Comparing Hull & Ovechkin's playoff resumes

[Hockey Outsider]

Overview

The consensus is Bobby Hull and Alex Ovechkin are the two greatest left wings in NHL history. Both players have been criticized because their teams only won one Stanley Cup, but arguably should have won more. The consensus on HFBoards seems to be that both players have generally been good in the playoffs, but they lose ground relative to rivals who have more impressive playoff resumes (Sidney Crosby for Ovechkin, and Jean Beliveau for Hull).

I suspect that most people reading this thread have a fairly good sense of how Ovechkin's playoff career has unfolded. I wanted to see how that compares to Hull's.

First impressions

Before getting into the stats, first let's do a high-level overview of their playoff careers.

Alex Ovechkin had an explosive start to his playoff career. I'd describe him as a one-man army. Playing on teams that lacked depth and experience, Ovechkin was a force of nature. He scored goals at a prodigious rate, and was a remarkably creative, versatile player. He was also a ferocious hitter. From 2008 to 2011, Ovechkin led the playoffs in PPG (tied with Crosby), but his team lost in the first round twice, and the second round twice. Ovechkin received relatively little blame, as he played well, and his teams were too thin to seriously contend for the Stanley Cup.

It was a different story over the next six years. From 2012 to 2017, Ovechkin struggled in the playoffs. He spent less time carrying the puck up the ice (resulting in fewer breakaways and odd-man rushes), and more time waiting in the faceoff circle for his teammates to feed him the puck. Ovechkin only scored 40 points in 60 playoff games (which put him tied for 30th among players with 30+ games - he was 9th in PPG in the regular season among players with 200+ games). The Capitals won three division titles and two President's Trophies, and still couldn't advance past the second round. Ovechkin was frequently criticized on (and off) HFBoards.

In 2018, the narrative changed. Ovechkin won the Conn Smythe as the Capitals won their first Stanley Cup in franchise history. Stylistically, Ovechkin wasn't playing much differently than he had over the past several years, but he had tremendous chemistry with Evgeny Kuznetsov, who had a Conn Smythe calibre playoff run himself. Ovechkin's reputation as a choker vanished (it felt the same as what had happened with Steve Yzerman after 1997). Since then, Ovechkin had four years of sub-PPG playoff hockey with four consecutive first-round exits (but nobody seemed to hold that against him, since he was no longer a "choker").

Comments are welcome from anyone who followed Hull's playoff career as it unfolded. As I see it, there are three significant differences between Hull's playoff journey, and Ovechkin's. First, Hull won a Stanley Cup in 1961. He was 22 years old, and this was during his 4th NHL season. Therefore, despite the Blackhawks never again winning the Cup, Hull never had the "choker" reputation that (fairly or not) tarnished Ovechkin until he was 32. Second, Hull appeared to be more consistent than Ovechkin. He never had stretch like Ovechkin from ages 26 to 31 (where he was scoring under 0.70 PPG for half a decade). But I'm not sure if Hull ever had a stretch as good as Ovechkin in 2009 and 2010. Third, Ovechkin never had a player anywhere near the calibre of Stan Mikita on his team. We know that, in general, Hull and Mikita played on different lines and, generally, opponents focused on stopping Hull. In theory this means that the Blackhawks would have an easier time advancing if Hull was contained (since you have a top 25 player all-time centering the second line). On the other hand, Mikita's playoff resume is clearly underwhelming for a player of his stature (from 1964 to 1968, he won four Art Ross trophies in five years and scored 1.25 PPG in the regular season, but only 0.86 PPG in the postseason), so the actual support Hull was getting was much less than we'd expect.

Data

In order for the analysis to be meaningful, we should try to make this an apples-to-apples comparison. In Ovechkin's case, I'm considering his entire playoff career (2008 to 2022). In Hull's case, I'm considering his entire playoff career (1959 to 1972), except for the 1980 season (when he was 41, and his team was swept in the first round). I considered excluding Hull's 1959 season (he was only 21st in scoring in the regular season, and was ineffective in a loss to the heavily favoured Canadiens), but for the sake of completeness, I've included it. Overall, this analysis looks at Hull from ages 20 to 33, and Ovechkin from ages 22 to 36.

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Analysis
As we all know, it's hard to objectively compare playoff resumes. I'm going to use a lot of different approaches to compare them. Not every point is equally important, but I wanted to err on the side of looking at more information, rather than less. (It's also important to emphasize that the playoffs were structured differently. During Ovechkin's entire career, 16 of 30-32 teams made the postseason, and there are four rounds. During most of Hull's career, four of six teams made the playoffs, and there were only two rounds - except for the last few years, where eight of 12-14 teams qualified, and there were three rounds).

Stanley Cups won
- This metric, on its own, isn't overly meaningful. But it's often the first number that people look at when comparing playoff resumes. As discussed above, both men won one Stanley Cup.
- Conclusion: draw

Stanley Cups won relative to expectations
- This is a much more interesting and meaningful concept (though it isn't perfect, as the difference between the number of Cups won, and the expected number of Cups, shouldn't be ascribed to just one player). And, of course, it isn't obvious how to calculate this.
- If we simply assume that each team has a 1/N chance of winning the Stanley Cup each year (where N is the number of teams in the league), Hull was expected to win about 1.9 Stanley Cups over his career, and Ovechkin was expected to win about 0.5 (so Ovechkin, relative to expectations, did much better than Hull).
- Of course, the likelihood of a team winning the Cup can be significantly higher (or lower) than 1/N, so the previous method is at best a vague approximation. From 2008 to 2022, Washington was the #1 team in the NHL in the regular season (suggesting that their likelihood of winning the Stanley Cup was much higher than 1/N). From 1959 to 1972, Chicago was the #2 team in the NHL in the regular season (suggesting their likelihood was also higher than 1/N, but probably not as high as Washington's). I'm not sure how to refine the calculation further. I'm fairly sure that Ovechkin's Capitals would have been expected to win fewer Stanley Cups than Hull's Blackhawks (which means Ovechkin and his team did better relative to expectations), but I'm not sure how else to quantify this.
- Conclusion: edge to Ovechkin

