Comparing Top 3, 5 or 10 scoring and Hart finishes from different eras

[Michael Farkas]

#1 d-man and top-six forward are terms based on proper talent evaluation, so yes. There is no other reasonable way that would be accepted in the hockey world.

There are shortcuts and proxies for it (ice time, points, etc.) but the interpretation and application of them is subjective, even though they lie in allegedly objective data.

This is not in response to your second paragraph, which I have no desire to engage in...but not because it's so right or so wrong, it's just a life choice.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, this is wrong. It's not like the 120th - 600th best player has a chance at finishing in the Top 3. You are assuming that NHL expansion automatically creates more elite players which there is no evidence for.

Right, but expansion does give more players an opportunity to have a career year. Instead of the 7th best C getting second line minutes and second line zone starts and maybe being on PP2, he is now getting top line minutes and top line zone starts and plays on PP1.

This is a huge factor.

 

[daver]

#1 d-man and top-six forward are terms based on proper talent evaluation, so yes. There is no other reasonable way that would be accepted in the hockey world.

There are shortcuts and proxies for it (ice time, points, etc.) but the interpretation and application of them is subjective, even though they lie in allegedly objective data.

This is not in response to your second paragraph, which I have no desire to engage in...but not because it's so right or so wrong, it's just a life choice.

Since the only way to evaluate talent and career value is against someone's immediate peers, I find the concept that any era could possibly have less or more Top 6 forwards, relative to league size, than other eras, speculative and subjective. And to use that as a reason to dismiss the 2nd paragraph I would say is mathematically disingenuous.

The numbers clearly show that the farther away a player is from the scoring champion, the more pronounced the difference is in the gap between them and first place when the O6 is compared to today. So when you say that this is possibly wrong, you are effectively saying that 2 + 2 = 5.

I am not, for the record, looking to dismiss O6 accomplishments wholesale as being less valuable as many others seem to do. This seems to be a trigger for a few posters here.

On the surface, Crosby, Hull and Beliveau have very similar Hart and Art records, which should clearly put them on the same tier. Perhaps Crosby gets an edge over those two when reasonable statistical consideration is applied to the different league sizes in which they played. I would point to Crosby's superior career PPG dominance over his peers when compared to Hull and Beliveau's PPG dominance over their respective peers to back up this assertion.

It's fine if you want to disregard this with talk of weaker competition or "eye test" assessment so long as you admit that there is a difference between those subjective arguments and the objective statistical argument I am making.

 

[ted2019]

Thanks for the response.

I agree completely that Top 3 finishes hold a lot more weight than Top 10 finishes, and that the difference in Top 3 finishes is closer than the difference in Top 10 finishes over the two eras.

Are you able to provide a link to the 10 year VsX scores you referenced?

Cheers

Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2019)

 

[Vilica]

I mean your premise isn't absurd. These three players are now all in the conversation for the best player after the big-4. And I'm not saying "check the VsX, it shows you are clearly wrong", not by a long shot. Their 10 year scores are now 100 (Hull), 99 (Crosby) and 96 (Beliveau). So on the basis of prime regular season offense he really gives up nothing to these guys. Demonstrating Crosby to be better than either player probably requires a deeper analysis than "look how equal these achievements are, and one of them did it in a modern league".

I'm curious, would something like this be sort of a deeper analysis in regards to Crosby, Hull and Beliveau?

	Vs	+GD	Teams				Vs	-GD	Teams					% Games	% Games
	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		GP	+GD	-GD
Sidney Crosby	499	224	391	615	76		444	222	377	599	107		943	0.529	0.471
Sidney Crosby	499	0.449	0.784	1.232			444	0.500	0.849	1.349			0.117
Bobby Hull	470	236	214	450	-11		566	368	335	703	270		1036	0.454	0.546
Bobby Hull	470	0.502	0.455	0.957			566	0.650	0.592	1.242			0.285
Jean Beliveau	471	174	262	436	-16		649	327	449	776	133		1120	0.421	0.579
Jean Beliveau	471	0.369	0.556	0.926			649	0.504	0.692	1.196			0.270

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that both Hull and Beliveau have a much larger gap in their performances against positive goal differential teams than negative goal differential teams, as well as playing a much larger percentage of their games against negative goal differential teams (basically due to the limitations of a six team league). I should also note that the Plus/Minus data for Hull is missing his first two seasons, while for Beliveau his first six full seasons.

