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

[Michael Farkas]

Also one thing I'm curious about - I know league-wide scoring in the 6-to-12 era wasn't at 80s levels, but how did the O6 teams do during that period (versus the league as a whole)?

Let me phrase it differently - let's say league-wide the scoring was at 6.1 GPG. Was this a situation where the O6 teams were scoring 4 GPG and the new teams were scoring at a rate of 2.1?

Early on, O6 vs O6 teams were higher scoring...because the talent pool was over-flowing with goaltending talent and defensive talent (thus, the expansion teams got players that could play defense)...as that attritioned out in the next 5, 6, 7, 8 years and was further exacerbated by the WHA and even more NHL expansion, it was incomplete, one-dimensional players that took things over for the next decade, roughly 1974 to 1985 or so...then expansion scoring took it to another, grotesque level...

 

[bobholly39]

I think being a complete player is absolutely relevant. I think the point becomes more salient when discussing (say) Mike Bossy versus Brian Trottier than Orr versus Gretzky, but being great in all situations is absolutely an important metric.

The thing with Orr is I wish he played 7 more years. Winning 2 Art Ross trophies from the back end is absolutely bonkers, and I wish he had the overall career on top of his amazing prime to make a discussion versus Wayne close for me. But at the end of the day, we only got those 8 peak years, which I think Gretzky's career accomplishments create distance from.

I'm not saying being a more complete player isn't relevant. But it should only be relevant when talking about specific accomplishments - be it a single season, playoff, a combination of peak seasons, a career, etc.

If all we're saying is "Orr is more complete and better so he should rank higher" - all we're doing is projecting and talking hypotheticals. Because of better talent/game - Orr > Gretzky all things being equal. All things aren't equal. Different era, team, health, games played, different ability to perform under pressure and a variety of other factors give Gretzky the edge.

If we're talking single peak season - let's talk specifically how Orr's complete game made up for his lack of offense (vs Gretzky) in a big enough way to pick him over Gretzky. This is doable.
But if we start to add playoffs, prime, career, international resume - I find it very very hard to make a case for Orr. I'm all ears if anyone wants to - but don't just limit it to talking about his game and ability - it should be about accomplishments.

To your last point - absolutely. Give Orr 7 more years healthy and he probably gives Gretzky a very solid run at #1. I too think based on his shortened career the gap is wide though

 

[DannyGallivan]

Does anyone think a prime Orr could have pushed 200 points if he were placed on the Oilers dynasty in place of Coffey?

I don't know about that, but a prime Orr playing centre on that team could have.

 

[The Macho King]

I don't know about that, but a prime Orr playing centre on that team could have.

Anyway - as of now my vote goes Wayne - Orr - Howe - Mario. I want to hear from someone who puts Howe at 1 or 2 make their case, and do it better than @DannyGallivan did with his Orr at #1 argument.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I don't know about that, but a prime Orr playing centre on that team could have.

Totally irrelevant

 

[Michael Farkas]

I demand to hear more about Orr vs. Howe.

Not Orr playing center, not Gretzky, not how Mario is not top 8 or whatever...

Obey me!

 

[DannyGallivan]

How on earth are you calling Orr the better shooter and an equally good passer to Gretzky? Orr was an all time great shooting defenseman, and was indeed one of the best passers (of any position) in history.

But Gretzky is the all time leader in goals, and has more assists than any player in league history has points.

I find it strange enough when people say Lemieux' hockey sense was "in the ballpark" of Gretzky's. No it wasn't, not even close. if Lemieux had Gretzky's hockey sense combined with Lemieux's physical skills, he would have had 250 point seasons. It didn't happen, because for as other-worldly as Lemieux's hockey sense was, he wasn't Gretzky.

Same thing with Orr's scoring and passing. He's not even in Gretzky's ballpark. Even if you were inclined to play the "if Orr was a forward" game, I don't see how you could possibly forecast that he'd ever score 92 goals in a season (or any era adjusted number you'd like) or rack up 163 assists. It's not as if Orr was glued to the blueline. We saw plenty of opportunities for him to use his shot and passing from positions on the ice where you'd typically see forwards.

