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

[DannyGallivan]

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.

There is no effective way to undertake this exercise without taking into account so much more than numbers. Note: I'm certainly not saying that numbers are unimportant, but wait until people justify the placement of Nighbor, or Harvey or some of the others based on numbers alone. Eye-witness accounts and the "expert" opinions of others are hugely important.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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

Proper talent evaluation.

 

[The Macho King]

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.

Pilote isn't in your top 50?

 

[The Macho King]

Proper talent evaluation.

I would phrase it as "holistic talent evaluation", although in a historical setting like this, the eye-test is probably more often going to be used for evil rather than for good.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Congrats. First time I saw someone try to disparage Orr's eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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 also won the Art Ross as a defenseman, twice. I really don't think this gets enough weight. How would you compare that to a center winning the Art Ross? And how many times in history has a d-man won the Hart?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Pilote isn't in your top 50?

He's in mine. Another guy people underrate.

 

[The Macho King]

Congrats. First time I saw someone try to disparage Orr's eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

I think it's perfectly fair to take a critical eye to all accomplishments in a list like this. I think the general tone is "trophy counting" is a shitty way to rank players.

With that being said, let's contextualize Orr a bit. His prime was in an era where the overall talent in the league probably took a bit of a dip. The expansion teams were bad for the beginning 1/2 to 3/4s, and then the best 06 teams were in states of transition. The Habs were not the same as the team that was previously a dynasty, the Leafs dynasty was over, the Blackhawks lost Hull (and then obviously lost Espo too). A team with two superstars (and not much else unless you're a huge Bucyk fan) could run roughshod over the league.

Despite that, it's hard to look at that Bruins' team and see that they only won 2 Cups and be disappointed with the state of the league at the time.

But to your overall point, I'll agree. Whatever Orr's competition for the Norris was, it's not like any of his wins were "weak" wins (except maybe his first? I find winning the Norris while playing ~half the season hard to justify, but I'm sure part of that is due to how transformative he was).

 

[DannyGallivan]

But to your overall point, I'll agree. Whatever Orr's competition for the Norris was, it's not like any of his wins were "weak" wins (except maybe his first? I find winning the Norris while playing ~half the season hard to justify, but I'm sure part of that is due to how transformative he was).

If anything, that supports an Orr argument. It is very hard to justify, yet for him it happened (and so early in his career... it's not like he was riding on his legacy like perhaps some other players had).

 

[DannyGallivan]

I think the general tone is "trophy counting" is a ****ty way to rank players.

It's just one of many possible tools on the tool belt. By itself, yes I agree (especially given the subjectivity of any award not linked to numbers). As part of a great picture, it's helpful.

 

[MXD]

Proper talent evaluation.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Orr Hart Competition (Top 5)

67 - Distant 6th
68 - Mikita, Beliveau, Hull, Orr, Howe
69 - Esposito, Beliveau, Orr, Berenson, Howe
70 - Orr, Esposito, Berenson, Mikita, Park
71 - Orr, Esposito, Hull, Keon, Plante
72 - Orr, Dryden, Esposito, Ratelle, Hadfield
73 - Clarke, Esposito, Orr, Dryden, Perreault (would lose even combing him and Esposito)
74 - Esposito, Parent, Orr, Clarke, Esposito
75 - Clarke, Vachon, Orr, Parent, Lalfeur

Gretzky Hart Competition (Top 5)
80 - Gretzky, Dionne, Esposito, Lalfeur, Gare
81 - Gretzky, Liut, Dionne, Bossy, Trottier
82 - Gretzky, Trottier, Bossy, Stastny, Hawerchuk
83 - Gretzky, Peeters, Savard, Langway, Howe
84 - Greztky, Langway, Trottier, Middleton, Bourque
85 - Gretzky, Hawerchuk, Lindbergh, Langway, Bouque
86 - Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Coffey, Vanbiesbrouck
87 - Gretzky, Bourque, Liut, Lemieux, Gilmour
88 - Lemieux, Fuhrr, Gretzky, Yzerman, Savard
89 - Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Roy, Mullen/Chelios
90 - Messier, Bourque, Hull, Gretzky, Lafontaine
91 - Hull, Gretzky, Belfour, Bourque, Larmer

Then after 12 straight seasons in the top 5 Gretzky disappears from hart ballots until 98.

