Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[WarriorofTime]

Considering how much winning and leading everyone in goal scoring in the playoff until around mid-career Bossy 45 years after Richard started to play, I am not sure if he is really a good case of lacking objective accomplishments.

Except if we consider bunch of Art Ross > leading the playoff in goals while winning 10 cups. According to the league/fans/rules of the game, the accomplishment was winning the cup at the end of the year, and no one outside his little brother objectively ever did it more.

I guess a question for a sanity check purpose is if Montreal in 50s really had their top center, top winger, top defenseman, top goaltender all be in the top 20 or whatever of all players in hockey history in a small league where 3 of the teams were usually not very good (especially in a sustained way) with not a very deep global talent pool, should they have been ever more dominant (particularly regular season)? Or is that splitting hairs? 70s Canadiens seem to get more recognition (with team stats to back it up), how different was beating up on diluted league versus beating up some of the bad O6 teams?

 

[Vilica]

If i understand the methodology, I am really unsure it can work, in 70-71 for the top 100 nhl forward with the most points, they had in average 1.31 assists per goals, it was 1.45 in 18-19, the numbers of assists awarded per goals in the nhl went up (video replay I imagine, helping tracking them).

We cannot use goal per game to adjust assists over time like that, assists versus their peers is maybe more the way to go or adjust using fowards assists per games instead of goal per games ? Early 06 the league was what around 1.44 assists per goals if we include defenseman to a stable ~1.7 in modern video era.

Sure, you can make that argument for some teams (especially earlier in the O6), but look at the two specific teams involved in the comparison - the 70-71 Hawks and the 18-19 Capitals.

The Blackhawks scored 277 goals and had 482 assists applied to those goals - 1.740 by your accounting
The Capitals scored 274 goals and had 478 assists applied to those goals - 1.744 by your accounting

Realistically, there are very few missed assists for those two teams.

We really should go through team-by-team prior to expansion and get the assists year over year, to see where/when the assists start moving on up, and how the forward/defense percentages change.

Forgive me if I am understanding this incorrectly, but using adjusted assists- Hull's 5th place finish in 59-60 would correspond to a 32nd place finish in 07-08? A fifth place finish in 59-60 is worse than Jason Pominville's 2007-08 season? Pierre-Marc Bouchard's? Derek Roy's?

I feel like we need to be questioning that methodology, if that is the case.

This is why using ranks to approximate impact is so flawed. Bobby Hull finished 5th in assists in 59-60, tied with Dickie Moore on 42. However, Hull played all 70 games, while Moore played 62 games. Finishing tied 7th was Bronco Horvath on 41 assists, who played 68 games, along with Bernie Geoffrion, who played 59 games. Finishing 9th was Jean Beliveau on 40 assists, who played 60 games. Even Johnny Buyck, who had 36 assists in 56 games played (finished 13th), would've jumped Hull in 70 games. Realistically, his 5th should've been a 9th or 10th, but 25% of the league's top-line forwards missed chunks of time that year, so his rank finish is marginally more impressive. That stuff happens in a 6 team league with 18 top-line forwards. It's so much different than a 30 team league with 90 top-line forwards. Pominville was 25, Bouchard 23, Roy 24, they all had their peak years, and they never reached those numbers again. Outlier seasons happen, and there's a lot more opportunity for that in a 30 team league. Think about it this way - in the O6 era, you had 25 years of 6 teams with 3 top-line forwards, or 450 player-seasons. Post-lockout, you have 20 years of 30 teams with 3 top-line forwards, or 1800 player-seasons. You're going to have more outliers with 4 times as many player-seasons.

Back to Hull, here's a table with his 42 assists converted into every post-lockout year, with his corresponding finish:

Year	LA GF	Assists	Rank
05-06	248	50.56	t26
06-07	236	48.12	t32
07-08	223	45.47	t32
08-09	234	47.71	t24
09-10	227	46.28	t23
10-11	224	45.67	t19
11-12	218	44.45	t21
12-13	127	25.89	t25
13-14	219	44.65	t13
14-15	218	44.45	t15
15-16	219	44.65	t19
16-17	223	45.47	t15
17-18	240	48.93	t30
18-19	244	49.75	t32
19-20	208	42.41	t21
20-21	162	33.03	t28
21-22	255	51.99	t30
22-23	258	52.60	t23
23-24	253	51.58	t26
24-25	247	50.36	t32