Conn Smythe trophies
- Ovechkin won the Conn Smythe in 2018. Some question if he deserved it over Evgeny Kuznetsov, but the consensus is Ovechkin was at worst the 2nd most valuable Capital that spring.
- Hull played around half of his playoff career before the Conn Smythe was introduced (six of his thirteen playoffs), including the year he won the Stanley Cup. The Society for International Hockey Research retroactively selected Pierre Pilote as the Conn Smythe winner in 1961. Looking at the stats, Hull appears to be one of four players with a valid argument for that trophy (the other two being Chicago's goalie Glen Hall, and Detroit's Gordie Howe).
- Conclusion: you have to give Ovechkin the edge in this category, even if it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison

Rank in leaguewide scoring
- Hull ranks 1st in playoff scoring over the span of his career (1959 to 1972). He's 17% ahead of the closest player (Jean Beliveau).
- Ovechkin ranks 4th in playoff scoring over the span of his career (2008 to 2022). Exclude non-Canadians (to try to make this more of an apples-to-apples comparison, considering the difference in the talent pools), and Ovechkin would rank 2nd, decisively behind Crosby (who's 39% ahead).
- Conclusion: edge to Hull

Rank in leaguewide scoring (PPG)
- It's probably more appropriate to look at PPG, because unlike in the regular season, not every player gets the same opportunity to play the same number of games.
- Hull ranks 3rd in PPG in the playoffs over the span of his career, behind Esposito and Howe. (I'm using a threshold of 58 games. Why 58? That's half the number of games Hull played in). Hull is close to the lead though - he's 0.03 PPG behind both Esposito and Howe.
- Ovechkin ranks 8th in PPG in the playoffs over the span of his career. (I'm using a threshold of 73 games, because that's half the number of games he played in). Exclude non-Canadians and Ovechkin would rank 4th (behind Crosby, Getzlaf, and Point). But Ovechkin is well behind Crosby (who's ahead by 0.16 PPG) and even Getzlaf (0.13 PPG).
- Conclusion: edge to Hull

Leading his team in scoring
- Hull played in 21 playoff series over the course of his career. He led his team in scoring (tied or outright) 12 times (57% of the time).
- Ovechkin has played in 23 playoff series. He led his team in scoring (tied or outright) 11 times (48% of the time).
- Conclusion: edge to Hull. (It's interesting to note the patterns. Hull was consistent, leading his team in scoring 12 times in a span of 19 series from 1961 to 1972. Ovechkin was boom-or-bust. He led the Capitals in scoring in seven of his first eight series, which spanned 2008 to 2012. The rest of his career, he only led the Capitals in scoring four times in 15 series. This supports the notion that Ovechkin had a big change in his style and productivity, while Hull didn't).

PPG series
- Hull scored at least one point per game in 14 of his 21 series (67%)
- Ovechkin scored at least one point per game in 14 of 23 series (61%)
- Conclusion: the level of offense was slightly higher during Hull's era, so I'll call this a draw.

Impact on goal differential
- Based on the R-ON/R-OFF data (from @overpass), Hull has outstanding results. From 1960 to 1972 (we don't have the numbers for his three games in 1959), when Hull wasn't on the ice, the Blackhawks were well below-average at even strength (scoring 0.86 goals for every one allowed). When he was on the ice, they scored 1.19 goals for every on allowed. That increase is 38%, which puts Hull ahead of some very strong playoff performers (including Beliveau, Lafleur, Fedorov, Kurri, etc).
- Based on the same analysis (using the ES data from naturalstattrick.com), the Capitals were slightly better than the Blachhawks when their best player was off the ice (scoring 0.88 goals for every one allowed), and a bit less effective when star was on the ice (scoring 1.09 goals for every one allowed). Overall, this is a 24% increase - a strong and impressive result, but not as good as Hull's.
- Conclusion: edge to Hull

Physicality
- Ovechkin was clearly a more physical player than Hull (and on top of that, Hull took minor penalties at nearly twice the rate of Ovechkin).
- Conclusion: decisive edge to Ovechkin

Series W/L records
- Ovechkin's team played in 23 playoff series (10 wins, 13 losses). Hull's team played in 21 playoff series (9 wins, 12 losses). Both had a 43% win percentage. But let's dig deeper.
- The Capitals had a better record than their opponent in 16 series, and a worse record in 7. The Blackhawks had a better record than their opponent in 9 series, and a worse record in 11 (plus one series with an equal record). Hull's teams ultimately won the same percentage of series as Ovechkin's teams, but, at least on paper, based on regular season records, would have been expected to win far fewer.
- I count nine series where the Capitals should have been heavy favourites (their win percentage was at least 5% higher than their opponent's). Washington only went 3-6 in those series. The Blackhawks had seven series where they should have been heavy favourites (same criteria), and they went 3-4. Both teams were upset quite a bit, which explains why they won fewer Stanley Cups than they should have, but the Capitals were upset more.
- The Capitals were heavy underdogs in five series (their win percentage was at least 5% lower than their opponent's). They went 2-3. The Blackhawks had nine such series, and they went 4-5. Not much difference here.
- In series that were "close" (the difference in win percentage is under 5% in either direction), the Capitals went 5-4, and the Blackhawks went 2-3. Edge to Washington.
- Conclusion: it's questionable if we should attribute these results to one player. But, going down that road, Hull's team won series with the same frequency as Ovechkin's, despite Washington being the favourite to win (at least on paper) much more frequently.

Scoring in games where the opponent can be eliminated
- This is the "killer instinct" category
- Based on @pnep's research, Hull scored 23 points in 15 games where Chicago could eliminate their opponent (1.53 PPG). Ovechkin scored 19 points in 28 games where Washington could eliminate their opponent (0.68 PPG).
- Conclusion: decisive advantage for Hull, who scored at more than double Ovechkin's rate when their teams could close out of a series.

Scoring in games when facing elimination
- This is the "backs against the wall" category
- Based on @pnep's research, Hull scored 17 points in 17 games where Chicago faced elimination (1.00 PPG). - Ovechkin scored 24 points in 28 games where Washington faced elimination (0.86 PPG).
- Conclusion: advantage for Hull, though much closer than the previous category

Game 7 performances
- Hull played in five games 7's in his career (2-3 team record). He scored 3 goals, 4 assists.
- Ovechkin played in 12 game 7's (4-8 team record). He scored 4 goals, 4 assists.
- Conclusion: decisive edge to Hull, who had one fewer point in seven fewer game 7's.