Naturally this sort of breakdown completely ignores what each player accomplished in a given season so needs a heaping help of salt.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Pilote isn't in your top 50?

Missed him in the list, he was 47th on my list. He took a drop after I looked into Hall more heavily.

 

[The Macho King]

If anything, that supports an Orr argument. It is very hard to justify, yet for him it happened (and so early in his career... it's not like he was riding on his legacy like perhaps some other players had).

By a "weak" or "strong" win, I'm thinking "put this season in the middle of any NHL season - would you expect this guy to win the Norris?" I think it's fair to say that his first win probably doesn't hold up nearly as well as his next seven under that metric.

But honestly, we're quibbling on that one. Orr's Norris-record is not suspect in the least. He's winning 6 to 8 Norris' no matter what generation he plays in (I could see some competition for one or two if he's put in the late 80s/early 90s for some of his weaker ones).

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think it's perfectly fair to take a critical eye to all accomplishments in a list like this. I think the general tone is "trophy counting" is a ****ty way to rank players.

With that being said, let's contextualize Orr a bit. His prime was in an era where the overall talent in the league probably took a bit of a dip. The expansion teams were bad for the beginning 1/2 to 3/4s, and then the best 06 teams were in states of transition. The Habs were not the same as the team that was previously a dynasty, the Leafs dynasty was over, the Blackhawks lost Hull (and then obviously lost Espo too). A team with two superstars (and not much else unless you're a huge Bucyk fan) could run roughshod over the league.

Despite that, it's hard to look at that Bruins' team and see that they only won 2 Cups and be disappointed with the state of the league at the time.

But to your overall point, I'll agree. Whatever Orr's competition for the Norris was, it's not like any of his wins were "weak" wins (except maybe his first? I find winning the Norris while playing ~half the season hard to justify, but I'm sure part of that is due to how transformative he was).

The point was just to counter anyone mindlessly (even though I assume you were being tongue in cheek) tossing out his Norris wins. Talent at the defence position was concentrated at the top between Orr and Park for most of his prime.

 

[bobholly39]

Congrats. First time I saw someone try to disparage Orr's eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

6 Pages in and you've yet to make an argument for why Orr is superior to Gretzky. All you've done is say he's a more complete player, break down his individual skills/talents, and talk about the eye test. If you want to actually have a discussion and comparison - you need to make the effort to bring up worthy discussion points.

Gretzky is above Orr because in my opinion there are 5 main categories worth considering, and I believe Gretzky is ahead in all of them (or at worst, tied in 1 of 5, and ahead in 4):

Playoffs
Peak
Prime
International Play
Career

Playoffs - Net Advantage Gretzky. 2 smythes, but he should arguably have 5 (83, 84, 87). He's had many more great runs than Orr, and his best runs were arguably better too. In the recent playoff project Gretzky very easily ranked ahead of Orr - so unless you have an argument to the contrary, i assume you'll agree.

Prime - 9 harts, 11 Ross (yes I count 1980) - and if you include asterisks it's 13 (peak Lemieux beat him twice - typically we put asterisk in those cases). Orr has a very very strong prime - but advantage Gretzky. He was the better forward more often than Orr was the better defender - and he was the better overall player more often than Orr. Playoffs is also a component of prime - which helps tilt the odds in Gretzky's favor.

International - easily Gretzky again. More opportunities maybe - but that's not Gretzky's fault.

Peak? Well - you can argue Orr here (but actually make an argument - don't just say "hey what if Orr was a center") - i'd be curious to see those comparisons. Since length and consistency are a component of peak - i tend to again favor Gretzky here. But it's close.

Career - well considering Orr scores exactly 0 outside of peak/prime due to his unfortunate early retirement, this is again Gretzky. Gretzky has a very strong career outside of his peak/prime years.

So the scoreboard is Gretzky 4 - Orr - 0 and 1 tie (peak).

Now make an argument to have Orr above Gretzky.

 

[ResilientBeast]

And if we're going to discuss Gretzky not winning after "The Trade"

Can anyone explain why the Bruins were unable to win more than two cups in the late 60s early 70s?

I assume almost overlapping dynasties from the Habs played a role?