I've been working through the O6 forwards on the top 100 list and these results are in line with most of them.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Since the only way to evaluate talent and career value is against someone's immediate peers, I find the concept that any era could possibly have less or more Top 6 forwards, relative to league size, than other eras, speculative and subjective. And to use that as a reason to dismiss the 2nd paragraph I would say is mathematically disingenuous.

The numbers clearly show that the farther away a player is from the scoring champion, the more pronounced the difference is in the gap between them and first place when the O6 is compared to today. So when you say that this is possibly wrong, you are effectively saying that 2 + 2 = 5.

I am not, for the record, looking to dismiss O6 accomplishments wholesale as being less valuable as many others seem to do. This seems to be a trigger for a few posters here.

On the surface, Crosby, Hull and Beliveau have very similar Hart and Art records, which should clearly put them on the same tier. Perhaps Crosby gets an edge over those two when reasonable statistical consideration is applied to the different league sizes in which they played. I would point to Crosby's superior career PPG dominance over his peers when compared to Hull and Beliveau's PPG dominance over their respective peers to back up this assertion.

It's fine if you want to disregard this with talk of weaker competition or "eye test" assessment so long as you admit that there is a difference between those subjective arguments and the objective statistical argument I am making.

It's unclear if you intended to respond to my post or not. If not, then no harm, no foul. But this post doesn't seem related to what I said.

To be clear, I "dismissed" nothing of what you said. Frankly, I don't even know what news you're breaking.

I'm just stating, that there are not 31 #1 d-men in the league - no question. I would doubt, though, I haven't gone through it, that there are 180 top-six forwards in the NHL either. I can't speak to how many there were in any given year in 1965.

If your point is that a 10th place finish in 1965 isn't worth the same as a 10th place finish in 2015, then I'd say you're wasting an awful lot of time, I don't think most subscribe to that idea. But again again, I don't have much interest in what your point is (respectfully)...and again again again, not because I don't agree or do agree...

If, however, your methodology focuses on these constants or near-constants on there being 31 #1 d-men and/or 186 top-six forwards based on talent, you're DOA...

 

[daver]

If your point is that a 10th place finish in 1965 isn't worth the same as a 10th place finish in 2015, then I'd say you're wasting an awful lot of time, I don't think most subscribe to that idea. But again again, I don't have much interest in what your point is (respectfully)...and again again again, not because I don't agree or do agree.....

So if someone finishes 18th among the 36 Top Six forwards, they are the median scorer in that group. For sake of argument, we will say the the 16th best scorer was closest to the average point total for all 36 forwards.

The equivalent in today's league is the player who finishes 90th in scoring among the 180 Top Six forwards is the median, and say the 80th best scorer was the closest to the average point total for all 180 forwards.

How can you argue that an O6 10th place finish, which is closer to the median and the average point total than it is to the leading scorer, is as valuable as a current day O6 1oth place finish which is far closer to the top scorer than they are to the median and average point total?

You are denying a simple statistical reality.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I. Am. Not. In. Opposition. To. Your. Point.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Regarding the lesser opportunities in 1965. Is it not so that that can go both ways? There might be a bit more variation of he quality of the 10th best finisher in 1965 compared to now, but on average it should even itself out?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Right, but expansion does give more players an opportunity to have a career year. Instead of the 7th best C getting second line minutes and second line zone starts and maybe being on PP2, he is now getting top line minutes and top line zone starts and plays on PP1.