I agree with The Macho Man, at the end of the days, "tools" are only tools, and it's what you make of them that counts. But even if counting "tools" were meaningful, I don't see any way how you can't have Gretzky clearly ahead of Orr when it comes to shooting and passing.

Again, context. Context. Context.

I'm ballparking a little bit, but Orr manufactured his offense while playing defense as well (and by all reports did very good defensively). So, he was generating a massive amount of assists from the backend. You would expect a centre to get more assists, and Gretzky did. If you want to say Gretzky had a slight edge as a passer, that's fine. But I disagree that there was much of an edge at all. I also say that Gretzky's supporting cast was more adept at putting the puck in the net (yes, he was the reason they did it so often, so no disagreement there). But other than Esposito, I'd say that the rest of the Bruins were less talented offensively than the Oilers of the 80's or even the Kings of the early 90's. It was Orr that makes us even remember their names today.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well, if a player was more complete, one could argue they accomplished more away from the puck. Not all accomplishments can be easily quantified, especially defensive play. Intangibles ought not be dismissed just because they are not measured. History books, accolades, praise by coaches and the opposition, assessments by contemporaries, journalist descriptions, these will all come into play. If all 30+ of us just made one relevant historical citation, man, we could learn a lot more details, fleshed-out dimensions.

Yes. This isn't baseball. If all we did was compare stats, why would we even need to see the game.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Sorry if that sounds like I'm tyring to make you look bad (this is absolutely not what I want to do, considering I'm really hating when others are doing this to me...), but there's a very obvious counter-argument here, and one that probably forces you to drink a shot :

Don't worry... there's not chance of that.

The counter argument is even more subjective than defense vs forward (far more subjective, actually).

 

[DannyGallivan]

Very cool on 10 for 10 (i don't, missing at least 2).

As to your 2nd point - all you're doing is arguing that Orr was a more complete player than Gretzky (or maybe even a "better" player). But this project shouldn't be about that - it should be about evaluating what Orr accomplished vs Gretzky accomplished.

I'm still in the Orr camp. Remember my previous statement... I consider this a photo finish. But at the end of the day, when everything is considered (including context, "eye test" and the eye witness reports of those from the day). I give the edge to Orr. If someone out there thinks that Gretzky, Howe or even Lemieux rightfully belongs ahead of Orr, I will not consider them crazy. However, to say that one is "clearly" or "easily" or "by a wide margin" above the other is hyperbole and quite frankly makes someone saying that look bad.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I don't think he could've, even adjusted points which are imperfect and bad don't even put Orr close to some of Gretzky's best seasons.

Again, the context is that Orr would play as a centre, where he would not have to be concerned anywhere near as much about defense. Yes it's fictional and subjective, but given his stats as a defenceman I don't think that it's out of the realm of possibility to say that he would have scored 200 points if he was a centre.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Orr gets less points at forward.

There. Can we be done with that now please?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think a big thing that gets overlooked in regards to a possible negative regarding Gretzky is how much, if any "points" do we deduct for him never winning outside the Oilers dynasty?

Messier led Edmonton to the title sans 99 in 1990 and then broke the Rangers curse in 94.

It's something that has weighed on me for some time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well, if a player was more complete, one could argue they accomplished more away from the puck. Not all accomplishments can be easily quantified, especially defensive play. Intangibles ought not be dismissed just because they are not measured. History books, accolades, praise by coaches and the opposition, assessments by contemporaries, journalist descriptions, these will all come into play. If all 30+ of us just made one relevant historical citation, man, we could learn a lot more details, fleshed-out dimensions.

The pro-Gretzky camp is hinging everything on Gretzky's massive offensive numbers and saying that because a defenseman (Orr) didn't accomplish the same numbers he's not as good. I have yet to see anybody counter the argument of what Orr accomplished as a defenseman compared to what Gretzky accomplished as a forward.