 

[Sentinel]

If I understand your argument, the bolded is wrong. Both in 1951 and 1953, the Red Wings, in both cases the best team in the league during the RS and decidedly so in 1953 (their 1951 season was actually even better, and possibly one of the best RS by pts% at that point), would be eliminated in the first round by a non-.500 team that would subsequently bow out to the eventual Stanley Cup Winner in 5 games, each year.

Yeah, there are reasons to have expected the Orr' Bruins to win more than they did; however, they did run into the 15-year Canadiens sortof-dynasty in 1971, into a very solid Rangers team in 1973 (Bruins not the best team in their division that season) and into the Flyers in the Finals in 1974. Those are much better teams than the ones that took out the Red Wings during Howe's prime/dynasty years.

And I actually agree with the idea that the Bruins should have won more. But if the Bruins should've won more, then, the Red Wings REALLY, but REALLY should've won more.

(I'm strictly talking about teams here, and not about the players in those teams. Howe's production was actually good in 1951 and in 1953)

You are right to a degree. I, however, am inclined to cut slack to dynasty teams that lost a playoff here and there. 84 Islanders, 86 Oilers, etc. If a team loses a playoffs, then comes back to win two more Cups, or if a dynasty team doesn't have it in them to win another one, it's a little better in my eyes than a team that won one and never won again. If it makes sense.

 

[VanIslander]

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

Now, compare 14 times Bourque was top 3 in Norris voting.

Here's the murderers' row:

Beaten by only Langway, M.Howe
Beaten by only Langway, Coffey
Beaten by only Coffey
Beat M.Howe, Murphy
Beat Stevens, Suter
Beat MacInnis, Wilson
Beat MacInnis, Chelios
Beaten by only Leetch
Beaten by only Chelios
Beat Stevens, MacInnis
Beaten by only Coffey, Chelios
Beaten by only Chelios
Beaten by only MacInnis, Lidstrom
Beaten by only Lidstrom

Plus: In 1989 Bourque was 4th to Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis.

Conclusion: Bourque faced stiffer competition for top dog on the blueline than Orr (or Lidstrom). That's partially why simply counting trophies is misleading.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Orr also won the Art Ross as a defenseman, twice. I really don't think this gets enough weight. How would you compare that to a center winning the Art Ross? And how many times in history has a d-man won the Hart?

13 Times

Shore - 4
Orr - 3
Gardiner - 1
Goodfellow - 1
Siebert - 1
Anderson - 1
Pratt - 1
Pronger - 1

 

[Sentinel]

I seriously still can't get over the fact that Hasek is not in the Top 10, but Bourque is. This is wrong on so many levels. The only thing Bourque has on Hasek is longevity as an elite player. Hasek has better peak, prime, and accomplishments. Just wrong.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Could not disagree more...I'd sooner have Hasek as goalie #4 than up for discussion right now...

 

[ResilientBeast]

I seriously still can't get over the fact that Hasek is not in the Top 10, but Bourque is. This is wrong on so many levels. The only thing Bourque has on Hasek is longevity as an elite player. Hasek has better peak, prime, and accomplishments. Just wrong.

Without sidetracking to hard. I was fairly surprised by the top 10. Hasek and Crosby were in my top 10 and I really thought at least one of them would be eligible for the first vote.

 

[ted2019]

This is such hyperbole. I get it, you're impressed by Gretzky's numbers. We all are. However, I can see a case for every member of the "big 4", and I see the best case not for Gretzky, but for Orr.

So, what model are you using for this exercise?

1. The best player: it's gotta be Orr.
2. The best career: it's gotta be Howe
3. The best numbers: now Wayne pops up.

I would like to add that Lemieux might be the most talented player ever.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is such hyperbole. I get it, you're impressed by Gretzky's numbers. We all are. However, I can see a case for every member of the "big 4", and I see the best case not for Gretzky, but for Orr.

So, what model are you using for this exercise?

1. The best player: it's gotta be Orr.
2. The best career: it's gotta be Howe
3. The best numbers: now Wayne pops up.

Missed this post from earlier

I'm sorry but I take issue with 1 and 2. Because you're already assuming that Orr is the best player of the four.

Career completely debatable, Howe has longevity but so does Gretzky.

And even in this exercise with your logic Gretzky is probably the second best in 1 and 2 at least and therefore overall is the correct choice for #1.