Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4

[pappyline]

Does he? He's second in scoring in '68 with 84 points, 3 behind Mikita for the league lead (Orr has 31). He wins the Art Ross and smashes the points record in '69 with 126 points and wins the Hart with Orr scoring 64 points (outscoring 2nd place Bobby Hull by 19 points, and his closest teammate by 36 points).

I generally don't think of a player that outscores his teammate by 2 to 1 as a "product" of that player. Orr and Espo was a symbiotic relationship, not parasitic. Esposito had established himself as a superstar on his own.

Moreover - traded from the Bruins, a Stanley Cup contender, to the Rangers - kind of a middle of the pack/bad team - at 33 and seeing a corresponding decline in production doesn't seem to be a huge knock on a player to me.

I watched Esposito's whole career. A bad skater with good hands who hung in the slot and took a lot of shots.

With Chicago he scored most of his regular season points by handing the puck over to Bobby Hull. following him up the ice a picking up garbage points. He was terrible in the playoffs and was benched a lot.

Boston changed their whole style of play when Orr arrived. Right away he changed Boston to an offense first team & Espo fit that style as did Hodge, Bucyk, Stanfield, McKenize etc. So what if he didn't score big points as an 18 & 19 year old. Orr was still the guy who carried the puck and forced the turnovers.

I never understood how Espo got all those assists. He was definitely a shoot first guy. Same with the Harts. Orr was the straw that stirred the drink on those Boston teams.

 

[The Macho King]

I watched Esposito's whole career. A bad skater with good hands who hung in the slot and took a lot of shots.

With Chicago he scored most of his regular season points by handing the puck over to Bobby Hull. following him up the ice a picking up garbage points. He was terrible in the playoffs and was benched a lot.

Boston changed their whole style of play when Orr arrived. Right away he changed Boston to an offense first team & Espo fit that style as did Hodge, Bucyk, Stanfield, McKenize etc. So what if he didn't score big points as an 18 & 19 year old. Orr was still the guy who carried the puck and forced the turnovers.

I never understood how Espo got all those assists. He was definitely a shoot first guy. Same with the Harts. Orr was the straw that stirred the drink on those Boston teams.

I'm not questioning Orr's prowess despite relatively low scoring totals (although he missed like half the season the year Espo finished second in scoring).

The fact that Boston was all-out offense, and that fit Espo's skillset... why that sounds to me like a coach recognized his talent and used him appropriately.

Orr is rated in the Big 4 in this list (many had him 1st, I had him 2nd), so no one is disrespecting Orr here. But you're making it sound like anyone can score 150 points in this league, win 5 Art Ross trophies, 2 Harts, etc. He shot a lot. That's not a bad thing. He stood in the slot and banged in a lot of rebounds. These are hockey skills. You don't have to be Lafleur to be an amazing offensive player, and in this vote with 5 offense-first forwards of middling to bad defense (at least as far as elite players are concerned), I'm not going to knock a guy because his points were less sexy than someone else's because he did it in front of the net knocking in rebounds instead of by flying down the wing, toe dragging, and going bar down.

 

[Johnny Engine]

How does he have a higher peak? Assuming you are referring to their best regular season.

If you like continuity, Lafleur gives you a big, hefty chunk offensive brilliance clustered in one place. Jagr's prime has a few ups and downs, and delivers about the same amount of seasons on that level, in a less predictable fashion.
That's my interpretation of what was said, but you decide whether that's important.

 

[pappyline]

I'm not questioning Orr's prowess despite relatively low scoring totals (although he missed like half the season the year Espo finished second in scoring).

The fact that Boston was all-out offense, and that fit Espo's skillset... why that sounds to me like a coach recognized his talent and used him appropriately.