This is a huge factor.

less than you'd think, at least according to the completely arbitrary sample i just ran.

in the ten seasons starting 1951 (howe's first art ross)—42 different players in the top 10.

in the last ten seasons—50 different players in the top 10.

howe x10	crosby x8
r richard x6	kane x5
geoffrion x6	stamkos x5
beliveau x6	ovechkin x5
lindsay x5	giroux x4
bathgate x5	kessel x4
olmstead x4	backstrom x4
mckenney x4	h sedin x4
sloan x3	kucherov x3
kelly x3	mcdavid x3
smith x3	hall x3
delvecchio x3	benn x3
mackell x3	MSL x3
reibel x3	draisaitl x2
litzenberger x3	marchand x2
moore x3	gaudreau x2
h richard x3	mackinnon x2
abel x2	malkin x2
kennedy x2	wheeler x2
schmidt x2	tarasenko x2
ronty x2	karlsson x2
mosdell x2	thornton x2
sullivan x2	pavelski x2
horvath x2	tavares x2
m bentley	seguin x2
gardner	d sedin x2
lach	getzlaf x2
raleigh	perry x2
mosienko	richards x2
peirson	barkov
hergesheimer	kopitar
prystai	scheifele
mcfadden	burns
sandford	kuznetsov
lewicki	panarin
creighton	voracek
gadsby	hudler
ullman	foligno
hebenton	staal
b hull	kunitz
stasiuk	ribeiro
prentice	datsyuk
/	spezza
/	kovalchuk
/	neal
/	elias
/	iginla
/	selanne
/	zetterberg
/	gaborik

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

EDIT: for completeness, not that it really makes much of a difference, but because of ties there were 105 top ten placements from 1951-'60 and 110 top ten placements between 2010 and '19.

 

[MadLuke]

less than you'd think, at least according to the completely arbitrary sample i just ran.

That a nice rune and yes much less that I would, I imagine the ability to get those minute was so hard that there was more rotation at the ability of who would get those minute ?

Or were the average career much shoorter ?

That a good table to look at and good way to look at it imo.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So if someone finishes 18th among the 36 Top Six forwards, they are the median scorer in that group. For sake of argument, we will say the the 16th best scorer was closest to the average point total for all 36 forwards.

The equivalent in today's league is the player who finishes 90th in scoring among the 180 Top Six forwards is the median, and say the 80th best scorer was the closest to the average point total for all 180 forwards.

How can you argue that an O6 10th place finish, which is closer to the median and the average point total than it is to the leading scorer, is as valuable as a current day O6 1oth place finish which is far closer to the top scorer than they are to the median and average point total?

You are denying a simple statistical reality.

The fact that the league elected to expand doesn't necessarily reflect skill or the quality of the player pool. In that regard it's an arbitrary data point.

 

[wetcoast]

This might not respond to anything in particular...but this is vaguely related to the 180 top six forwards thing...I just went through the rosters, there are about 17-20 #1 d-men in the league. I'm not sure that there are 180 top six forwards in the league...I'm pretty sure there isn't and I don't think it's gonna be terribly close...

While I tend to agree with what you are saying here it also really points out th subjectivity in the OP.

Everyone knows that there will be a higher amount of variance in any larger number of actors (players) than a smaller one all things being equal but things are never equal.

The subjectivity always comes in looking at the difference in variables, ie a 6 team league versus a 21 or 30 team league.

We simply can never answer these questions in any objective way.

Going through most of the the recent top 100 players of all time project (120 players in the initial individual lists) we will see contraindications in player placements all over the place and that's due to people being subjective.

There is simply no way to be objective about it.

Some arguments might look stronger than others but then again that's subjective as well.............

This is part of the allure of sports and hockey for me and no doubt many people here as the answer is never there so discussion is always possible.