Scoring in the Stanley Cup finals
- Hull scored 28 points in 26 games in his four trips to the Stanley Cup finals. He led his team in scoring (tied or outright) three times, and was T-2nd the other time. (He was 1st, T-1st, T-3rd and T-5th looking at both teams).
- Ovechkin scored 5 points in 5 games in his one trip to the Stanley Cup finals. He ranked 4th on his team in scoring. (He was 5th looking at both teams).
- Conclusion: edge to Hull, who produced at a higher rate over a much larger number of games (granted it was easier to get to the SC Finals then), and ranked higher relative to his teammates and opponents.

Overtime
- Hull's team went to overtime nine times (five wins, four losses). Hull had 1 goal and 1 assist in OT.
- Ovechkin has played in 44 overtime games (19 wins, 25 losses). He has three assists in the extra sessions. - - Conclusion: decisive edge to Hull, who had one fewer point in 35(!) fewer OT games.

Durability
- Ovechkin played in all of Washington's 147 playoff games over the course of his career.
- Hull played in 116 of Chicago's 118 playoff games during his career.
- Conclusion: edge to Ovechkin

Other factors
- Clutch scoring. It would be interesting to look into "clutch" scoring (beyond overtime) - such as scoring the tying goal or winning goal in the 2nd half of the third period - but I don't know if there's a way to do this short of manually going through every single game log. (Someone else is welcome to do this).
- Goals vs assists. I didn't do a deeper dive because both players are clearly more focused on shooting than passing. Hull was a bit more versatile (in the sense that he had slightly more balance between goals and assists), but the difference is small enough that it isn't meaningful.
- ES vs PP scoring. I'm not going to do a deep dive here either. Although this can be useful in describing how the players produce offense, ultimately a goal counts for a goal, regardless of the situation. (Hull appeared to be slightly more productive at ES, and Ovechkin slightly more productive with the man advantage, but it's close).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Conclusion
Overall, Hull appears to have been a better playoff performer than Ovechkin. He ranked higher among his peers in production (both in total and per-game, even after we exclude non-Canadians to account for Ovechkin facing a larger talent pool). Hull drove his team's ES differential to a larger extent. He led his team in scoring more often (series by series), and helped his team win about as often as Ovechkin's Capitals (despite his team being the underdog far more often). Hull scored more in overtime, more in the Stanley Cup Finals, more in game 7's, and vastly more when his team could eliminate their opponents (all of which are small data points, but they're all pointing in the same direction). Hull never had a span where he was as unproductive as Ovechkin was from ages 26 to 32 (0.67 PPG over the span of 60 games). I think you'd have to place an unreasonably high value on Ovechkin's Conn Smythe trophy and/or body-checking to argue that he's ahead of Hull.

 

[JackSlater]

Interesting analysis, pretty much in line with what I expected. Post-2010 Ovechkin was quite one dimensional offensively and that is often a bigger issue in the playoffs where teams can focus more on matchups. He was very underrated as a playoff performer early in his career though when he was a dynamic player but his team wasn't there. Hull was pretty much Hull throughout his NHL career.

 

[jigglysquishy]

An Ovechkin thread in HoH.

I guess MJ will pop in and tell everyone we're idiots for anything besides complete worship of Ovechkin.

I have Hull slightly but decisively ahead all time.

Ovechkin has the unfortunate reality that his peak play was on weak playoff teams.

 

[JackSlater]

An Ovechkin thread in HoH.

I guess MJ will pop in and tell everyone we're idiots for anything besides complete worship of Ovechkin.

I have Hull slightly but decisively ahead all time.

Ovechkin has the unfortunate reality that his peak play was on weak playoff teams.

I think we can expect the Conn Smythe trophy, the Canadian media, and the population of Canada to loom large.

 

[The Panther]

I have, like, no clear concept of Bobby Hull.

Never seen the guy play a hockey game (just random highlights, generally in poor quality). I've read about him, most recently from Tretiak's book.

With most legends, there are descriptions of their style, or consensus on their effect, so that I can get a good idea. For example, with Rocket Richard I feel I have a very good idea of how he played and what he did. But I don't have this with Hull, at all.

I mean, I know he could skate and rip a slapshot. But I've heard / read very mixed views on his ability to play within a team concept ("selfish player", etc.) or to elevate his teams' winning capacity. He was a He-man physically, but could he hit / check? I don't know. Was he a good playmaker? No idea. He seemed to age very well, but even that has the WHA spanner thrown into the mix.

 

[pnep]

- Clutch scoring.

Players PO Scoring, "Clutch Score" situations (PO Seasons 1918-2022).

"Clutch Score" is defined as scoring in OT or 2nd half of the third period and when score is tied (including 0-0) or team is leading by 1 goal/trailing by 1 goal​

GAPTS_Clutch_PO - go-ahead PTS (scoring in OT or 2nd half of the third period while game is tied, incl. 0-0)

Player	GAG_Clutch_PO	GAAST_Clutch_PO	GAPTS_Clutch_PO
Joe Sakic	11​	7​	18​
Brett Hull	10​	7​	17​
Adam Oates	1​	14​	15​
Patrick Kane	7​	7​	14​
Wayne Gretzky	5​	9​	14​
Sidney Crosby	2​	11​	13​
Mark Messier	2​	11​	13​
Claude Lemieux	9​	3​	12​
Mike Modano	7​	5​	12​
Ondrej Palat	6​	6​	12​
Russ Courtnall	5​	7​	12​
Evgeni Malkin	4​	8​	12​
Joe Thornton	3​	9​	12​
Patrick Marleau	7​	4​	11​
Esa Tikkanen	5​	6​	11​
Justin Williams	5​	6​	11​
Doug Gilmour	4​	7​	11​
Nikita Kucherov	3​	8​	11​
Nicklas Lidström	3​	8​	11​
Victor Hedman	1​	10​	11​
Daniel Briere	5​	5​	10​
Jaromír Jágr	5​	5​	10​
Alex Ovechkin	5​	5​	10​
Nicklas Backstrom	4​	6​	10​
Jari Kurri	4​	6​	10​
Henri Richard	4​	6​	10​
Jonathan Toews	4​	6​	10​
Brian Bellows	3​	7​	10​
David Krejci	2​	8​	10​
Bobby Hull	2​	1​	3​