Orr is rated in the Big 4 in this list (many had him 1st, I had him 2nd), so no one is disrespecting Orr here. But you're making it sound like anyone can score 150 points in this league, win 5 Art Ross trophies, 2 Harts, etc. He shot a lot. That's not a bad thing. He stood in the slot and banged in a lot of rebounds. These are hockey skills. You don't have to be Lafleur to be an amazing offensive player, and in this vote with 5 offense-first forwards of middling to bad defense (at least as far as elite players are concerned), I'm not going to knock a guy because his points were less sexy than someone else's because he did it in front of the net knocking in rebounds instead of by flying down the wing, toe dragging, and going bar down.

Just giving my impression. I did say he had good hands.

 

[bobholly39]

Quick case for Guy Damien Lafleur as the number one contender in this round of voting.

Regular season

• Six times over 100 points
• Five times over 125 points
• Six straight 50-plus goal seasons (first time this ever happened)
• One 60 goal season
• 6 first team all stars
• 2 Hart (4 other Top 4 Hart voting)
• 3 Art Ross
• 3 Pearson (Lindsay)
• 13 straight 20-plus goal seasons (lowest was 21 once, second lowest was 27)
• Six times 65 assists or more
• Six straight top 4 points
• 1st in goals once, 2nd in goals three times, 3rd once
• 1 in assists once, 2nd (twice) 3rd (twice) 5th (once)
• Cool hair blowing behind him as he skated thing (unsure about relevancy)

Playoff

• Conn Smythe
• 2 times leading scorer in playoffs 2 times second leading scorer 1 time third leading scorer
• 2 times most goals, once second most goals, twice third most goals
• 128 games 58 goals 76 assists 134 points
• Five Stanley Cups

Summary

• Best player on best team in history (arguably)... '77 Montreal Canadiens
• Best player on four consecutive Stanley Cup Champs.

Thank you for posting a detailed breakdown. I'm going to counter where how Jagr compares.

Regular season:

6 seasons over 100 points. Jagr has 5 (with 4 mover over 94 points). But that's just raw stats, you have to look at adjusted numbers. Using hockey-reference's adjusted numbers (far from perfect) you get:

Lafleur: 103, 106, 108, 109, 119, 122
Jagr: 105, 117, 120, 121, 131, 144, 145.

I'm not exactly crazy about VSX but i'm sure people here like that more than adjusted stats from hockey-reference. Even in that metric (for 10, 7 or 6 years) - Jagr comes out easily ahead.

6 straight 50 goals seasons (one 60 goal season). Again, raw stats. Jagr also has a 60 goal season, 2 50 goal seasons and 3 40 goal seasons. I prefer looking at overall offense than just goal scoring or assists though.

Jagr was 7x 1st team all star, 1x 2nd team all star. Advantage Jagr.
3 Art Ross. Jagr has 5. He also lost one to Lemieux (usually given an Asterisk). He also finished 2nd in 2006. He has 11 top 10 scoring finishes. Lafleur has 3 Rosses, and 6 top 10 scoring finishes (no 2nd place, 2 3rd place and one 4th after his 3 Ross). Advantage Jagr.
3 Pearson - same for both players.
Hart Trophy. Lafleur has 2 to Jagr's 1 - but Jagr has 5 top 2 finishes to Lafleur's 3. Tempted to give this edge to Jagr.

Jagr has 17 straight 20 goal seasons to Lafleur's 13 (19 overall). His lowest goal total in that stretch was 25. Advantage Jagr.
Jagr has 7 seasons of 65 assists or more to Lafleur's 6 (he'd have another one in 95 if it wasn't lockout 48 games). Advantage Jagr.

Leading league in goals. Lafleur has 6 top 10 finishes, Jagr has 8. Lafleur does have 1 'rocket' and 3 2nd place finishes - Jagr has no rockets, but 4 2nd place finishes. Tempted to give this to Jagr too.
Leading league in assists. Lafleur has 6 top 10 finishes, Jagr has 10. Jagr led the league in assists 3x, and top 5 7x vs 6 for Lafleur. Advantage Jagr.

Lafleur's hair is cool but Jagr has the Mullet - Advantage Jagr.

