuosity and playing style (which constrasts strongly with Howe surviving his physical style for decades).Lack of longevity is what separates him from the #1 spot.

3) Wayne Gretzky

Offensive genius.Best player on a dynasty, though the dynasty survived him.Great in international tournaments.Highest hockey IQ (in the offensive zone anyway) of all-time.By far the best playmaker in particular.

My reason for ranking him below Howe and Orr is that he completely avoided and lacked important aspects of hockey in his game; i.e. physical play and defense.At the very top of my list I was looking at players who excelled at every facet of the sport.One get the feeling that Gretzky couldn't get away playing like he did in as many eras as the other two if they all kept their playing style.Gretzky lacked more than Howe and Orr, and thus he's last, which isn't too much of an insult.

Edit: Counter-argument in favor of Gretzky: He had perhaps the greatest star power of all-time, and a ''winning'' aura probably moreso than Howe and Orr.For those reasons I could easily rank him #1 instead of #3.

They're really, really close.But you gotta call the shot at some point.So this is where I am right now unless someone changes my mind in the next day.

I appreciate your breakdown and have no issue at all with what you say about Orr and Howe - I mostly agree - but I wanted to respond to the bolded words about Gretzky specifically to try to change your mind if i can be so blunt.

Gretzky *did* avoid some areas of the game, I agree. Physical and defense. (i mean not "completely" - but for the most part, yes, and certainly compared to the other 2). However - aren't we supposed to be ranking the greatest all-time players, based on what they accomplished? At some point a guy like Fedorov is going to come up who some people could go gaga over for his versatility and completeness - forward/defense. Yet despite that versatility/completeness - he didn't accomplish nearly as much as so many other hockey greats which is why he's not here in round 1 - and likely won't be for a few more rounds.

Same logic should apply here. I think the thought process should be - "thanks to that physical play and defense edge - Howe/Orr accomplished more than Gretzky overall because _____". I'm not saying you can't get there with that line of reasoning (if you love longevity - you can make the case for Howe possibly) - but it shouldn't be about just limiting it to aspects of the game Gretzky was lacking. You should be able to complete the blank above to justify ranking either Howe or Orr (or both) above Gretzky.


The second part of the bolded - you mention Gretzky's skills not transferring as well to another era. Well....maybe? Pure speculation and hypothetical and should have no bearing here. It's one thing to try and evaluate how Howe and Gretzky would fare in a head to head at their best (ie who wins Ross, Hart - who does more in a playoff run) - but i don't think it should really be applicable how you think a player's skillset would transfer to another era, as it's both a completely useless exercise - and also impossible to validate. Also - i don't know that I even agree with that idea. Gretzky came in and practically "broke" the NHL. The records he attained are astronomical vs what had been done previously. Whose to say if he starts in the 50s or in the 2010s, he doesn't similarly "break" the NHL record book?

You finished by saying "Gretzky lacked more than Howe and Orr and thus he's last". He did lack more in his game - but not in his career/results/accomplishments. We shouldn't be grading the perfectness or completeness of a hockey player - but rather evaluating what they accomplished with their ability. If not - how is it illogical to rank McDavid in the top 2o-30 all time. You likely won't find more than 30 players in the history of the league who "lack more" than him in his game, based on his ability and talent.

 

[MXD]

Enough for him to be ranked slightly ahead of them...?

To be honest, "Playoffs" would do it as well.

 

[danincanada]

And I don't see any argument for Bobby Hull in the Top-4 either. I guess I could see a Orr - Howe - Gretzky - Harvey Top-4 (but it's not a case I can't really put up). I kinda think there's an argument for Beliveau at 4th (or even at 3rd) but I don't think this is something I can't honestly make without placing Crosby ahead of Mario, something I won't do.

How can anyone even bring up his name as top 4? And I did see your disclaimer right after. Harvey’s adjusted bests topped out at 10 goals, 60 assists, and 68 points in a season, despite playing for a powerhouse team up front and ample PP time. It’s not enough offense to garner a top 10 spot all-time and he will probably be the most overrated player in this project. The legend and myth has outgrown the actual player. I need another example of a player who "controlled the game" so much on a powerhouse team who lacked offensive numbers like Harvey did. The numbers have never matched the claims. Being a great defender is never enough for anyone else in history to place so high.