GTPTS_Clutch_PO - game tying PTS (scoring in 2nd half of the third period while team is trailing by 1 goal)

Player	GTG_Clutch_PO	GTAST_Clutch_PO	GTPTS_Clutch_PO
Jaromír Jágr	4​	8​	12​
Joe Pavelski	7​	3​	10​
Cam Neely	7​	2​	9​
Daniel Briere	5​	4​	9​
Nicklas Backstrom	3​	6​	9​
Wayne Gretzky	3​	6​	9​
Craig Janney	2​	7​	9​
Chris Pronger	0​	9​	9​
Patrick Kane	4​	4​	8​
Al MacInnis	4​	4​	8​
Alex Ovechkin	4​	4​	8​
Claude Lemieux	4​	3​	7​
Maurice Richard	4​	3​	7​
Ted Lindsay	3​	4​	7​
Jeremy Roenick	3​	4​	7​
Dan Boyle	2​	5​	7​
Duncan Keith	2​	5​	7​
Larry Robinson	2​	5​	7​
Ron Francis	1​	6​	7​
Sergei Zubov	0​	7​	7​
Bobby Hull	1​	0​	1​

1GLPTS_Clutch_PO - 1 goal lead PTS (scoring in 2nd half of the third period while team is leading by 1 goal)

Player	1GLG_Clutch_PO	1GLAST_Clutch_PO	1GLPTS_Clutch_PO
Wayne Gretzky	5​	7​	12​
Doug Gilmour	7​	4​	11​
Sidney Crosby	3​	8​	11​
Jari Kurri	6​	3​	9​
Joe Mullen	4​	5​	9​
Gordie Howe	4​	4​	8​
Mark Messier	3​	5​	8​
Scott Stevens	1​	7​	8​
Bobby Hull	0​	8​	8​
Mario Lemieux	5​	2​	7​
Peter Forsberg	4​	3​	7​
Red Kelly	4​	3​	7​
Brendan Shanahan	4​	3​	7​
Mats Sundin	4​	3​	7​
Bryan Trottier	4​	3​	7​
George Armstrong	3​	4​	7​
Ryan Getzlaf	3​	4​	7​
Joe Juneau	3​	4​	7​
Mark Recchi	3​	4​	7​
Jeff Carter	2​	5​	7​
Sergei Fedorov	1​	6​	7​
Valtteri Filppula	1​	6​	7​
Alex Ovechkin	2​	0​	2​

GAPTS_GTPTS_1GLPTS_Clutch_PO - go-ahead PTS + game tying PTS + 1 goal lead PTS (scoring in OT or 2nd half of the third period while game is tied or team is trailing/leading by 1 goal)

Player	GAPTS_Clutch_PO	GTPTS_Clutch_PO	1GLPTS_Clutch_PO	TOTPTS_Clutch_PO
Wayne Gretzky	14​	9​	12​	35​
Patrick Kane	14​	8​	6​	28​
Joe Sakic	18​	6​	3​	27​
Mark Messier	13​	6​	8​	27​
Doug Gilmour	11​	4​	11​	26​
Sidney Crosby	13​	2​	11​	26​
Adam Oates	15​	5​	5​	25​
Jaromír Jágr	10​	12​	3​	25​
Brett Hull	17​	6​	1​	24​
Joe Pavelski	8​	10​	5​	23​
Evgeni Malkin	12​	6​	5​	23​
Jari Kurri	10​	4​	9​	23​
Joe Thornton	12​	4​	6​	22​
Claude Lemieux	12​	7​	3​	22​
Peter Forsberg	8​	6​	7​	21​
Daniel Briere	10​	9​	2​	21​
Maurice Richard	9​	7​	4​	20​
Justin Williams	11​	3​	6​	20​
Jonathan Toews	10​	6​	4​	20​
Brendan Shanahan	9​	4​	7​	20​
Sergei Zubov	9​	7​	4​	20​
Alex Ovechkin	10​	8​	2​	20​
Nikita Kucherov	11​	4​	5​	20​
Craig Janney	8​	9​	3​	20​
Nicklas Backstrom	10​	9​	1​	20​
Esa Tikkanen	11​	4​	4​	19​
Ondrej Palat	12​	2​	5​	19​
Nathan MacKinnon	7​	6​	6​	19​
Brad Marchand	9​	5​	5​	19​
Mike Modano	12​	3​	4​	19​
David Krejci	10​	3​	6​	19​
Marián Hossa	8​	5​	6​	19​
Mats Sundin	7​	4​	7​	18​
Steve Thomas	6​	6​	6​	18​
Bobby Smith	8​	6​	4​	18​
Steve Yzerman	8​	4​	6​	18​
Patrick Marleau	11​	2​	5​	18​
Al MacInnis	5​	8​	5​	18​
Nicklas Lidström	11​	3​	4​	18​
Joe Mullen	4​	5​	9​	18​
Victor Hedman	11​	2​	5​	18​
Jamie Langenbrunner	9​	3​	6​	18​
Ron Francis	5​	7​	6​	18​
Mark Recchi	7​	3​	7​	17​
Bryan Trottier	7​	3​	7​	17​
Henri Richard	10​	2​	5​	17​
Jeremy Roenick	6​	7​	4​	17​
Denis Savard	8​	5​	4​	17​
Corey Perry	9​	3​	5​	17​
Gordie Howe	5​	4​	8​	17​
Logan Couture	6​	6​	5​	17​
Sergei Fedorov	6​	4​	7​	17​
Rod Brind'Amour	8​	6​	3​	17​
Larry Robinson	6​	7​	3​	16​
Mario Lemieux	6​	3​	7​	16​
Ted Lindsay	4​	7​	5​	16​
Larry Murphy	8​	4​	4​	16​
Chris Kunitz	7​	3​	6​	16​
Duncan Keith	8​	7​	1​	16​
Glenn Anderson	9​	1​	6​	16​
Russ Courtnall	12​	1​	3​	16​
Shayne Corson	9​	4​	3​	16​
Patrice Bergeron	9​	4​	3​	16​
Ray Bourque	7​	6​	3​	16​
John Tonelli	6​	5​	4​	15​
Scott Stevens	5​	2​	8​	15​
Cam Neely	5​	9​	1​	15​
Bernie Nicholls	6​	5​	4​	15​
Valtteri Filppula	6​	2​	7​	15​
Guy Carbonneau	7​	2​	6​	15​
Bobby Hull	3​	1​	8​	12​