He finishes as high as t13, and has almost as many finishes in the teens (5) as he does in the 30s (6), along with 9 in the 20s. The only real reason he's in the 30s is because of the number of players (in a 30 team league) and ties. You increment his adjusted assist numbers by 1, and he claws into the late 20s in basically every year (ie in 07-08 give him 47 assists instead of 46, and he's tied for 29th instead of 32nd, right alongside Ovechkin). You'll also note the variation in even the same scoring seasons - both 07-08 and 16-17 were 223 league average, and Hull finished t32 in one year, and t15 in the other.

The other aspect I noticed is that you mentioned Pominville, Bouchard and Roy, but ignored Ovechkin. Both Hull and he won the Art Ross that year along with the Rocket, and Ovechkin had 47 assists to Hull's rounded 46. The same type of player with the same amount of assists. Scoring just doesn't change. The bounds are wide, but you'll see the same variations over and over again. That Hull 59-60 season in terms of G%/P% was 20.4% G% and 42.4% P%. Ovechkin's 08-09 season was 20.9% G% and 41.0% P%. Different players, 50 years apart, almost identical G%/P%. Chicago was just a below-average scoring team that year, which is why Hull's year converts to 44+48=92 on 217 goals scored, compared to Ovechkin's 56+54=110 on 268 goals scored.

 

[MadLuke]

if Montreal in 50s really had their top center, top winger, top defenseman, top goaltender all be in the top 20 or whatever of all players in hockey history

We need to adjust a bit for the age difference, they were not all in their prime playing on the team at the same time, when they stopped to win the cup every year in 1961 Maurice Richard was retired and Harvey was 36/37. Before starting to win, they did not had Beliveau, the only year they had full time Beliveau before Richard retire and did not won it all was 1955, when Richard was not in the playoff because of the famous incident that lead to the riots.

The Oilers bunch were in a very thigh age group in comparison, a bit like Jagr-Lemieux did not win that much but would they have had their 22-30 years old years time, healthy and matching....

 

[WarriorofTime]

Maurice Richard (1921)
Doug Harvey (1924)
Jacques Plante (1929)
Jean Beliveau (1931)

Fair point on age spread, at least to a point where we'd say, the consistent spread/winning of Cups is not necessarily ruling out a possibility that they were adding a Top Whatever player every few years with various waxing and waning phases.

 

[MadLuke]

but look at the two specific teams involved in the comparison - the 70-71 Hawks and the 18-19 Capitals.

The Blackhawks scored 277 goals and had 482 assists applied to those goals - 1.740 by your accounting
The Capitals scored 274 goals and had 478 assists applied to those goals - 1.744 by your accounting

Yes, maybe some arenas tracked them more than others, Hawks forward
had 1
1.46 assists per goals at home (which would be modern days high enough I think)
vs
1.29 assists per goals on the road

Combined with the different net size in different arena in some eras, maybe this would be quite the can of worm...

 

[jigglysquishy]

I get the hesitation. But contemporaries clearly thought Montreal had assembled the best of the best all time. All four of Richard, Beliveau, Harvey, and Plante are routinely called the best ever in their position's history by people who were actively watching them play.

Old man Harvey won a Norris with the Rangers.
Plante won a Hart when the dynasty fell apart. And then won a (statistical) Vezina as an old man on the expansion Blues. And was still generally regarded as one of the best active goalies into his early 40s.

Beliveau was the backbone of the 60s dynasty. Some call him the best player of all time as early as 1956 and is still widely regarded as second best centre in the league into the late 60s.

They did win 5 in a row. And make 8 finals in a row.

Pull any best all time list from 1956-1970. They're all from guys who just watched it. And they all have multiple 50s Habs on it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess a question for a sanity check purpose is if Montreal in 50s really had their top center, top winger, top defenseman, top goaltender all be in the top 20 or whatever

You're right. Proper talent evaluation is essential.