 

[wetcoast]

less than you'd think, at least according to the completely arbitrary sample i just ran.

in the ten seasons starting 1951 (howe's first art ross)—42 different players in the top 10.

in the last ten seasons—50 different players in the top 10.

howe x10	crosby x8
r richard x6	kane x5
geoffrion x6	stamkos x5
beliveau x6	ovechkin x5
lindsay x5	giroux x4
bathgate x5	kessel x4
olmstead x4	backstrom x4
mckenney x4	h sedin x4
sloan x3	kucherov x3
kelly x3	mcdavid x3
smith x3	hall x3
delvecchio x3	benn x3
mackell x3	MSL x3
reibel x3	draisaitl x2
litzenberger x3	marchand x2
moore x3	gaudreau x2
h richard x3	mackinnon x2
abel x2	malkin x2
kennedy x2	wheeler x2
schmidt x2	tarasenko x2
ronty x2	karlsson x2
mosdell x2	thornton x2
sullivan x2	pavelski x2
horvath x2	tavares x2
m bentley	seguin x2
gardner	d sedin x2
lach	getzlaf x2
raleigh	perry x2
mosienko	richards x2
peirson	barkov
hergesheimer	kopitar
prystai	scheifele
mcfadden	burns
sandford	kuznetsov
lewicki	panarin
creighton	voracek
gadsby	hudler
ullman	foligno
hebenton	staal
b hull	kunitz
stasiuk	ribeiro
prentice	datsyuk
/	spezza
/	kovalchuk
/	neal
/	elias
/	iginla
/	selanne
/	zetterberg
/	gaborik

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

EDIT: for completeness, not that it really makes much of a difference, but because of ties there were 105 top ten placements from 1951-'60 and 110 top ten placements between 2010 and '19.

I'm kind of drunk and find these results very interesting.


I remember looking at Markus Naslund in the top 10 players project (or maybe it was somewhere else, too lazy to look it up) and he was the only player to be in the top 10 scoring over a 3 year period so perhaps my subjective view was influenced by that time period.

It makes sense that the most skilled players would be top 10 scoring year in year out most of the time but I wonder how your metric (number of players in top 10 scoring over 10 year time periods )plays out over time and if the blips are because of specific circumstances in the league at the time?

For example in the 3 years Naslund was the only player to appear in all 3 years (02-04) injuries were very common and the NHL also really suppressed skill in it's rules and style of play.

All subjective things of course even if there is an objective base from which it comes from.

 

[daver]

I'm curious, would something like this be sort of a deeper analysis in regards to Crosby, Hull and Beliveau?

	Vs	+GD	Teams				Vs	-GD	Teams					% Games	% Games
	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		GP	+GD	-GD
Sidney Crosby	499	224	391	615	76		444	222	377	599	107		943	0.529	0.471
Sidney Crosby	499	0.449	0.784	1.232			444	0.500	0.849	1.349			0.117
Bobby Hull	470	236	214	450	-11		566	368	335	703	270		1036	0.454	0.546
Bobby Hull	470	0.502	0.455	0.957			566	0.650	0.592	1.242			0.285
Jean Beliveau	471	174	262	436	-16		649	327	449	776	133		1120	0.421	0.579
Jean Beliveau	471	0.369	0.556	0.926			649	0.504	0.692	1.196			0.270

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that both Hull and Beliveau have a much larger gap in their performances against positive goal differential teams than negative goal differential teams, as well as playing a much larger percentage of their games against negative goal differential teams (basically due to the limitations of a six team league). I should also note that the Plus/Minus data for Hull is missing his first two seasons, while for Beliveau his first six full seasons.

I've been working through the O6 forwards on the top 100 list and these results are in line with most of them.

It is certainly something to consider if one is looking to differentiate similar looking resumes in an objective manner.

In my subjective opinion, this holds more weight than subjective opinion on the # of #1 D-men in the league at any particular time or the very sketchy premise that there were more HOF caliber players in the O6 on a relative basis to more current times.

I don't think it is ridiculous to think that there aren't ebbs and flows to the general competition level in the league which brings into the question of a performance vs. peers analysis but I haven't seen anything that can come close to overruling the statistical evidence that this analysis presents that is not subjective.