GWPTS_Clutch_PO - Game Winning PTS (scoring in OT or 2nd half of the third period)

Player	GWG_Clutch_PO	GWAST_Clutch_PO	GWPTS_Clutch_PO
Joe Sakic	10​	7​	17​
Brett Hull	9​	6​	15​
Sidney Crosby	3​	12​	15​
Patrick Marleau	9​	4​	13​
Wayne Gretzky	6​	7​	13​
Adam Oates	1​	12​	13​
Patrick Kane	6​	6​	12​
Ondrej Palat	6​	6​	12​
Doug Gilmour	5​	7​	12​
Evgeni Malkin	3​	9​	12​
Mark Messier	2​	10​	12​
Glenn Anderson	7​	4​	11​
Mike Modano	7​	4​	11​
Esa Tikkanen	5​	6​	11​
Nikita Kucherov	4​	7​	11​
Joe Thornton	4​	7​	11​
Justin Williams	4​	7​	11​
Nicklas Lidström	3​	8​	11​
Claude Lemieux	8​	2​	10​
Maurice Richard	8​	2​	10​
Jaromír Jágr	5​	5​	10​
Nicklas Backstrom	4​	6​	10​
Russ Courtnall	4​	6​	10​
Peter Forsberg	4​	6​	10​
Henri Richard	4​	6​	10​
Jonathan Toews	4​	6​	10​
Chris Drury	8​	1​	9​
Corey Perry	6​	3​	9​
Luc Robitaille	6​	3​	9​
Patrice Bergeron	5​	4​	9​
Daniel Briere	4​	5​	9​
Sergei Fedorov	4​	5​	9​
Martin Gelinas	4​	5​	9​
Jari Kurri	4​	5​	9​
Bob Nystrom	4​	5​	9​
Alex Ovechkin	4​	5​	9​
Joe Pavelski	4​	5​	9​
Brian Bellows	3​	6​	9​
David Krejci	2​	7​	9​
Sandis Ozolinsh	2​	7​	9​
Victor Hedman	1​	8​	9​
Sergei Zubov	0​	9​	9​
Bobby Hull	2​	1​	3​

 

[pnep]

Player	Season	Type	G	AST	PTS
Bobby Hull	1964	GA_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Bobby Hull	1971	GA_Clutch_PO	2	0	2
Bobby Hull	TOT	GA_Clutch_PO	2	1	3
Bobby Hull	1972	GT_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Bobby Hull	TOT	GT_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Bobby Hull	1965	1GL_Clutch_PO	0	3	3
Bobby Hull	1970	1GL_Clutch_PO	0	3	3
Bobby Hull	1971	1GL_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Bobby Hull	1972	1GL_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Bobby Hull	TOT	1GL_Clutch_PO	0	8	8
Bobby Hull	1964	GW_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Bobby Hull	1971	GW_Clutch_PO	2	0	2
Bobby Hull	TOT	GW_Clutch_PO	2	1	3
Alex Ovechkin	2008	GA_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2009	GA_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2010	GA_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2012	GA_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2013	GA_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Alex Ovechkin	2015	GA_Clutch_PO	0	2	2
Alex Ovechkin	2018	GA_Clutch_PO	1	2	3
Alex Ovechkin	TOT	GA_Clutch_PO	5	5	10
Alex Ovechkin	2009	GT_Clutch_PO	1	1	2
Alex Ovechkin	2010	GT_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Alex Ovechkin	2011	GT_Clutch_PO	2	1	3
Alex Ovechkin	2012	GT_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2016	GT_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Alex Ovechkin	TOT	GT_Clutch_PO	4	4	8
Alex Ovechkin	2008	1GL_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2009	1GL_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	TOT	1GL_Clutch_PO	2	0	2
Alex Ovechkin	2008	GW_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2009	GW_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2012	GW_Clutch_PO	1	0	1
Alex Ovechkin	2013	GW_Clutch_PO	0	1	1
Alex Ovechkin	2015	GW_Clutch_PO	0	2	2
Alex Ovechkin	2018	GW_Clutch_PO	1	2	3
Alex Ovechkin	TOT	GW_Clutch_PO	4	5	9

 

[tabness]

thanks for running these comprehensive numbers @pnep

I had checked goals (per season) for score effects a while back and was pretty surprised and how poorly the original six players fared in general. I expected the lower scoring era players to have numbers more like the lower scoring era players of the past 25 years but nope.

Part of the reason must be due to the shorter seasons, less games to score first or tie it up at one or whatever, but I'd bet that there were more blowouts in the original six than in the past 25 years as well, just that they were like 6-0 or something to keep the numbers low lol

Kurri's peak "important" (tying/go ahead) goal scoring is like Bossy's, high twenties/low thirties.

Brett Hull has a pretty amazing 1990-1991 season (otherwise in high twenties/low thirties): 39 go ahead goals alone seems to be more than other players go ahead and tying combined! He then adds 14 tying goals to those 39. A real 50 goal scorer lol

Ovechkin is pretty consistently ranging from in the low twenties to low thirties for his 50 goal years throughout his career (tops out at 32 twice in 2006 and 2008). Honestly thought he'd do better in an era where the scores are closer.

Bobby Hull tops out in the low to mid twenties. Also thought he'd do better given the era.

Lemieux tops out in the low thirties.

Bure is so interesting. Tops out in the low thirties, but look at 1999-2000. 28 go ahead goals! Sadly only 1 tying lol!

Esposito tops out in the low thirties.

Mogilny 36 in 1993 is impressive.

Selanne tops out in the low thirties.

