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

[MXD]

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.

What I actually mean is :

I can see how someone would have Beliveau and Harvey ahead of Mario Lemieux, thus in the Top-4, even if I would wholly disagree with it.

I can't see how someone would have Bobby Hull over Mario Lemieux.

The idea is cohesion : you probably can't put Doug Harvey 4th and Bobby Orr NOT first, due to the sizeable gap between these two players; nor you can rank Beliveau ahead of Lemieux if you aren't doing the same with Crosby (I know, it's impossible for this round, but I think everyone gets the idea).

But Hull in the Top-4? .... I just won't get it. Doesn't even have a bearing on Harvey vs. Beliveau vs. Hull. It's just that I can't see any argument for Hull ahead of Lemieux.

And since Lemieux is, to me and apparently to all if not nearly all of the particpants in the project, firmly 4th, well....

 

[bobholly39]

The issue with Hull in particular displacing Lemieux is that Hull's resume is actually mostly 1 dimensional - offense. And Lemieux was quite better at it.

I'm not saying others have a case above Lemieux - but at least if you want to compare Lemieux to Roy, Bourque, Harvey, Beliveau....it becomes a bit more apples to oranges. With Hull/Lemieux I find it mostly straight forward. A bit similar to how I can't get past Gretzky > Lemieux, as they are similar, yet Gretzky did it longer, and more often, and arguably slightly better too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The basic difference between Mario Lemieux and Bobby Hull/Jean Beliveau.

Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau each had a single season as far and away the best player in the league. 1965-66 for Hull, 1955-56 for Beliveau. But the same could be said for a few unavailable players. What makes the big 4 special is that they each had multiple consecutive seasons as simply much better than anyone else.

In the 1990s, if Mario Lemieux felt like playing hockey (and I agree, his attitude was often questionable), he was simply much better than any other player in the league (except Gretzky of course) the moment he stepped on the ice.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

Harvey 1961-62.Much better year winning the Norris, a convenient omission, than Lidstrom in 2o10-11.

Nicklas Lidstrom Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Also given limited available data since 1960, clear that Lidstrom never led the NHL in +/- while Harvey did in 1960 with a +37.

 

[danincanada]

Harvey 1961-62.Much better year winning the Norris, a convenient omission, than Lidstrom in 2o10-11.

Nicklas Lidstrom Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Also given limited available data since 1960, clear that Lidstrom never led the NHL in +/- while Harvey did in 1960 with a +37.

Lidstrom is not up for discussion yet. Nice try to divert from my post though. Doug Harvey does not belong in the top 10 but posters venturing to even mention him as top 4 speaks to how overrated he is. Where are the numbers, the Harts, examples of transcending the game like the top 4 did? Didn't happen.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The issue with Hull in particular displacing Lemieux is that Hull's resume is actually mostly 1 dimensional - offense. And Lemieux was quite better at it.

I'm not saying others have a case above Lemieux - but at least if you want to compare Lemieux to Roy, Bourque, Harvey, Beliveau....it becomes a bit more apples to oranges. With Hull/Lemieux I find it mostly straight forward. A bit similar to how I can't get past Gretzky > Lemieux, as they are similar, yet Gretzky did it longer, and more often, and arguably slightly better too.

Actually Bobby Hull was much bettter defensively when compared to Mario Lemieux.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The basic difference between Mario Lemieux and Bobby Hull/Jean Beliveau.

Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau each had a single season as far and away the best player in the league. 1965-66 for Hull, 1955-56 for Beliveau. But the same could be said for a few unavailable players. What makes the big 4 special is that they each had multiple consecutive seasons as simply much better than anyone else.

In the 1990s, if Mario Lemieux felt like playing hockey (and I agree, his attitude was often questionable), he was simply much better than any other player in the league (except Gretzky of course) the moment he stepped on the ice.

This assumes you can define without doubt the best player in the NHL from 1955-56 thru 1966-67.

Frankly allowing the lattitude of injury granted Lemieux and to a degree Orr. Beliveau and Hull would be in the running for 3-5 such seasons each.

[Mod]

 

[pappyline]

What I actually mean is :

I can see how someone would have Beliveau and Harvey ahead of Mario Lemieux, thus in the Top-4, even if I would wholly disagree with it.

I can't see how someone would have Bobby Hull over Mario Lemieux.

The idea is cohesion : you probably can't put Doug Harvey 4th and Bobby Orr NOT first, due to the sizeable gap between these two players; nor you can rank Beliveau ahead of Lemieux if you aren't doing the same with Crosby (I know, it's impossible for this round, but I think everyone gets the idea).

But Hull in the Top-4? .... I just won't get it. Doesn't even have a bearing on Harvey vs. Beliveau vs. Hull. It's just that I can't see any argument for Hull ahead of Lemieux.

And since Lemieux is, to me and apparently to all if not nearly all of the particpants in the project, firmly 4th, well....

This post makes absolutely no sense.

 

[MXD]

This assumes you can define without doubt the best player in the NHL from 1955-56 thru 1966-67.

