Who is better, Harvey or Hanley?
Doug Harvey leads with a GOAT score of 93.0 against 19.5 for Joel Hanley — a gap of 73.5 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Doug Harvey above Joel Hanley: 93.0 vs 19.5. Doug Harvey leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Harvey wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Hanley wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/doug-harvey-vs-ros-joel-hanley
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Harvey leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Hanley — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Harvey | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 303 | 642 |
| 🏳️ Hanley | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 29 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HarveyRetired | HanleyActive · Calgary Flames |
|---|---|---|
| Norris Trophies | 7 | — |
| Stanley Cups | 6 | — |
| First-team All-Star selections | 10 | — |
| Games played | 1,113 | — |
| Career assists | 452 | — |
| NHL games | — | 314 |
| NHL goals | — | 5 |
| NHL assists | — | 40 |
| NHL points | — | 45 |
| Number | — | 44 |
| Dominance w25% | 94 | 19.7 |
| Peak w20% | 96 | 23.9 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 17.7 |
| Honours w20% | 96 | 15.7 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 20.5 |
Doug Harvey leads with a GOAT score of 93.0 against 19.5 for Joel Hanley — a gap of 73.5 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Hanley does not lead any of the five categories; Harvey is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Harvey: 93.0, Hanley: 19.5.
Make your case for Harvey vs Hanley. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.