Stamkos tops out in the high twenties.

Yzerman tops out in the high twenties.

Jagr tops out in the high twenties.

Nicholls tops out in the mid twenties.

Lafleur tops out in the low/mid twenties.

Dionne tops out in the high twenties.

Bondra tops out in the low thirties.

Leclair tops out at thirty.

Sakic tops out in the low thirties.

Gordie Howe tops at low twenties, Maurice Richard low to mid twenties, Jean Beliveau high teens, honestly surprising to see the original six players not do a little better here, even accounting for the shorter seasons.

The data is from the NHL JSON stats APIs, and some games are missing (every season has missing games except the early ones before 1942-1943). So things might be slightly different, a preemptive disclaimer that I was not trying to nickel and dime your favorite player.

 

[The Panther]

The WWII to 1983 players are always going to come out "worse" compared to recent stars because there was no overtime in the regular season. Then, star players who played very recently (today's stars, for example) are at another level of "advantage" here because of way more overtime goals in 3-on-3 and 4-on-4. Crosby had played in more overtime games at the age of 18 than Howe by age 52.

That said, I'm suspicious of some of your stats on the old guys... See my comment on the other thread....

 

[JackSlater]

I have, like, no clear concept of Bobby Hull.

Never seen the guy play a hockey game (just random highlights, generally in poor quality). I've read about him, most recently from Tretiak's book.

With most legends, there are descriptions of their style, or consensus on their effect, so that I can get a good idea. For example, with Rocket Richard I feel I have a very good idea of how he played and what he did. But I don't have this with Hull, at all.

I mean, I know he could skate and rip a slapshot. But I've heard / read very mixed views on his ability to play within a team concept ("selfish player", etc.) or to elevate his teams' winning capacity. He was a He-man physically, but could he hit / check? I don't know. Was he a good playmaker? No idea. He seemed to age very well, but even that has the WHA spanner thrown into the mix.

There are posters who saw a fair bit of Hull, but they don't seem to post often or at all. I'll give my general thoughts from having seen some games of Hull from the 1960s plus his international games in the 1970s. I'd say that Hull was a good, not great playmaker, in that he had good vision and he had the puck a lot with his explosiveness opening up opportunities. He did finish fifth in assists twice and sixth three times in the NHL as a guy focused on goals. You could say the same thing about Ovechkin when he was young and dynamic, though Hull did this over the span of a decade. Nothing I've seen makes Hull seem noteworthy defensively and I don't believe he went out there looking to punish people physically, but he would stand up for himself and was not someone that brutes messed with. From what I've read teams that tried to shut him down were more likely to try slowing down his speed rather than doing something physically. Stylistically he generated a lot of offence rushing through the neutral zone and would benefit from the removal of the red line more than most from that era.

I'm not sure about Hull and integrating into the team concept offensively. Certainly he had very strong results. Mikita often had better linemates but Hull was still the focus of the other teams. He seems to have been regarded as working very well with the passing game Winnipeg played in the WHA, and at the 1974 Summit Series and 1976 Canada Cup he integrated very well. Not sure if the older Hull was more willing to play a team game offensively, or if the young Hull just didn't have or need to.

 

[Michael Farkas]

One thing that I really noticed about Hull is his penchant for one of my big coaching points - your destination should be: far post. Shots, dekes, center-lane drive, rebound/POP finds, etc.

Even if Hull would come down the left side, he could still find the angle to get shots to the far post.

I can't say confidently that he was the first to really pioneer far-post preference, but he's the name that I associate it with early on...

 

[NyQuil]

One thing that I really noticed about Hull is his penchant for one of my big coaching points - your destination should be: far post. Shots, dekes, center-lane drive, rebound/POP finds, etc.

Even if Hull would come down the left side, he could still find the angle to get shots to the far post.

I can't say confidently that he was the first to really pioneer far-post preference, but he's the name that I associate it with early on...

One of my biggest pet peeves back in the day was the Mike Fisher special - coming down the wing, aiming far post, missing high and wide, the puck rimming around at speed and generating a 3 on 2 odd-man rush going the opposite way.

Isn't it a bit of a high risk high reward kind of play?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have, like, no clear concept of Bobby Hull.

Never seen the guy play a hockey game (just random highlights, generally in poor quality). I've read about him, most recently from Tretiak's book.

With most legends, there are descriptions of their style, or consensus on their effect, so that I can get a good idea. For example, with Rocket Richard I feel I have a very good idea of how he played and what he did. But I don't have this with Hull, at all.

I mean, I know he could skate and rip a slapshot. But I've heard / read very mixed views on his ability to play within a team concept ("selfish player", etc.) or to elevate his teams' winning capacity. He was a He-man physically, but could he hit / check? I don't know. Was he a good playmaker? No idea. He seemed to age very well, but even that has the WHA spanner thrown into the mix.

His straight-ahead speed & slapshot were unmatched in the 1960's.

 

[Michael Farkas]

One of my biggest pet peeves back in the day was the Mike Fisher special - coming down the wing, aiming far post, missing high and wide, the puck rimming around at speed and generating a 3 on 2 odd-man rush going the opposite way.

Isn't it a bit of a high risk high reward kind of play?

I don't find it to be high risk because I incorporate it into the game flow. One of the recent changes that I've incorporated (and I'm constantly trying to evolve and learn new concepts and create others, because that's the name of the game) is, building backwards.

Most coaches that I see, they build from "when we first get the puck" and out. So, you're behind the net with the puck and everything is tranquil and calm and you run your controlled breakout. But how often does that happen during a game...? Usually no more than five times. Yet, we (royal "we"?) spend so much time on the concept that you would think we were a start-and-stop shop like the NFL is.

I go the other way..."what do I want to happen?" What I want is a far post shot from inside the dot line. That's one of the best chances to score in ordinary course. Ok, now how do I support that...? Well, I need far post drive. I need late support on the far side boards (because of what you mentioned with Fisher). I need, X, Y, and Z.

Then you take a step back and go..."how do I enter the zone to get to that point?" I need this, this, and this. Ok, what's the neutral zone play look like? This and this, or this, that, and this if something fails.

And then another step back, etc.