Lafleur was certainly also great in the playoffs. No question. But in the recent top 40 project around here he was voted 15th. We're not talking about a top 5, or even top 10 playoff all time player here. Jagr doesn't have any heroic individual runs but insomuch as his job was to produce offense in the playoffs - he did so very consistently his whole career (top 5 all time playoffs points - and his prime PPG in playoffs is better than Sakic, Forsberg and other of his peers who are seen as having better playoff resumes).

So yes - you can get to Lafleur > Jagr is you value playoffs a LOT. I mean - a LOT. But the gap in regular season is quite big in Jagr's favor. Imo it's too big for Lafleur to overcome.

 

[solidmotion]

In '71 he had 10 points in seven games. Not awful by any extent. That was the Year of Dryden. Also, scapegoating Espo for what was essentially Hull and Mikita's team isn't accurate.

yeah 71 is a different case but i think you're wrong re his chicago play, that was a real reputation he had—he was a top 10 scorer in 65 and 67 and managed a measly 8 points in 25 games in 65, 66 and 67. historically speaking, he was scapegoated, if you want to call it that.

somehow everybody gets off the hook for the 60s black hawks underperforming in the playoffs every year, which i don't understand at all.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Could there be a case for Nighbor to make the top 4 this round?

I think he has a case for #1. He's my #1 at the outset of this round, in fact.

His case as the best pre-consolidation player is strong. That is a 35 year period of Stanley Cup play, and as of yet he is the only candidate from this era to appear. I think a player who can claim this distinction is absolutely a top 15 player of all time.

A boatload of great posts have already been made on the previous pages. Nighbor was undoubtedly the top player on a dynasty. He was also possibly the top performer on Vancouver's pre-NHL Stanley Cup winner. Eastern rules, western rules, NHL rules....didn't matter, Nighbor excelled and won championships under all conditions. Seems that if you wanted to stop him, injuring him with dirty play was your best bet.

I don't think any remaining candidates can be considered the best player of their era, unless "era" is being broken down further into smaller subsets. For me, this is the biggest reason why Nighbor is a must-include from where I stand right now. The only reason I can see to exclude him at this stage is because you disagree that he was the best of his era. Which is reasonable (Taylor, Lalonde), but over the years I've come to see him as a small step above those two. The praise from contemporaries during his career and in the years following is overwhelming. There's a non-ridiculous argument that he was the greatest pre-Howe player, depending on your opinion of Morenz, Shore, and Richard.

 

[MXD]

To be honest, I don't think you can have Guy Lafleur ahead of Jaromr Jagr without also having, like, Duncan Keith ahead of Jaromir Jagr as well. It would require a ridiculous weight on playoffs, much heavier than the weight I'm giving to the playoffs myself, which is admitedly considerable.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What are you guys doing with the fact Esposito never was a + player (and was close to being such only once) as a Ranger?

What do you mean he was never a plus player?

He was +306 with the Bruins,+62 with Chicago. Led the league in 1968-69 with +55.

Was also +25 in the playoffs.

 

[The Macho King]

What do you mean he was never a plus player?

He was +306 with the Bruins,+62 with Chicago. Led the league in 1968-69 with +55.

Was also +25 in the playoffs.

he said as a ranger

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think Gretzky was fairly effective if not good defensively, but I don't see *defensively* what sets any of Jagr, Ovi, or Espo apart (or even Lafleur for that matter). They all suck defensively. If we're holding it against Espo to the extent it seems like we are, I don't get the justification for any of the other one-way forwards here either.

I am almost positive I already said this. I've never advocated for Espo as a two-way player and said nothing to that effect that I recall. I just think pointing it out as a criticism (at any level deeper than like a five second scan saying "well ****, Espo was kind of crap defensively") doesn't really add to a discussion featuring gifable Alex Ovechkin and noted notgiveadamndefensively Jaromir Jagr.

I would say Esposito was better defensively than everyone mentioned in this post.

But, then again, I had the disadvantage of seeing them all play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

he said as a ranger

Oh.

Never mind.