Gretzky's numbers have a way of putting blinders on a lot people people... "Oooh, 200 points, look... something shiny!" That's totally understandable, but limiting.

 

[bobholly39]

I think a big thing that gets overlooked in regards to a possible negative regarding Gretzky is how much, if any "points" do we deduct for him never winning outside the Oilers dynasty?

Messier led Edmonton to the title sans 99 in 1990 and then broke the Rangers curse in 94.

It's something that has weighed on me for some time.

None.
I think what is fair is to evaluate Gretzky's individual contributions to his various playoff teams post Oilers. Did he individually disappoint in a specific year? In any year was he the cause for his team's eliminations? In any year can you say that "if only he had done a bit more - they'd have won" ? I think those are the only fair questions to ask, and then weight those accordingly.

But to try and generalize about a team accomplishment - that's unfair, even to someone as dominating as Gretzky.

 

[The Macho King]

I think a big thing that gets overlooked in regards to a possible negative regarding Gretzky is how much, if any "points" do we deduct for him never winning outside the Oilers dynasty?

Messier led Edmonton to the title sans 99 in 1990 and then broke the Rangers curse in 94.

It's something that has weighed on me for some time.

TBF that 90 Oilers team was still really good.

But okay - no Cups outside of Edmonton. The Kings team probably had more in common with the early Oilers teams than the dynasty Oilers teams. There just wasn't much beside Gretzky. And despite that he still took them to a Cup final. And then... I don't know. That's post-prime Gretzky we're talking about in the later years in LA, St. Louis, and New York.

Messier's situation is just different. The 94 Rangers went all-in for the Cup and they got it. You had a great backend with Zubov and Leetch. They were a great offensive and defensive team. You got great goaltending from Richter. It was a great team that put it all together.

That's a long way of saying that man - those Kings teams were for the most part pretty bad most of Wayne's years there, and he did pretty much all you could expect considering the circumstances. Can you look at any of those teams and say which one *should have* won a Cup?

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think a big thing that gets overlooked in regards to a possible negative regarding Gretzky is how much, if any "points" do we deduct for him never winning outside the Oilers dynasty?

Messier led Edmonton to the title sans 99 in 1990 and then broke the Rangers curse in 94.

It's something that has weighed on me for some time.

Hockey is a team game, one player doesn't win championships. Gretzky managed to turn a 30 win team into 42 win team after the trade.

The Oilers post Gretzky were a better team than the Kings as reflected by the regular season standings, while Gretzky was there they only broke 40 wins 2 times.

The 94 Rangers won 52 games a total higher than any season in Los Angeles Kings history

Take Gretzky away from the dynasty Oilers who knows how many cups the Oilers would have but it would be closer to 1 than 5

 

[VanIslander]

I think a big thing that gets overlooked in regards to a possible negative regarding Gretzky is how much, if any "points" do we deduct for him never winning outside the Oilers dynasty?

Gretzky won tons outside of the dynasty, just not the Stanley Cup (eg., he was instrumental to winning the 1984, 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups)(also, after leaving Edmonton, a Hart trophy, three more Art Ross trophies and six more NHL 1st or 2nd team all star selections).

What Stanley Cups did Lemieux and Orr win outside of their two close together?

Heck, what Stanley Cups did Howe win outside of the four in the 1950-55 dynasty years?

This line of reasoning is immaterial to the Big 4. It will be relevant when Messier comes up, Red Kelly for sure, Sprague Cleghorn, maybe Hooley Smith.

 

[The Macho King]

The pro-Gretzky camp is hinging everything on Gretzky's massive offensive numbers and saying that because a defenseman (Orr) didn't accomplish the same numbers he's not as good. I have yet to see anybody counter the argument of what Orr accomplished as a defenseman compared to what Gretzky accomplished as a forward.

While it's obvious, I just want to put on the record that this is crap. Numerous people have stated that what separates Orr and Gretzky is generally career based, and at least for peak there's a good argument for Orr (even if at most he would win at the margins rather than by a wide amount).