So, rather than stacking all of the unknown variables at the payoff (offensive zone shot selection/placement), stack more of the unknown variables in the part where it's likely to be full of unknown variables anyhow - puck retrieval in your zone. Set your rules and concepts, certainly. You can't just be willy nilly. But why sit there and draw up a play that never gets run? Draw up the outcome that you want and as you have more and more control of the situation, and more and more time with the puck, you create your own controlled environment as you navigate up the ice. The other team having the puck and losing it randomly is a huge unknown...convert the unknown into "known" or predictable as you can predict and dictate the terms.

So...that's a long way of saying...I want that shot, so I'm going to be prepared for its most likely outcomes.

 

[NyQuil]

I don't find it to be high risk because I incorporate it into the game flow. One of the recent changes that I've incorporated (and I'm constantly trying to evolve and learn new concepts and create others, because that's the name of the game) is, building backwards.

Most coaches that I see, they build from "when we first get the puck" and out. So, you're behind the net with the puck and everything is tranquil and calm and you run your controlled breakout. But how often does that happen during a game...? Usually no more than five times. Yet, we (royal "we"?) spend so much time on the concept that you would think we were a start-and-stop shop like the NFL is.

I go the other way..."what do I want to happen?" What I want is a far post shot from inside the dot line. That's one of the best chances to score in ordinary course. Ok, now how do I support that...? Well, I need far post drive. I need late support on the far side boards (because of what you mentioned with Fisher). I need, X, Y, and Z.

Then you take a step back and go..."how do I enter the zone to get to that point?" I need this, this, and this. Ok, what's the neutral zone play look like? This and this, or this, that, and this if something fails.

And then another step back, etc.

So, rather than stacking all of the unknown variables at the payoff (offensive zone shot selection/placement), stack more of the unknown variables in the part where it's likely to be full of unknown variables anyhow - puck retrieval in your zone. Set your rules and concepts, certainly. You can't just be willy nilly. But why sit there and draw up a play that never gets run? Draw up the outcome that you want and as you have more and more control of the situation, and more and more time with the puck, you create your own controlled environment as you navigate up the ice. The other team having the puck and losing it randomly is a huge unknown...convert the unknown into "known" or predictable as you can predict and dictate the terms.

So...that's a long way of saying...I want that shot, so I'm going to be prepared for its most likely outcomes.

Thanks for the explanation.

Is the onus on the shooter to be aware of the support or lack thereof when making the decision to shoot far post, or is the onus on his linemates to ensure that they are in position to intercept a missed shot?

I suspect the shooter has too much going on to worry about the positioning of his linemates before taking the far post shot from the wing, but at the same time, it reminds me a bit of pool/billiards where sinking the ball is important but placement of the cue ball after the shot is taken is equally important. (e.g. managing the puck)

I could see a lot of factors (e.g. shift length - fire it at the goalie if your guys are winded and take the offensive zone faceoff) influencing shot selection. Nothing worse than missing a shot at velocity and it prevents your guys from getting a clean line change because it flies back out of the zone.

I was never much of an offensive force when I played so it was really more about 'keeping it simple stupid' and making sure I got the puck on net.

Anyway, sorry to get on a tangent here, but it is still slightly related to Bobby Hull.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's a good question. By terming the player in question as the "shooter", you effectively answer your own question. If that player is shooting, it means that he's (she's) the end of the line for that play. This is usually a winger - wingers have the least value and are generally the least aware because everything that's happening is happening behind them. They skate the least and have the least responsibility (again, generally. We happen to be a thread where we're comparing two wingers that were multi-line puck carriers at point(s)). That's where you can "hide" weaker players. So, they really don't have to be aware because a) they probably aren't nearly as capable and b) they're probably ahead of most of their teammates and in a prime position already. So, take the shot that we want you to take, we'll clean it up if it needs it.

And no, these are really good questions/discussion points...without having a foundation of knowledge about how the game is played, really evaluating players because impossible. There'd be no baseline.

For instance, "Hey man, I just sold $15,000 worth of our product today!"

You should have no idea how to react because you don't know if I work at the penny candy store or if I work at a Tesla dealership haha - one's a record breaking day, the other appears as if I grossly undersold (or sold part of) an automobile...

 

[Midnight Judges]

An Ovechkin thread in HoH.

I guess MJ will pop in and tell everyone we're idiots for anything besides complete worship of Ovechkin.

I have Hull slightly but decisively ahead all time.

Ovechkin has the unfortunate reality that his peak play was on weak playoff teams.

I think we can expect the Conn Smythe trophy, the Canadian media, and the population of Canada to loom large.

As always, I have no problem with any raw data presented.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

GAPTS_GTPTS_1GLPTS_Clutch_PO - go-ahead PTS + game tying PTS + 1 goal lead PTS (scoring while game is tied or team is trailing/leading by 1 goal)​