Frankly allowing the lattitude of injury granted Lemieux and to a degree Orr. Beliveau and Hull would be in the running for 3-5 such seasons each.

[Mod]

What?

 

[danincanada]

Harvey 1961-62.Much better year winning the Norris, a convenient omission, than Lidstrom in 2o10-11

I will add to this. Harvey finished 6th in scoring on his own team that season and 7th among defenseman in the league while sporting his -9 on a team that made the playoffs but had a .0457 winning percentage. The other guy you mentioned and his team fared much better in these metrics so you've got it backwards. Don't let facts get in the way.

 

[MXD]

This post makes absolutely no sense.

It's probably overly long for what I'm trying to explain.
I see no case for Hull over Lemieux.
I see a case for Beliveau and Harvey and Roy over Lemieux, even though I completely disagree.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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

I say it because it’s true. His peak is no where close to any of the top 4 and his prime isn’t either. And him leaving the nhl doesn’t help his longevity....

 

[MXD]

I say it because it’s true. His peak is no where close to any of the top 4 and his prime isn’t either. And him leaving the nhl doesn’t help his longevity....

What?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

What?

He left the nhl for the wha

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

There’s a debate to be had if Harvey is even the second best D man of all time I’ll give it to Bourque. But there’s a case for him over Lemieux? The easy 100% 2nd best CENTER of all time. Ok.

 

[bobholly39]

There’s a debate to be had if Harvey is even the second best D man of all time I’ll give it to Bourque. But there’s a case for him over Lemieux? The easy 100% 2nd best CENTER of all time. Ok.

Logic gap.

The 2nd best goalie of all time is likely going to go long after the 3rd best center of all time (and maybe 4th or 5th?). The first goalie may not even go until then, either. Not all positions are equal.

I don't disagree with possibility of Bourque > Harvey nor the idea that Lemieux is easily ahead of both - just saying, logic gap =/

 

[VanIslander]

Should Hull's 7 years in the WHA be ignored completely?

303 goals (2nd in WHA), 638 points (3rd) and the highest points per game average with two league championships and 7 goals in 8 games against the Soviets in the 1974 Summit Series. Hull led the tourney in goals and in points, ahead of Yakushev (8), Kharlamov and Petrov (7 each), Mikhailov (6). 46-year-old Gordie Howe scored 7 points against Tretiak. The WHA team lost the series, but not due to either Hull or Howe, producing at the highest level.

 

[K Fleur]

The Gretzky “only won 4 cups” thing seems really dumb since Gretzky’s Oilers are the last team in 30 years to win 4 or more cups.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The basic difference between Mario Lemieux and Bobby Hull/Jean Beliveau.

Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau each had a single season as far and away the best player in the league. 1965-66 for Hull, 1955-56 for Beliveau. But the same could be said for a few unavailable players. What makes the big 4 special is that they each had multiple consecutive seasons as simply much better than anyone else.

In the 1990s, if Mario Lemieux felt like playing hockey (and I agree, his attitude was often questionable), he was simply much better than any other player in the league (except Gretzky of course) the moment he stepped on the ice.

I agree with your post but I find it to be a little disrespectful too lemieux. It’s not like he chose not to play on purpose. Cancer/Spine conditions will do that

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Should Hull's 7 years in the WHA be ignored completely?

Not ignored completely but not viewed as strongly I’m guessing

 

[MXD]

Should Hull's 7 years in the WHA be ignored completely?

If that's a rhetorical question : Go on.
If that's not a rhetorical question : No. It does weight on competition/league level, however.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Gretzky “only won 4 cups” thing seems really dumb since Gretzky’s Oilers are the last team in 30 years to win 4 or more cups.

Red Wings won 4 SCs also. Penguins 5 SCs since 1990.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

The Gretzky “only won 4 cups” thing seems really dumb since Gretzky’s Oilers are the last team in 30 years to win 4 or more cups.

I think the main point of the argument is more about his lack of team success outside Edmonton than just strictly Cup counting, but yeah. I don't give much consideration to that argument.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I agree with your post but I find it to be a little disrespectful too lemieux. It’s not like he chose not to play on purpose. Cancer/Spine conditions will do that

Does anyone choose to get hurt or sick?

Happens.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I see a case for Beliveau and Harvey and Roy over Lemieux, even though I completely disagree.

I’ll actually be home for the first time in three weeks tonight, so I’ll dig up the Great Debates issue of THN that compared the two.

To me, if they didn’t have overlapping careers, it’d be a closer race on the resumes: the 18-season top-level starter with Gretzky-esque playoffs and a generation of clones vs. the much stronger high-level but often out-of-action franchise-saving icon.

I think it would essentially require a re-appraisal of their careers in light of subsequent generations to bridge the gap that was perceived to exist in their primes.

Having said that, if you’re aiming to win the Stanley Cup, Beliveau and Harvey and Richard and Roy may give you as much value over the long haul as anybody after Wayne Gretzky.