And that's the thing - Orr has a good argument for peak equal or greater to Wayne, despite Wayne scoring 70-80 more points. Everyone recognizes that what Orr did as a Dman is nuts. That's why he's universally top 4, and probably #2. But you create criteria out of thin air and then bitch when no one wants to play by your insane rules.

I don't know how many points Orr would have scored as a Center. Maybe he would have been so bad at faceoffs he would never have touched the puck. Who cares. It's irrelevant. He was a Dman and his performance *at the position he played* is what we're judging here.

 

[GlitchMarner]

What does the "eye test" really even mean? It's tossed around a lot.

Does it refer to evaluating players based on style (which I don't think is a great way to evaluate even though I do think there's some merit to artistry in hockey)? This is relevant to Gretzky versus Lemieux. At his best Kovalev "looked" great and was dazzling and could make highlight reel plays, but does anyone consider him even a top 300 player?

Is the"eye test" a means of evaluating the all-around ability (including subtleties) of players? This is relevant to Gretzky versus Orr. If so, you do have to wonder how well fans in general are able to watch and process everything that goes on and accurately assess the all-around abilities of certain players. There is so much to defense that can be missed when you follow the puck.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The pro-Gretzky camp is hinging everything on Gretzky's massive offensive numbers and saying that because a defenseman (Orr) didn't accomplish the same numbers he's not as good. I have yet to see anybody counter the argument of what Orr accomplished as a defenseman compared to what Gretzky accomplished as a forward.

Gretzky's numbers have a way of putting blinders on a lot people people... "Oooh, 200 points, look... something shiny!" That's totally understandable, but limiting.

Bobby Orr has 9 historically relevant seasons

Wayne Gretzky has as many hart trophies as Orr has relevant seasons. That's pretty much where the argument should die, if Bobby was healthy it would be a different story.

I have yet to see an argument that proves that what Orr did on D is at all comparable to Gretzky. The onus is on you to provide proof counter to conventional wisdom not us to defend what is a widely held belief.

 

[The Macho King]

Bobby Orr has 9 historically relevant seasons

Wayne Gretzky has as many hart trophies as Orr has relevant seasons. That's pretty much where the argument should die, if Bobby was healthy it would be a different story.

I have yet to see an argument that proves that what Orr did on D is at all comparable to Gretzky. The onus is on you to provide proof counter to conventional wisdom not us to defend what is a widely held belief.

Orr has 8 Norris' to Zero for Wayne.

Checkmate.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Orr has 8 Norris' to Zero for Wayne

I always thought that was obvious, but glad you mentioned it.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Orr has 8 Norris' to Zero for Wayne.

Checkmate.

His Top 3 Norris Competition

67 - Beaten by Howell, Pilote
68 - Beats Tremblay, Horton
69 - Beats Horton, Green
70 - Beats Park, Brewer
71 - Beats Park, Tremblay
72 - Beats Park, White
73 - Beats Lapointe, White
74 - Beats Park, White
75 - Beats Potvin, Lapointe

Besides Park, Horton twice and then Potvin in his last Norris year not exactly a murderers row in the top 3 of norris voting.

How many of these players will make the top 30, top 50? Definitely Potvin and maybe Park. Then the long wait till Horton gets his name called.

 

[VanIslander]

What does the "eye test" really even mean?

C'mon. It means one's own judgement of which is better. The reasons vary from person to person as to why one player is considered better based on what you have seen with your own eyes. Yeah, factors include such things as style, talent level, all-around play, contributions away from the puck, dominance of games, clutch play time and again, etc.

For example, Hasek is clearly a tier above Brodeur when I look at the eye test, that is, my own years and years of watching them both.

Actually, the 'eye test' idea is a way to acknowledge how things look to oneself independent of other factors, not replacing other considerations. The eye test is not the end all and be all. One sometimes has thought one player was better but has convinced through stats and accomplishments that another is better.

(For example, Forsberg is better than Sakic according to the eye test when I apply it, but the more I consider all relevant factors, the less I decide Forsberg was better than Sakic in terms of all-time ranking.)