Player	GAPTS_Clutch_PO	GTPTS_Clutch_PO	1GLPTS_Clutch_PO	TOTPTS_Clutch_PO
Wayne Gretzky	14​	9​	12​	35​
Patrick Kane	14​	8​	6​	28​
Joe Sakic	18​	6​	3​	27​
Mark Messier	13​	6​	8​	27​
Doug Gilmour	11​	4​	11​	26​
Sidney Crosby	13​	2​	11​	26​
Adam Oates	15​	5​	5​	25​
Jaromír Jágr	10​	12​	3​	25​
Brett Hull	17​	6​	1​	24​
Joe Pavelski	8​	10​	5​	23​
Evgeni Malkin	12​	6​	5​	23​
Jari Kurri	10​	4​	9​	23​
Joe Thornton	12​	4​	6​	22​
Claude Lemieux	12​	7​	3​	22​
Peter Forsberg	8​	6​	7​	21​
Daniel Briere	10​	9​	2​	21​
Maurice Richard	9​	7​	4​	20​
Justin Williams	11​	3​	6​	20​
Jonathan Toews	10​	6​	4​	20​
Brendan Shanahan	9​	4​	7​	20​
Sergei Zubov	9​	7​	4​	20​
Alex Ovechkin	10​	8​	2​	20​
Nikita Kucherov	11​	4​	5​	20​
Craig Janney	8​	9​	3​	20​
Nicklas Backstrom	10​	9​	1​	20​
Esa Tikkanen	11​	4​	4​	19​
Ondrej Palat	12​	2​	5​	19​
Nathan MacKinnon	7​	6​	6​	19​
Brad Marchand	9​	5​	5​	19​
Mike Modano	12​	3​	4​	19​
David Krejci	10​	3​	6​	19​
Marián Hossa	8​	5​	6​	19​
Mats Sundin	7​	4​	7​	18​
Steve Thomas	6​	6​	6​	18​
Bobby Smith	8​	6​	4​	18​
Steve Yzerman	8​	4​	6​	18​
Patrick Marleau	11​	2​	5​	18​
Al MacInnis	5​	8​	5​	18​
Nicklas Lidström	11​	3​	4​	18​
Joe Mullen	4​	5​	9​	18​
Victor Hedman	11​	2​	5​	18​
Jamie Langenbrunner	9​	3​	6​	18​
Ron Francis	5​	7​	6​	18​
Mark Recchi	7​	3​	7​	17​
Bryan Trottier	7​	3​	7​	17​
Henri Richard	10​	2​	5​	17​
Jeremy Roenick	6​	7​	4​	17​
Denis Savard	8​	5​	4​	17​
Corey Perry	9​	3​	5​	17​
Gordie Howe	5​	4​	8​	17​
Logan Couture	6​	6​	5​	17​
Sergei Fedorov	6​	4​	7​	17​
Rod Brind'Amour	8​	6​	3​	17​
Larry Robinson	6​	7​	3​	16​
Mario Lemieux	6​	3​	7​	16​
Ted Lindsay	4​	7​	5​	16​
Larry Murphy	8​	4​	4​	16​
Chris Kunitz	7​	3​	6​	16​
Duncan Keith	8​	7​	1​	16​
Glenn Anderson	9​	1​	6​	16​
Russ Courtnall	12​	1​	3​	16​
Shayne Corson	9​	4​	3​	16​
Patrice Bergeron	9​	4​	3​	16​
Ray Bourque	7​	6​	3​	16​
John Tonelli	6​	5​	4​	15​
Scott Stevens	5​	2​	8​	15​
Cam Neely	5​	9​	1​	15​
Bernie Nicholls	6​	5​	4​	15​
Valtteri Filppula	6​	2​	7​	15​
Guy Carbonneau	7​	2​	6​	15​
Bobby Hull	3​	1​	8​	12​

​

Thanks for the data! Ovechkin is ahead by this important metric, and he deserves credit for that. Though I wonder if (somehow) there are era effects, as hardly anyone on the list played most/all of their career pre-expansion. (Of the top 40 players, just one - Maurice Richard - was pre-expansion. And only four of the top 70 were pre-expansion).

There are posters who saw a fair bit of Hull, but they don't seem to post often or at all.

@pappyline was a big fan of Bobby Hull. It doesn't look like he's been online since November 2020 (which is too bad).

 

[Midnight Judges]

You provided lots of good data. Thanks for that. I'll just highlight this one:

Leading his team in scoring
- Hull played in 21 playoff series over the course of his career. He led his team in scoring (tied or outright) 12 times (57% of the time).
- Ovechkin has played in 23 playoff series. He led his team in scoring (tied or outright) 11 times (48% of the time).
- Conclusion: edge to Hull. (It's interesting to note the patterns. Hull was consistent, leading his team in scoring 12 times in a span of 19 series from 1961 to 1972. Ovechkin was boom-or-bust. He led the Capitals in scoring in seven of his first eight series, which spanned 2008 to 2012. The rest of his career, he only led the Capitals in scoring four times in 15 series. This supports the notion that Ovechkin had a big change in his style and productivity, while Hull didn't).

These results are valid, but I think there is another way of looking at things (playoff runs as a whole) that is equally valid, and it paints a bit of a different picture in this case.

In 13 playoff runs, Hull led his team in points 5 times and goals 8 times (38% and 62% of the time).
In 14 playoff runs, Ovechkin led his team in points 9 times and goals 9 times (64% and 64% of the time).

 

[MadLuke]

Ovechkin received relatively little blame, as he played well, and his teams were too thin to seriously contend for the Stanley Cup.

It would be different media to media environment, but I think he received relatively a lot of blame considering how well he played and his teams during his early days.

Still not a Joe Thornton level or very high in absolute, but relative to his play, quite a bit, but has I said that could have been special to my media environment.

 

[JackSlater]

I think that this just adds to the idea that Hull and Ovechkin are quite similar in a historical sense. They are both "best player in a decade" level players historically, and beside that it's hard to think of two all time great forwards who are more similar but peaked over four decades apart. I can see an argument for either over the other based on someone's preference in a few small areas, but they likely should both be in any top 15 of all time and not too far apart.

As always, I have no problem with any raw data presented.

Damn it Midnight Judges you've gotten egg on my face.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Thanks for the explanation.

Is the onus on the shooter to be aware of the support or lack thereof when making the decision to shoot far post, or is the onus on his linemates to ensure that they are in position to intercept a missed shot?

I suspect the shooter has too much going on to worry about the positioning of his linemates before taking the far post shot from the wing, but at the same time, it reminds me a bit of pool/billiards where sinking the ball is important but placement of the cue ball after the shot is taken is equally important. (e.g. managing the puck)

I could see a lot of factors (e.g. shift length - fire it at the goalie if your guys are winded and take the offensive zone faceoff) influencing shot selection. Nothing worse than missing a shot at velocity and it prevents your guys from getting a clean line change because it flies back out of the zone.

I was never much of an offensive force when I played so it was really more about 'keeping it simple stupid' and making sure I got the puck on net.

Anyway, sorry to get on a tangent here, but it is still slightly related to Bobby Hull.

When Hull played a season was 72 games as well.

In regards th the Mike Fisher rim around.
Hulls first shot of a game would be to fly down the LW , aim at the goalies head to scare him, for the rest of the game. Then subsequently aim at the net after that.

 

[The Panther]

Am I the only one observing the overtime problem here? Hull didn't play in any overtimes.

This comparison would be more fair if all of Ovechkin's overtime points (I don't know how many that would be) were taken out of the comparison.