So why wasn't it an issue with Gretzky. 8 of his last 10 seasons he was a minus player.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Lafleur's hair is cool but Jagr has the Mullet - Advantage Jagr.

Oh my God this is really funny.

Very happy to see Lafleur among the candidates here. He is the second greatest Habs of all time behind the Rocket (maybe third because of Béliveau). But some things will go against him in this round. Lafleur had a great but short peak compared to some other candidates here. He also had a very successful career (great playoffs performer) but he played for the greatest dynasty of all time (the 70's Habs). And this is why he will probably be lower in the ranking that I would see him.

 

[BenchBrawl]

To be honest, I don't think you can have Guy Lafleur ahead of Jaromr Jagr without also having, like, Duncan Keith ahead of Jaromir Jagr as well. It would require a ridiculous weight on playoffs, much heavier than the weight I'm giving to the playoffs myself, which is admitedly considerable.

That's completely insane.Lafleur was the best player in the league.Keith was not, and didn't peak in the RS like Flower.The similarity between Jagr's and Lafleur's RS peak is why one can put a lot of weight on his playoffs to push him over Jagr.If he had just the playoffs and an "OK" peak in the RS (for the standard of this group of players), then obviously he couldn't make it.

 

[The Macho King]

To be honest, I don't think you can have Guy Lafleur ahead of Jaromr Jagr without also having, like, Duncan Keith ahead of Jaromir Jagr as well. It would require a ridiculous weight on playoffs, much heavier than the weight I'm giving to the playoffs myself, which is admitedly considerable.

I don't think these comments help anyone. It completely undersells Lafleur's already substantially elite peak. 3 Art Ross trophies, 6 straight 100+ point seasons, a Smythe and key contributor to 4 Stanley Cups.

I've yet to be convinced Jagr even deserves to be in this discussion right now, much less a shoe-in for a top 5 spot like so many are pretending. Who was Jagr's competition for his trophies? Sakic (on here mostly for playoffs and two-way play, offense was more secondary here), Forsberg (if he makes the list it will be because of two-way play + nostalgia), Lindros (won't make this list), Bure (won't make this list), Selanne (might make this list?).

And bobholly's revisionism of Jagr's playoffs doesn't make him a + playoff performer in the context of some of the players up in this round. I don't know where I'm ranking Lafleur, but I am getting a headache at the consensus that seems to be forming around Jagr. We seem to accept that because he played until he was 85 years old that he has legendary longevity, but he really doesn't. He has 8 All-Star seasons (which seems a consistent way to define Prime considering how we've categorized it with Bourque and Lidstrom), to 6 All-Stars for Lafleur. I'm not seeing where this "clear separation" is.

 

[quoipourquoi]

To be honest, I don't think you can have Guy Lafleur ahead of Jaromr Jagr without also having, like, Duncan Keith ahead of Jaromir Jagr as well. It would require a ridiculous weight on playoffs, much heavier than the weight I'm giving to the playoffs myself, which is admitedly considerable.

I could see it with emphasis on great playoffs happening concurrently with great seasons - a different way to look at peak, I suppose - at which point Lafleur, Plante, Nighbor, Messier, and Esposito might be the five to look at.

 

[MXD]

Oh.

Never mind.

So why wasn't it an issue with Gretzky. 8 of his last 10 seasons he was a minus player.

Because there's no doubt whatsoever about Gretzky's accomplishments before (and Gretzky did MUCH better in his last 10 seasons than Espo did during his 7 last seasons).

 

[The Macho King]

That's completely insane.Lafleur was the best player in the league.Keith was not, and didn't peak in the RS like Flower.The similarity between Jagr's and Lafleur's RS peak is why one can put a lot of weight on his playoffs to push him over Jagr.If he had just the playoffs and an "OK" peak in the RS (for the standard of this group of players), then obviously he couldn't make it.

I do think the late 70s you had the WHA talent drain + expansion + lack of Euros... it was a pretty shallow league. If someone wanted to knock Lafleur's peak for those reasons, I could see it.

