28 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Hockey Players of All-Time”

1. 

   Very disappointed in number 1. While Gretzky was an unbelievable offensive force he couldn’t find the defensive zone with a map. Orr changed the way the game was played. Still the only defenseman to win the scoring title and showed the league the benefit of offense from the blue line. Orr, Gretzky, Lemeuix and Howe was the correct order

2. 

   Ha! Thanks for the correct answer, Grant. To each his own. Orr played 631 games in an incredibly unbalanced league filled with expansion teams. Scoring by the Original Six teams skyrocketed during this time due to the porous defense by the expansion teams. The competitiveness of the league during this time needs to be front and center to provide context. Orr was great, no doubt, but every little thing matters when comparing elite resumes. Howe played 1687 games in the NHL. How can we say Orr was better than Howe given the fact that Howe played at an elite level for nearly three times as many games? That’s a tough argument to make. Gretzky played in a more difficult league, set more records, and was the greatest playoff performer of all-time. He has to be number one, IMO.

3. 

   You don’t have Mats Sundin as a top 200 player ever? You have TWO goalies ahead of Dominik Hasek. Scott Stevens ahead of Zdeno Chara? Duncan Keith that high? At least I’ll give you, you put Malkin in an appropriate place. The NHL didn’t even have him in the top-100 a few years ago.

   1. 

      Hey Bill, thanks for stopping by. Hasek was an elite goaltender and likely had the greatest eight-year stretch by any goaltender ever. However, Roy played nearly 300 more regular-season games and twice as many playoff games. Brodeur played over 500 more regular-season games and four times as many playoff games. Given that longevity plays a significant factor in these rankings, the contrast is just too substantial to rate Hasek ahead of either Roy or Brodeur.

      Duncan Keith is one of only two players who have debuted since 1991 to win multiple Norris Trophies. He is one of only three defensemen in history to win multiple Norris Trophies, a Conn Smythe, and three Stanley Cups. Whether anyone realizes it or not, his place in history is secure.

      Stevens vs. Chara is a close call by any measure. I have Stevens ahead on the count that he has a Conn Smythe, was a lynchpin for three Stanley Cup winners, played 22 seasons without a single negative plus/minus season, and received votes in the Norris voting in 17 seasons.

      I have no problem if someone wants to throw Mats Sundin into the top-200. I have him just on the fringe. He never had a truly elite season. He finished in the top 10 in Hart voting just once and that was an 8th place finish. He also had zero playoff success. There are just too many players with better resumes for me to slide Sundin into the top-200.

4. 

   Cyclone Taylor never played in the NHL….

   1. 

      Great point! I edited the “rules” for the Hockey 100 to also include early leagues that competed against the NHL for the Stanley Cup, since that was my intent.

5. 

   Why put Beliveau ahead of Bobby Hull?

   1. 

      This is a great question, Parker. The margin here is razor-thin, and I would not begrudge anyone who reversed the order. Both were, of course, dynamite players. Hull finished in the top five of the MVP voting 10 times and the top three eight times. Beliveau finished in the top five nine times and the top three seven times. They each won two Hart trophies. However, Beliveau was the best player on a team that won 10 Stanley Cups. He won the Conn Smythe in 1965 and was awarded the retro Smythe for 1956 (the award didn’t exist until 1965, but the Hockey Hall of Fame, the Society for International Hockey Research, and the Hockey News teamed up to name the players who would have won the award had it always existed). In a close race like this one, Beliveau’s 2-0 lead in Conn Smythe trophies is enough to give him the edge.

      FWIW, I think Hull leaving for the WHA after his age-33 season probably cost him 5-7 spots on this list. He likely had some monster NHL seasons left that could’ve distanced himself from Beliveau.

      1. 

         Where can i find that list of retro Smythe winners?

         1. 

            https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/w0ecg7/til_that_the_the_hockey_hall_of_fame_the_society/

      2. 

         Jake, if you are including “early leagues that competed with the NHL” as you state above, why would Bobby Hull not get credit for his time with the WHL?

         1. 

            Hey Stirlo,

            In the Rules section, I have it stated that for player resumes I include “rival leagues eligible for the Stanley Cup.” Is there somewhere else that you’re seeing “early leagues that competed with the NHL”? If so, let me know, because there should be a disclaimer that these leagues needed to compete for the Stanley Cup. This really only applies to pre-1927.

6. 