I think the three players in the discussion played in what should be considered stable and highly competitive eras unlike those players that played during the war or right after 1967.

 

[VanIslander]

Crosby is 3rd fiddle but he is certainly in the same orchestra.

 

[daver]

Everyone knows that there will be a higher amount of variance in any larger number of actors (players) than a smaller one all things being equal but things are never equal.

I am arguing strictly in a statistical sense.

The only subjective presumption I am making is that the "pack" (a decent sample size of the league's elite scorers) is constant year after year save for outliers like prime Wayne, prime Mario and Howe's 52/53 season.

I have never seen any arguments that can reasonably dismiss this presumption. You can start with Crosby and make your back thru the seasons looking at the league's best offensive players as they cross paths and should find no discernible sign that there was a unique drop or rise in the competition level of the league.

Crosby clearly established himself in 06/07 with a season that was just as good Thornton's and Jagr's the year before, which for Jagr seemed like a return to his prime ways based on the gap between him and the rest of the pack. It is accepted by the vast majority that Crosby hit a higher level from 2010 to 2013 that is in the ballpark of Jagr's peak baased performance vs. peers.

Jagr, despite possibly having the 5th best offensive resume all-time, was clearly on a lower tier than Mario who was on Wayne's tier, for at least a season or two. Wayne was clearly above any player from the '70s, a group that had one or two candidates for #5 player (Lafluer, Esposito) with offensive peaks that rivaled any of the best non-Big Four including Beliveau and Hull. There is simply no clear evidence that any of these players took advantage of weaker eras as they all crossed over each during their careers.

 

[Plural]

So, when Usain Bolt finishes 1st in the Olympics 200m dash it would have been more impressive had he done it against every single sprinter in those games rather than just the finalists? I guess there's some merit to the idea. Not sure how significant it is.

I like how someone mentioned that top-10 finishes are not quite as equal as top-3 finishes throughout history. That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Big Phil]

I am not big on the whole 30 team league vs. 6 team league comparison thing. I feel the Hart winner in 1956 is likely still the winner or runner up in modern seasons today. The best players to me are always the best players. But it is worth noting that both Beliveau and Hull had some good work outside of the original 6 era. Beliveau played until 1971 which meant that while he played mostly in the original 6 era he also played 3 years in a 12 team era and once in a 14 team era. Hull more or less the same except he played 2 years in the 14 team era. So they still did some damage before and after expansion. This is why I never care much for the "well he did this in a 30 team league" sort of thing. Look at the elite players in 1967. Then look at them in 1971. Is there much change? Obviously there are players who got older and younger guys (Orr, Esposito) stepped up but this is based on age, not on whether or not the Original 6 stars could cut it in the new league.

Put it this way, the top 5 scorers in 1967 were: Mikita, Hull, Ullman, Howe, Wharram.

The top scorers in 1969 were: Esposito, Hull, Howe, Mikita, Hodge. Delvecchio finishes 7th. Beliveau 8th.

So if doubling the league doesn't really change who the elite players were, why would it change today? Since Hull and Howe and Mikita and Beliveau both had hardware before and after expansion then it is safe to say Crosby, Beliveau and Hull are stars in any era they play.

 

[Big Phil]

By the way, Crosby just finished his 14th season. He and Ovechkin are now grizzled veterans. There is no more "Well, I project he'll be at so-and-so's career by the end of it." No, they are there now and even though there is some better years than others in their career they have both basically been elite the entire time. So I think it is safe or at least more acceptable than ever to say Crosby has surpassed other centres in history such as Sakic and Yzerman and Trottier and is more aligned with forwards such as Beliveau, Hull and Richard. Sakic and Yzerman may have played more than 14 years, but they weren't routinely among the best in the game for that long, not at Crosby's level. He cracks 100 points in 2019 and will likely finish 2nd in Hart voting.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

A player's status in history is measured by his performance against other elite players. Are there more "elite" players today? There's literally no way of knowing that. That's why we rely on placings. The only argument that could be made is if one player was consistently placing high in an era where all of the other top scorers were all over the map in terms of scoring placings. As far as I know, that's never really been a thing.