But that's not the argument anyone is making, so it's kind of annoying.

 

[The Macho King]

I could see it with emphasis on great playoffs happening concurrently with great seasons - a different way to look at peak, I suppose - at which point Lafleur, Plante, Nighbor, Messier, and Esposito might be the five to look at.

Now don't start that again!

 

[MXD]

... My Keith argument was obviously hyperbolic and I probably should've said Claude Lemieux to make it more obvious.

 

[daver]

If you like continuity, Lafleur gives you a big, hefty chunk offensive brilliance clustered in one place. Jagr's prime has a few ups and downs, and delivers about the same amount of seasons on that level, in a less predictable fashion.
That's my interpretation of what was said, but you decide whether that's important.

I have to say Jagr's seven year stretch > Lafleur's six year stretch (regular season only). One extra year of elite play makes a difference obviously plus five Art Rosses to three

Jagr's PPG - 1.54

PPG's of next five top scorers:

1.23
1.30
1.24
1.04
1.20

Lafleur's PPG - 1.66

PPG's of next five top scorers:

1.45
1.25
1.28
1.20
1.36

I don't see where Lafleur has the higher peak however you want to define it.

 

[MXD]

I do think the late 70s you had the WHA talent drain + expansion + lack of Euros... it was a pretty shallow league. If someone wanted to knock Lafleur's peak for those reasons, I could see it.

But that's not the argument anyone is making, so it's kind of annoying.

We can't be making every damn argument in less than 4 hours, especially if we're... you know... working.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I do think the late 70s you had the WHA talent drain + expansion + lack of Euros... it was a pretty shallow league. If someone wanted to knock Lafleur's peak for those reasons, I could see it.

But that's not the argument anyone is making, so it's kind of annoying.

Lafleur was a child prodigy and a massive prospect in junior.This doesn't give him any extra points on its own, but it does give him a huge benefit of the doubt that he would be the best in his prime regardless of league strenght.

 

[The Macho King]

We can't be making every damn argument in less than 4 hours, especially if we're... you know... working.

Well I had a big thing scheduled today that was pushed back and I demand instant gratification, so I will brook no excuses.

It's funny because the two players we're talking about played in probably my two least favorite eras. I loathe the DPE and get annoyed when people wax nostalgic on the Avs/Wings rivalry without recalling how abysmal 95% of the games were night in, night out. That probably leads me to some substantial bias against DPE players because I hated watching hockey then SO MUCH.

I wasn't around for the late 70s, but I think from an outside perspective it's pretty clear league-wide the talent level was not very high. No disrespect to the Habs of that era, but there were too many god awful teams in the league at that time.

Edit: I'm also really annoyed we don't have Trottier or Clarke this round.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bold #1 - Can't you say the same about Ovechkin except instead of a seven year peak, it's a three year peak?

Bold #2 - Jagr was really good in the '92 Cup but that usually is countered with him being 4th on his team in scoring. What's the difference? (in terms of comparing Jagr's best Cup run to OV's best Cup run)

Ovechkin IS THE MAN in Washington. He had a tremendous run last year. Yes, most will agree in a perfect world the Smythe goes to Kuz, but Jagr wasn't a focal point in 92. That was Mario's team, just as Mario proved any time he stepped on the ice. Was Jagr good and even great at points? Sure, but he wasn't the focal point of other teams game plan. 4th on the team in scoring, doesn't provide defensive value and Barrasso was tremendous especially in the final 2 rounds.

Jagr's peak came at the end of Gretzky's career and the height of Mario's physical ailments and also, an aging player as well. I give Jagr plenty of credit for posting elite offensive numbers during the dead puck era, but what did those numbers provide? Did they propel Pittsburgh in the mid 90's when they were still a legit team with legit talent? No. Empty stats so to speak. Jagr's a one zone player who racked up a lot of points on good, average and bad teams. I can say the same thing about Marcel Dionne. And somebody like Dionne never played on a good team relative to the league standings.