   Would you consider moving Ovechkin above Howe when he breaks the goal record and/or adds another Stanley Cup to his resume?

   1. 

      Hey Ethan!

      If Ovechkin is instrumental in another Cup for the Caps (even if it’s not a Conn Smythe performance), then that would certainly be enough. However, I’m not sure he would even need that. As you mentioned, it’s looking pretty clear that he’ll break Gretzky’s goal mark. Howe put up some massive points and award totals, but he did it in a 6-team league. Given how much more difficult it is to win awards and be a statistical leader in a league with 32 teams, it would be pretty hard to keep him behind Howe with a resume that boasts 9 Richard trophies and the all-time goal record. I’d say it’s quite likely Ovi eventually takes over the #2 spot.

7. 

   Tremendous effort and a very interesting list. I don’t think I’ve seen Ovechkin ranked as high as second before but you make some good arguments. I think the counter argument would be that while he’s been a great goal scorer, his all around game has perhaps not been a match for some others – notably Crosby who made more assists, scored more points and was better defensively. Ovechkin’s scoring prowess is obviously exceptional but it seems to be his rating relies almost exclusively on those scoring exploits. There’s nothing wrong with that argument but then it’s tough to justify far lower ratings for other exceptional scorers like Bret Hull or Marcel Dionne.

   1. 

      Stirlo,

      I really appreciate the kind words and comments, and I respect the counter argument. FYI, your comment inspired me to start writing the “Why” for Ovechkin on the top-100 list so you’ll probably see a lot of the same ideas in that post as you’ll read in this comment. I apologize for the length here; I wanted to give your counter argument the proper attention it deserves. No worries if it’s TLDR. With respect to Ovi not being higher in other places, it takes the general public in all sports (including fans/pundits/national writers/list-makers etc.) way longer than it should to properly rate active players. The Sporting News came out with the top 100 baseball players of all-time in 1998 and didn’t have a single player ranked in the top-25 who had debuted in the previous 31 years. It has always been this way. That’s one of the major reasons this site exists. I wouldn’t expect to see Ovechkin rated properly until he retires, or several years after, if ever. There will likely be a subsection of people who consciously or subconsciously hold it against him that he’s not Canadian or American. Biases show up in all kinds of ways in these sorts of discussions. I’m not 100% convinced that Ovi will get his proper due.

      For what it’s worth, I think there’s a good chance that Crosby would’ve ended up #2 on just about every list without the concussion issues. He had three seasons in his prime torpedoed, not to mention whatever lingering effects existed throughout the remainder of his career. For all his exploits, Crosby led the league in points just twice, and finished in the top-5 in goals just twice. Ovechkin has an identical .51 Goals Created per game, which attempts to better measure point contributions than simply taking raw points. That *should* be a stat that Crosby wins convincingly over Ovechkin. Crosby’s career has been spectacular as it is, but it could have been even more so. I’ll also add that everyone behind Gretzky has significant flaws (relatively speaking, of course). If I were giving a player rating (NHL 25 video game style) of the resumes (not as a player in the video game) in the top 10, it would go something like:

      99 Gretzky (No flaws)
      91 Ovechkin (Just 1 Stanley Cup, not a huge assist man, poor defensive rep)
      90 Lemieux (Played 65 games just six times, just 2 playoff successes)
      90 Howe (Way easier to win awards and lead the league with just six teams)
      89 Orr (Expansion era weakest in history of the NHL, done by the age of 27)
      89 Crosby (Just 2 seasons top-5 in goals, led the league in points just twice)
      88 Roy (3 Vezinas lowest of the Roy/Brodeur/Hasek trio, most wins twice)
      86 McDavid (No Stanley Cups)
      86 Jagr (1 Hart, No Conn Smythe, little playoff success outside of Lemieux)
      86 Messier (Zero top-5 finishes in goals, lacked monster point totals)

      The difference between Gretzky and Ovechkin is larger than the difference between Ovechkin and Messier. I appreciate the reference to “all-around game” when it comes to Ovechkin, however, of all of the important things in hockey–and there are many–scoring goals is, by far, the most important, and Ovechkin is, far and away, the greatest there ever was. To be so much better than everyone else at the most important skill in hockey usurps deficiencies in other areas, IMO. Keep in mind, it’s not just goal totals that matter, since it has been harder to score goals in some eras vs. others. It’s what a player did relative to what other players were doing from the same era. Nobody is even close to Ovechkin in this area. Hull and Dionne were solid goal scorers, but their resumes fall well short across the board. Dionne played in the most inflated scoring era in history, never led the league in goals, and has virtually no playoff record to speak of. Hull–a step up from Dionne–led the league in goals three times, but only finished in the top-5 one other time, and he didn’t find playoff success until he joined Cup-ready teams as a veteran late in his career. Mike Bossy probably supports your counterargument better than Dionne and Hull, so I’ll add him to the comparison below.

