I like this statistical approach, but to some degree one is double-counting assists if one views points as just as salient as both goals and assists. As WarriorofTime and others have mentioned, there is a 1.7 multiplier associated with the prevalence of assists versus goals. Also, not all assists are created equal. I would just consider the goals and assists column, and adding those together would imply points productivity.
I think just referencing the 1.7 assists-per-goal stat is a little myopic, to be honest. The value in looking at top 5 goals, assists, and points is that it accounts for players who are more balanced (or less balanced, as the case may be). A player could have a top 6 goals finish and a top 6 assists finish in a season, that wouldn't be tracked only looking at goals and assists. But the resulting top 3 finish in points would be (and should be).
Looking at top 5 finishes let's us look at Richard and Ovechkin a little bit differently- Ovechkin has more top 5 goals finishes, they each have 0 top 5 assist finishes, but Richard has 3 more top 5 points finishes. Was Richard a better producer of assists than Ovechkin? I'd argue no, but it at least makes you think.
As a disclaimer- I don't think simply looking at finishes is the end-all, but from a high level I think we can make some decent insights to spur further discussion and analysis.
Calling Ovechkin a "shoot-only" player is slander - especially if the person claiming it knows anything at all about hockey. That statement is mutually exclusive from any player who is top 10 in assists or top 3 in hits over 20 years (in addition to being #1 in goals by a gargantuan margin), let alone both.
So, as someone who has been guilty of calling Ovechkin a "shoot-only" player, I think the implication is that on a historically great level, Ovechkin is really only known for shooting/scoring when talking about offense. Yes, I know that we should all "say what we mean and mean what we say", but sometimes that gets lost in trying quickly type out responses/participate in the discussion in between doing things in real life. This is where I think we could all do a better job trying to focus on what a poster means. That said, I don't speak for everyone, only myself. Perhaps there are some on here who think Ovechkin is a shoot only player who literally only shoots the puck. I don't think anyone thinks that, but I could be wrong.
Hits though... meh. When I'm looking at historically great players, I'm not looking at stats like hits, which different arenas count differently and whose impact on actually winning games is tenuous at best. But to the larger point, yeah, Ovechkin brings a level of physicality that really only Howe and perhaps Hull and Richard brought among this group. Weird (?) that they are all wingers. I'd much rather have a player whose a top tier threat in goals and assists than a players who a top tier threat in goals and hits or assists and hits.
Unfortunately, several regulars in this forum - when challenged - stood behind that (obviously) false description. And on that basis, they put him 22nd all time despite his resume at the time being quite comparable to Bobby Hull's (who was ranked 5th).
That list is also several years old.
Goals are more difficult to accumulate than assists (there are ~ 1.72 assists per goal).
If assists are so easy to accumulate, why aren't players like Ovechkin and Richard better at it? They just weren't as well-rounded/variable in their offensive production.
Yeah, I'd rather have the guy that has 50 goals and 0 assists versus the guy with 0 goals and 0 assists, but that's not what we are debating.
Despite this, Ovechkin is top 5 all time in adjusted points:
1. Wayne Gretzky (2475), 2. Gordie Howe (2190), 3. Jaromír Jágr (2080), 4. Sidney Crosby (1835), 5. Alex Ovechkin (1776), 6. Mark Messier (1732), 7. Ron Francis (1711), 8. Joe Thornton (1692), 9. Joe Sakic (1679), 10. Steve Yzerman (1650)
www.hockey-reference.com
Seems pretty good to me.
I'm not a big fan of adjusted points, to be honest. It's better than looking at raw totals, but I think comparing people relative to their peers makes a lot more sense
The scoring environments for Bobby Hull and Ovechkin were pretty comparable on a league average basis (actually it was 2.7% higher over Hull's career: 2.94 to 2.86). Hull's NHL career PPG is 1.8% higher, so they have virtually the same career PPG (1.11 for Hull vs 1.09 for Ovie) despite Ovie playing 455 more games and Hull leaving the NHL after age 33. For most players PPG drops off a cliff at this point. Hard to tell with Hull because he went to the WHA and stats don't convert neatly to the NHL.
So where does this assumption that Hull is better than Ovie at PPG come from?
No idea- as I stated, I'm not big on adjusted stats. I do think Hull was a more well-rounded/variable offensive threat, though, which is why I still lean towards Hull being the historically greater player.
Bobby Hull led the NHL in goals 7 times and points 3 times. Ovie led the NHL in goals 9 times and points 1 time.
Ovechkin the greater goals scorer, Hull the greater point producer. That works for me.
Except Ovie was competing against 3x as many hockey players in the world.
Assuming quantity is equal to quality is a dangerous game.
I can have 50 one dollar bills or 1 one hundred dollar bill, I know which one I would choose.
Hull's career high in adjusted assists is 58. Ovie's is 62.
Meh, adjusted points again.
Hull has assist finishes of 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th
Ovechkin has assist finishes of 6th, 6th, 10th
Ovechkin is 10th in the NHL in assists during his 20 year career. Hull was 8th in assists during his 15 year career (again, against 1/3 the talent pool). Even if we assume Canada in the 1950s was putting out as much talent as the hockey world does today (which is ridiculous) they're still comparable in terms of league ranking for assists.
As I alluded to above, I don't subscribe to the idea that quantity necessarily equals quality. Nor do I think that newer (or older) is always better; I try to look at the particular eras in question and go from there.
Physicality is also an element of versatility in hockey. Gordie Howe is perhaps competitive with Ovie in this regard. Aside from Gordie, it's probably very few top 100 players. Ovie's physicality has been a real weapon for the Capitals though.
I think Hull brought physicality as well; perhaps leveraged differently, but I don't think it is fair to state that Ovechkin was tangibly more physical than Hull.
All of these things were more or less true back when the participants in this forum put Ovechkin a whopping 17 places behind Hull (and behind 4 players on the 1950s Canadiens). IMO it's a head scratcher.
Yeah, I realize I'm arguing against your points for much of this post, but I agree with you here. I don't think the gap should be that large... and I'm not sure if one team really did have 4 of the top 20 players in history. But, I didn't participate in that project so I don't want to go too hard at it.
As you claim above, setting the goals record somehow doesn't move the needle.
Why would it? A single goal shouldn't be the deciding factor on a player's historical positioning. Otherwise we could just rank them all by given stats and be done with it.
Hopefully the sheer volume of goals does. And how could it not? - It has benefitted the team greatly.
I think it does have an impact on ranking- Ovechkin is being discussed as a potential top 10 players of all time precisely because of the sheer volume of goals he has scored. It certainly isn't for his defense or playmaking abilities, right?
If the rationale for Bobby Hull being miles above Ovechkin is "proper talent evaluation" surely that would be born out in the stats. Yet it very clearly isn't.
I think the argument would be that talent evaluation allows people to understand the impact of things like usage, linemates, historical trends, etc.
Otherwise we are just ranking people on stats and get crazy things like Bernie Nicholls having a higher goalscoring peak than Ovechkin.