 

[daver]

I am not big on the whole 30 team league vs. 6 team league comparison thing. I feel the Hart winner in 1956 is likely still the winner or runner up in modern seasons today. The best players to me are always the best players. But it is worth noting that both Beliveau and Hull had some good work outside of the original 6 era. Beliveau played until 1971 which meant that while he played mostly in the original 6 era he also played 3 years in a 12 team era and once in a 14 team era. Hull more or less the same except he played 2 years in the 14 team era. So they still did some damage before and after expansion. This is why I never care much for the "well he did this in a 30 team league" sort of thing. Look at the elite players in 1967. Then look at them in 1971. Is there much change? Obviously there are players who got older and younger guys (Orr, Esposito) stepped up but this is based on age, not on whether or not the Original 6 stars could cut it in the new league.

Put it this way, the top 5 scorers in 1967 were: Mikita, Hull, Ullman, Howe, Wharram.

The top scorers in 1969 were: Esposito, Hull, Howe, Mikita, Hodge. Delvecchio finishes 7th. Beliveau 8th.

So if doubling the league doesn't really change who the elite players were, why would it change today? Since Hull and Howe and Mikita and Beliveau both had hardware before and after expansion then it is safe to say Crosby, Beliveau and Hull are stars in any era they play.

To clarify, I don't challenge any Art Rosses or Harts from the O6. They, like any other Art or Hart wins from any other era, can be reasonably measured against any other elite seasons.

I don't think the expansion in '67 proves anything really. It wasn't like the # of potential star players doubled overnight. But it is reasonable to conclude that there are more elite level players 50 years after that occurred given population growth and with the intro of more players from outside of Canada. It should be generally accepted that the league needed to grow in size to accommodate the growth in NHL quality players. Whether 31 teams or 20 teams or 40 teams is the right number should be somewhat moved to a secondary level of discussion, and completely outside of a statistical one.

So if you are able to finish in a higher percentile out of a group of peers who were just as talented as the group of peers 50 years ago, that should hold some value.

Any micro comparison, e.g. a 3rd or 5th place from 2017/18 vs. a 3rd or 5th place from 1962/63, needs context, context that may put one clearly over the other, but when you are talking numerous Top 5 or 10 finishes, I think you can make a case that numerous Top 5 finishes from the current era > the same number from the O6, or at the very least not accept that a Top 5 from the O6 automatically trumps a lower finish from the current era. Crosby's goalscoring is an example of this. He lacks numerous Top 5 goal or GPG finishes in comparison to top goalscorers from the same timeframe in the O6 but still has an argument for #2 goalscorer of his era, albeit a weak #2 in relation to other timeframes.

I think Hull, Beliveau and Crosby all clearly stood out from their peers at a level that is as good as any other non Big Four player and for a notable extended period which sets them apart from those players. Perhaps their isn't a strong case to be made for differentiating their top scoring and Hart finishes as they all had many Top 3 finishes. I can see that it may take more Hart nomination level seasons by Crosby to clearly separate himself from those two.

I think where things get interesting is comparing Crosby's top scoring finishes with Howe's, who had quite a few 5th place finishes, a level where the statistical differentiation between now and the O6 start to clearly establish itself. I would make an argument that, generally speaking, a Top 10 finish from the current era is equal to a 5th place in the O6, and that a Top 5 from the current era is equal to a Top 3 finish from the O6.

 

[Hippasus]

If cost is the primary factor, then participation rates would have increased, not decreased.

poverty rate canada by year

But cost of equipment and participation have probably increased in real terms, which counters the data from that link on people below poverty level decreasing in Canada, to some degree.