      Hart Trophies:

      Ovechkin 3
      Hull 0
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 0

      Richard Trophies (led the league in goals)

      Ovechkin 9
      Hull 3
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 2

      Top-5 in Goals

      Ovechkin 15
      Hull 4
      Dionne 6
      Bossy 8

      Conn Smythe Trophies

      Ovechkin 1
      Hull 0
      Dionne 0
      Bossy 1

      Ross Trophies (league scoring leader)

      Ovechkin 1
      Hull 0
      Dionne 1
      Bossy 0

      First Team All-Star Selections

      Ovechkin 8
      Hull 3
      Dionne 2
      Bossy 5

      First or Second Team All-Star Selections

      Ovechkin 12
      Hull 3
      Dionne 4
      Bossy 8

      Adjusted goals

      Ovechkin 999
      Hull 738
      Dionne 610
      Bossy 461

      Adjusted goals per game

      Ovechkin .67
      Hull .58
      Dionne .45
      Bossy .61

      Adjusted points

      Ovechkin 1778
      Hull 1390
      Dionne 1493
      Bossy 906

      Adjusted points per game

      Ovechkin 1.19
      Hull 1.10
      Dionne 1.10
      Bossy 1.20

      Bossy comes in at an impressive 1.20 adjusted points per game over his career, but Ovechkin held on to essentially the same pace as Bossy for 738 more games! The fact that Ovechkin is, by far, the greatest goal scorer (way ahead when adjusted for era) and has done it for as long as he has is what puts him above all of the other elite, but flawed, resumes. I’ll end with a remarkable Ovechkin stat: Post-Original Six, Ovechkin led the NHL in goals 9 times. No other player has even finished in the top-5 more than 8 times. These are epic feats not just relative to the players from his era, but in any era. This all really comes down to who can I make the best argument for at each spot. Nobody touches Gretzky at #1. There are several worthy contenders for the #2 spot, but if it’s a debate, give me Ovi’s side. Cheers!

8. 

   That’s a really great response Jake. You have me convinced – or almost! I think ultimately it’s the winning or lack thereof which is my main concern. As you say it’s very close after Gretzky. I tend to value peak a little more than longevity and so for me Lennie’s is number 2, but it could go anyway.
   I take your point about current players being underrated and you are absolutely right. But I do think caution is sometimes warranted. I don’t think you e done it here, but there is a danger with current players that we start to project what they are going to do rather than what they’ve done. Take Tiger Woods for example. A few years ago people were all too ready to give him the number 1 spot. Now it’s apparent he won’t catch Jack in major wins and his career has collapsed folks are pulling back from Tiger as top dog.

   1. 

      Totally fair and love the dialogue. No doubt that caution is warranted when ranking active athletes. The only way to do it is to be deliberate about treating athletes as if their career ended today. Since everything I do is a resume comparison, that mindset helps avoid the temptation to project. FYI–You probably don’t want to read the Golf 100 and the “Why?” at the top of the list (it was much easier to win a major in the 60s and 70s than the 2000s). Although, given your penchant for peak, I’m a little surprised you aren’t more impressed with Tiger’s resume. That peak is ludicrous!

      1. 

         The argument about the internationalization of the game, and how that has made things more competitive is obviously legitimate. But it’s interesting that despite the trend, the game is still very much dominated by Canadians in terms of great players. By my rough count there are 6 Russians, 6 Americans, 3 Swedes, 2 Czechs, 2 Finns, a Slovak and a Slovenian on your list. That leaves 79 Canadians. That might be more than there would be Americans on an NBA list (I need to look at your version) and certainly more than Americans on a baseball list.

         1. 

            Hey Stirlo,

            I think that’s a function of the fact that the NHL existed for 70 years before the game went full (relatively speaking) global. If you look at the players on the list who began their careers since 1990, 18 of the 36 are from Europe.

9. 

   Where is John Buick

   1. 