For the third time, his best Hart finish came with him being a -9 and having 30 points. If they tracked +/- at the time voters would probably have had a much different view of him that season instead of just seeing the Rangers make the playoffs as enough. Finishing 5th in Hart 3 times is much different when there are only 6 teams with 2 or 3 of them being terrible and 3 or 4 of them being strong. The O6 has been and will be oversold in this project but that's always how it goes so I'm not surprised. How on earth can a league with virtually only domestic talent be given full value with no questions asked?

I needed to rant about this because it's so baffling and strange. Always has been.

 

[pappyline]

And I don't see any argument for Bobby Hull in the Top-4 either. I guess I could see a Orr - Howe - Gretzky - Harvey Top-4 (but it's not a case I can't really put up). I kinda think there's an argument for Beliveau at 4th (or even at 3rd) but I don't think this is something I can honestly make without placing Crosby ahead of Mario, something I won't do.

I think you are saying that there is no convincing argument for Hull/Beliveau/Harvey to be rated over Lemieux and I would agree. However, IMO opinion Hull should continue his reign as the #5 guy but that can be debated in the next round.

 

[bobholly39]

PK'ing is a team game. Orr played 62% of his team's PK time over the course of 600+ games. When he was on the ice the Bruins killed penalties at 22% above the league average. I think, unless I'm completely missing this table (and others that are similar)

Those are all the Dmen since 1960 that played at least 50% of their team's PK time. Not only does Orr play more than all but 4 players, he and Boston also produces incredible results.

10+% better than Ray Bourque, Tim Horton, Bill White and Scott Stevens, Laperriere, Chara, Pronger,
Nearly 20% better than Marcel Pronovost and Duncan Keith
Numerous where he's 20+% better than

Who was Gretzky better than on the kill and was he skating 60+% of them? The latter is a big no. In the 2nd graph you see PK'ers. Gretzky's not on it. Messier is, and he was a good one, certainly better than 99 and even he doesn't really come close to Orr.

ImporterExporter just did.

Can you explain the TMsh+ column a bit more and where the data comes from?
Also - 62% of PK played by Orr. Where are you getting that data from? I was having trouble finding records of ice time for Orr's seasons - i assume if overall ice time isn't available, PK ice time would be hard to come by as well.

Would still appreciate an answer so I can better understand the table. Not everyone is as knowledgeable with advanced stats or metrics - I think if you post some data the onus should be on you to answer and explain it when asked.

I'll ask @overpass to chime in for clarity if he has the time/chance.

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.

Regardless the tables I've provided more than once bear out Orr's power over 200 feet, in all phases of the game. Nobody dominated the PP like Orr. I have never been presented with a study that shows other great Dmen to be superior on the kill. Orr might have been more of a possession based defender but that possession of the puck is exactly why he was so damn good on D.

But here are some videos to illustrate how dominant D TRANSLATES INTO DIRECT OFFENSE.



0:28 seconds through 0:40 (music is a bit loud fyi)
-Orr plays exception positional D, taking away cross crease pass (high danger area especially that era), intercepts it, then literally goes coast to coast, like lightning, makes a great feed and we have a goal. Defense to offense. Perfection. Gretzky wasn't doing that. Certainly not consistently.

Also, his skating is so breathtaking. The most effortless man on skates I've ever seen.

And before his knees went fully he was a beast if you dropped the gloves. Some don't realize how damn physical and tough he was, especially as his knees started going.

Someone else already alluded to it after this post but - posting a highlight reel clip is just one instance in one game in one season in a career. I'd prefer to have stats and data to back things up. Maybe you can explain the table above a bit better instead of shifting to posting videos?

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.

Yes exactly. I mean it's great to post videos and such but let's see more data and such vs highlight reel clips.

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.

Are you able to give a breakdown of the different abbreviations, so I can better understand the data presented?