 

[Big Phil]

To clarify, I don't challenge any Art Rosses or Harts from the O6. They, like any other Art or Hart wins from any other era, can be reasonably measured against any other elite seasons.

I don't think the expansion in '67 proves anything really. It wasn't like the # of potential star players doubled overnight. But it is reasonable to conclude that there are more elite level players 50 years after that occurred given population growth and with the intro of more players from outside of Canada. It should be generally accepted that the league needed to grow in size to accommodate the growth in NHL quality players. Whether 31 teams or 20 teams or 40 teams is the right number should be somewhat moved to a secondary level of discussion, and completely outside of a statistical one.

So if you are able to finish in a higher percentile out of a group of peers who were just as talented as the group of peers 50 years ago, that should hold some value.

Any micro comparison, e.g. a 3rd or 5th place from 2017/18 vs. a 3rd or 5th place from 1962/63, needs context, context that may put one clearly over the other, but when you are talking numerous Top 5 or 10 finishes, I think you can make a case that numerous Top 5 finishes from the current era > the same number from the O6, or at the very least not accept that a Top 5 from the O6 automatically trumps a lower finish from the current era. Crosby's goalscoring is an example of this. He lacks numerous Top 5 goal or GPG finishes in comparison to top goalscorers from the same timeframe in the O6 but still has an argument for #2 goalscorer of his era, albeit a weak #2 in relation to other timeframes.

I think Hull, Beliveau and Crosby all clearly stood out from their peers at a level that is as good as any other non Big Four player and for a notable extended period which sets them apart from those players. Perhaps their isn't a strong case to be made for differentiating their top scoring and Hart finishes as they all had many Top 3 finishes. I can see that it may take more Hart nomination level seasons by Crosby to clearly separate himself from those two.

I think where things get interesting is comparing Crosby's top scoring finishes with Howe's, who had quite a few 5th place finishes, a level where the statistical differentiation between now and the O6 start to clearly establish itself. I would make an argument that, generally speaking, a Top 10 finish from the current era is equal to a 5th place in the O6, and that a Top 5 from the current era is equal to a Top 3 finish from the O6.

I don't think Crosby will hit the heights of the big 4. I think he is going to be comfortably around the Hull/Beliveau/Richard level for good. Maybe #5, but not any higher. Those four were just at another level of dominance and if Crosby were to be that player he'd have done it by now. No knock on that, it's hard to be that player. If his career ends tomorrow maybe he's still behind Beliveau, but by the end of his career he is likely comparing very well to him - or at least on par.

We forget, Beliveau was still very darn good even in his final NHL season at 39 years of age.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm curious, would something like this be sort of a deeper analysis in regards to Crosby, Hull and Beliveau?

	Vs	+GD	Teams				Vs	-GD	Teams					% Games	% Games
	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-		GP	+GD	-GD
Sidney Crosby	499	224	391	615	76		444	222	377	599	107		943	0.529	0.471
Sidney Crosby	499	0.449	0.784	1.232			444	0.500	0.849	1.349			0.117
Bobby Hull	470	236	214	450	-11		566	368	335	703	270		1036	0.454	0.546
Bobby Hull	470	0.502	0.455	0.957			566	0.650	0.592	1.242			0.285
Jean Beliveau	471	174	262	436	-16		649	327	449	776	133		1120	0.421	0.579
Jean Beliveau	471	0.369	0.556	0.926			649	0.504	0.692	1.196			0.270

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that both Hull and Beliveau have a much larger gap in their performances against positive goal differential teams than negative goal differential teams, as well as playing a much larger percentage of their games against negative goal differential teams (basically due to the limitations of a six team league). I should also note that the Plus/Minus data for Hull is missing his first two seasons, while for Beliveau his first six full seasons.

I've been working through the O6 forwards on the top 100 list and these results are in line with most of them.

I think the time has come to say that Crosby should rank higher than even Jean or Bobby and this is yet more evidence to back up that view.