      Hi Rick,

      Bucyk is on the honorable mention list. He had a great career, but he was named to just one NHL All-Star 1st team, finished in the top 5 in goals and points just once in his career, and never received a single Hart vote. There are just too many superior resumes over the last 100 years for Bucyk to slide into the top 100.

      Honorable Mention

10. 

    Crosby has to be above Ovechkin. Sidney Crosby is the greatest hockey player of his generation. 3 Cups, 2 Olympic Gold Medals, other best on best gold medals. MVPs you name it. All around maestro. Owns Ovechkin in the playoffs and never had home ice either. Ovechkin has been past the 2nd round one time and never won bronze in a best on best tournament. His legacy believe it or not as largely been a can’t get the job done type deal.He’s primarily out there to score, and being that one dimensional hurts his team as the leader and best player on it. but I’d argue Lemeixh and Bossy were better at it. Cups matter more than goals. By passing Orr, Lemieux, and Howe is crazy too. All have 2+ Cups.

    1. 

       Hey Steve,

       The race for the #2 includes a number of flawed candidates. I explain in detail why Ovechkin should be in the #2 slot at the link next to his name on the list. It addresses all of your points among many other things. Comparing resumes and assessing impact should involve a holistic approach. Stanley Cups is just one factor, and if you concentrate too much on that one factor, you end up with a really wonky conclusion like claiming Alexander Ovechkin is only a top 10-12 player. You don’t think Ovechkin would’ve had more playoff success playing with Evgeni Malkin in his prime? Or Marc Andre Fleury or Kris Letang? Or Team Canada? You don’t think Ovechkin would have had more playoff success if he and Crosby switched places? The Capitals “juggernaut” that you speak of was Ovechkin. The franchise won three division titles in its entire 30-year history before Ovechkin. The fact that they were able to win 11 division titles with him despite lackluster rosters is all you need to know about how important he was to winning. It takes more than one great player to routinely compete for Stanley Cup titles which is why it cannot be emphasized enough: Ovechkin led the Washington Capitals–yes, the Washington Capitals–to a Stanley Cup.

       The most important skill in hockey is putting the puck in the net. Ovechkin and Crosby were rookies in the same season, and have played the same number of seasons. Ovechkin has scored 272 more goals, won more Hart trophies, and was named to twice as many NHL All-Star 1st teams. Had Crosby been able to stay healthy–particularly his age 23-25 seasons–we might be having a different conversation.

11. 

    Replying to your reply: It defies logic to have Ovechkin anywhere near where you have him. Crosby has stayed healthy. He’s broke Gretzky’s record of 19 seasons of a point per game or more, and he’s got an outside chance at 2000 points. He’s also got 200 playoff points. He didn’t stop playing in 2011 like you make it sound. Every player and coach ever including Capitals will tell you Crosby is over Ovechkin. So I think you’re extremely misguided. A guy who’s gonna finish yes 1st in goals but barely top 10 in points and not even top 30 in assists with one championship and no important medals at the weakest position in the sport. That pretty obvious. What it tells me is he’s a prolific goal scorer but overall player? Top 10-12. He’s hasn’t even hit over 90 points since 2010. That’s the Obama administration. Balancing goals and assists for a pure goal scorer helps you win multiple times or a lot (Bossy for example, Esposito). When it’s one dimensional it’s Bobby Hull (One Cup). He also had Backstrom (HOF), Carlson (Norris Finalist, and Green (Norris winner) and 3 Vezina winning goalies and made it past the 2nd round once. Largely becuase of Crosby standing in the way. Ovechkin isn’t even a point per game player in the playoffs. His resume is so incomplete I think you should revisit. As for the international? He played on Russia the 2nd best hockey country in the world. To not even grab a best on best medal perhaps proves my point further. Russia medaled in 1998 and 2002 without him at the Olympics with NHLers, and I bet will medal after him. Caps have made more Eastern Confrence Finals as an organization without him being rostered. Every great player ever in any sport are always playing deep in the playoffs many a times. Not him it seems and he’s had the teams do it both internationally and in the NHL.

    1. 

       Steve,

       If you read the “why” link for Ovechkin, then you know that Ovechkin at #2 doesn’t defy logic. There isn’t another player whose “why” is more convincing than Ovechkin’s. What defies logic is your assertion that Ovechkin makes teams worse. Again, I lay out the case for Ovechkin at the link on the list, but I’ll respond to what you have written…

       He’s broke Gretzky’s record of 19 seasons of a point per game or more, and he’s got an outside chance at 2000 points.

       True. That’s a nice statistic. However, I doubt you’ll want to start talking about records being broken. Ovechkin has a massive advantage over Crosby there. He has led the NHL in goals a record nine times. There hasn’t been a player to debut since 1979 who has even finished in the top 5 in goals more than six times. That is much more impressive, and there are dozens more just like it.

       He didn’t stop playing in 2011 like you make it sound.

       I think you are attributing something to me that I didn’t write. Had Crosby been healthy for his age 23-25 seasons, it’s possible that he’d have picked up the hardware necessary to get to the #2 spot.

       Every player and coach ever including Capitals will tell you Crosby is over Ovechkin.

       You mean to tell me that most North American coaches favor a North American over a Russian? Shocking! Additionally, there is almost no chance that every Capitals coach and player (or even most) would say this, so I think you are engaging in hyperbole here.

       What it tells me is he’s a prolific goal scorer but overall player? Top 10-12.

       Luc Robitaille and Brendan Shanahan were prolific goal scorers. Ovechkin is, by far, the most prolific goal scorer in history. It’s not even remotely close. Additionally, goals are the most important statistic in hockey. A goal is significantly more important than an assist. Knocking Ovechkin for a lack of assists is like knocking Michael Jordan for a lack of assists. They’re doing the hard part themselves. There is nothing more important than scoring.

       Balancing goals and assists for a pure goal scorer helps you win multiple times or a lot (Bossy for example, Esposito). When it’s one dimensional it’s Bobby Hull (One Cup).

       Playing for dynasties is what helps you win multiple times. Bossy did, Hull didn’t. Do you really think that Bobby Hull wouldn’t have several cups had he played for Montreal? Do you really think Bossy would have won a cup had he played for the Rangers? The importance of balancing goals and assists is much more applicable to a center. Ovechkin’s job was to put the puck in the net, and he did it better than anyone who has ever played the game.

       He also had Backstrom (HOF), Carlson (Norris Finalist, and Green (Norris winner) and 3 Vezina winning goalies and made it past the 2nd round once. Largely becuase of Crosby standing in the way.

       Attempting to fluff up Ovechkin’s supporting class is an argument that you’re gonna want to stay away from if you’re trying to argue for Crosby. Backstrom is not a Hall of Famer, and if he does get in, he would immediately have one of the weakest resumes of anyone in the hockey Hall of Fame. Ovechkin has never played with someone even remotely as strong as Evgeni Malkin. Green stopped being a productive player at 25. Crosby played with 35% more All-Stars than Ovechkin (42-31), and that number jumps to 55% (34-22) if we include prime seasons (through 2018-2019 which was the last time either was named as a 2nd Team All Star or better). Despite playing with far inferior top-end talent, Ovechkin led the Caps to 11 division titles. Crosby led the Pens to 4 division titles. How did the Caps win that many division titles with the Pens having 55% more players named to all star teams? Ovechkin was, more or less, a one man show, which can only take a franchise so far. The fact that he was able to win a Stanley Cup for a team with such a talent deficit is really impressive.

       As for the international? He played on Russia the 2nd best hockey country in the world. To not even grab a best on best medal perhaps proves my point further. Russia medaled in 1998 and 2002 without him at the Olympics with NHLers, and I bet will medal after him. Caps have made more Eastern Confrence Finals as an organization without him being rostered.

       There’s so much to unpack here. First, it’s the 21st century. Russia is not the clear 2nd best hockey country in the world, and hasn’t been. Canada is–and has been– #1. Then there is a cluster with the US, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and the Czech Republic. Second, Ovechkin did win a best-on-best medal at the 2005 World Championship. He’s played in only 26 best-on-best games in his entire career, which is such a paltry sample size that it represents just 1% of the number of NHL games he’s played. Even still, Ovechkin has done just fine. Aside from medaling at the 2005 World Championship, he eliminated Canada with the game-winner at the 2006 Olympics, and was the only player not in the gold medal game to be named to the all-tournament team. Third, you have implied here that Ovechkin makes teams worse. This is not an argument made in good faith.

       I will reiterate that there are several worthy candidates for the second spot (Ovechkin, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Roy, and Crosby). However, they all have flaws. A good argument for the second spot can be made for each. However, the best argument can be made for Ovechkin.

12. 

    I read what you wrote, I read the why. I disagree with your opinion.

    Last thing I’ll say on this just a few points:

    The IIHF World Championships are not best on best. World Juniors is hardly best on best but you can qualify it as that for that level of play. I’m telling you there is no coincidence that Ovechkin has been past the round once and has almost no best on best international success.

    The Caps had all those one seeds and division titles they should’ve advanced farther. If they were great in the regular season there’s no reason they couldn’t carry that over year after year. That’s the most confusing thing about the ranking. He’s the face of most of that failure. I promise you no all time great as high as you have a Ovechkin ranked or even a few spots lower is making past his 2nd round only once despite the consistent times of entering the playoffs as either the top seed or close to it. I’d love for you to find me another example.

    As for where Crosby ranks I don’t know if 2 was a possibility.

    I’d argue it’s possible but I think most would put Wayne and Orr ahead. I’d put Crosby with Mario just under Gretzky and Orr who both fundamentally changed the game. Howe I rounds out the top 5. I just can’t justify putting Ovechkin over those guys. I didn’t mean he makes teams worse. Perhaps I meant his influence his limited in terms of an all around game as much as those other guys.

    As for the age 23-25 seasons I’m not really sure what you mean, I assume it’s when Crosby was out a lot, but I vividly remember Crosby being head and shoulders above every one when he was healthy. Ovechkin was never head and shoulders above the way Crosby was and my Rangers played them both often in the playoffs. And it’s certainly easier to make an all star team a winger than it is a center due to the depth of center icemen in the league.

    Anyways… it’s your opinion. Take care.

    1. 

       Hey Steve,

       I appreciate your perspective.

       “The IIHF World Championships are not best on best.”

       The NHL had a lockout in 2005. The best players in the world were at the 2005 World Championship.

       “As for the age 23-25 seasons I’m not really sure what you mean, I assume it’s when Crosby was out a lot,”

       Crosby’s concussion issues started in his age 23 season and robbed him of two prime years in which he potentially could’ve won the Hart, Ross, and another Cup or two. Had he been healthy for those seasons, there might not be a debate at #2.

       “I promise you no all time great as high as you have a Ovechkin ranked or even a few spots lower is making past his 2nd round only once despite the consistent times of entering the playoffs as either the top seed or close to it. I’d love for you to find me another example.”

       RE: “…find me another example.” Can you find me an example of an all-time player who had less support than Ovechkin? There is nobody close. Instead of solely lamenting the lack of deep runs, it might be prudent to also laud him for what he did in Washington with a meager supporting cast. 11 division titles and a Stanley Cup for a previously moribund franchise like the Caps is a hell of a legacy.

       “I’d argue it’s possible but I think most would put Wayne and Orr ahead. I’d put Crosby with Mario just under Gretzky and Orr who both fundamentally changed the game.”

       Orr was great, obviously, but there are three reasons why he isn’t as strong of a candidate at #2 as the others:

       1). Orr played only 657 games. Howe played nearly triple Orr’s total. Ovechkin and Crosby are more than double and counting. It just doesn’t make sense to rate him ahead of similarly accomplished players whose careers lasted more than twice as long.

       2). Orr played in a small, homogenized league. The pool of players in the NHL was nearly 100% Canadian during his career. The talent pool that he played against isn’t in the same stratosphere as what Ovechkin and Crosby have faced in a fully globalized NHL. Not only has the NHL talent pool expanded across the globe, Orr didn’t have to compete against many of the best players who did exist at the time. The Red Army teams were world class. Modern players play against all of the best players. Additionally, Orr had to beat out far fewer players for Hart, Norris, and All-NHL consideration in 6, 12, and 14 team leagues. Ovechkin and Crosby have had to beat out 2-3 times the number of players to win awards and lead the league in categories like goals and points. They’ve also had to beat out 2-3 times the number of teams to win Stanley Cups. The degree of difficulty that they have faced is standard deviations away from what Orr faced.

       3). Orr also played in the most inflated offensive era in league history. The NHL added six teams in 1967 and two more three years later. Goal scoring by the Original Six teams went through the roof as they clobbered the new franchises for the better part of a decade. This doesn’t mean Orr wasn’t an elite player, it’s just another degree of difficulty factor that absolutely needs to part of all inter-era comparisons.

       Again, I appreciate the discussion.