 

[rmartin65]

This is why using ranks to approximate impact is so flawed. Bobby Hull finished 5th in assists in 59-60, tied with Dickie Moore on 42. However, Hull played all 70 games, while Moore played 62 games. Finishing tied 7th was Bronco Horvath on 41 assists, who played 68 games, along with Bernie Geoffrion, who played 59 games. Finishing 9th was Jean Beliveau on 40 assists, who played 60 games. Even Johnny Buyck, who had 36 assists in 56 games played (finished 13th), would've jumped Hull in 70 games. Realistically, his 5th should've been a 9th or 10th, but 25% of the league's top-line forwards missed chunks of time that year, so his rank finish is marginally more impressive.

Per game stats don't really help Ovechkin here- he goes from 6/6/10 to 6/10/10.

But sure, I agree- Hull probably doesn't finish as high as 5 without injuries to his competition. Of course, the same principle applies with Ovechkin's career totals- does he rank so high in points and assists if others had his level of health? If Gretzky doesn't have the back injury and a bad shoulder, how many more goals does he have? We are playing a lot of "what-if" games here, which is fine if we are applying them equally. Does Stamkos steal another Richard or two from Ovechkin if he doesn't break his leg? What does Crosby's trophy case look like?

That stuff happens in a 6 team league with 18 top-line forwards. It's so much different than a 30 team league with 90 top-line forwards. Pominville was 25, Bouchard 23, Roy 24, they all had their peak years, and they never reached those numbers again. Outlier seasons happen, and there's a lot more opportunity for that in a 30 team league. Think about it this way - in the O6 era, you had 25 years of 6 teams with 3 top-line forwards, or 450 player-seasons. Post-lockout, you have 20 years of 30 teams with 3 top-line forwards, or 1800 player-seasons. You're going to have more outliers with 4 times as many player-seasons.

Again, you aren't really saying all that much I disagree with (besides a couple inaccuracies- Pominville, Roy, and Dumont all had a couple years in that range, so calling them outlier seasons is inaccurate).

Back to Hull, here's a table with his 42 assists converted into every post-lockout year, with his corresponding finish:

Year	LA GF	Assists	Rank
05-06	248	50.56	t26
06-07	236	48.12	t32
07-08	223	45.47	t32
08-09	234	47.71	t24
09-10	227	46.28	t23
10-11	224	45.67	t19
11-12	218	44.45	t21
12-13	127	25.89	t25
13-14	219	44.65	t13
14-15	218	44.45	t15
15-16	219	44.65	t19
16-17	223	45.47	t15
17-18	240	48.93	t30
18-19	244	49.75	t32
19-20	208	42.41	t21
20-21	162	33.03	t28
21-22	255	51.99	t30
22-23	258	52.60	t23
23-24	253	51.58	t26
24-25	247	50.36	t32

He finishes as high as t13, and has almost as many finishes in the teens (5) as he does in the 30s (6), along with 9 in the 20s. The only real reason he's in the 30s is because of the number of players (in a 30 team league) and ties. You increment his adjusted assist numbers by 1, and he claws into the late 20s in basically every year (ie in 07-08 give him 47 assists instead of 46, and he's tied for 29th instead of 32nd, right alongside Ovechkin). You'll also note the variation in even the same scoring seasons - both 07-08 and 16-17 were 223 league average, and Hull finished t32 in one year, and t15 in the other.

I'm sorry, I just don't find adjusted assists to be a compelling argument.

That said, it has encouraged me to do some looking around, so I checked VsX because I do find VsX to be a compelling argument. I'll admit that it shows something I didn't expect-

Hull's 7-year VsX for points is 108.3. Ovechkin's is 98.4. The gap is 9.9.

Hull's 7-year VsX for goals is 70.2. Ovechkin's is 59.5. The gap is 10.7.

To me, this indicates that Ovechkin may have actually been a better assist guy relative to his peers than Hull was. Which... man, it doesn't match the eye test for me, but it is forcing me to take a step back a little bit.

My initial takeaway is that perhaps I am overrating Hull a bit.

The other aspect I noticed is that you mentioned Pominville, Bouchard and Roy, but ignored Ovechkin.

Well, yeah- I was pointing out guys that have no business being discussed in an all time great discussion. Ovechkin belongs, so his name didn't jump out at me when looking down the list and saying "no way Hull should be behind these guys".

Both Hull and he won the Art Ross that year along with the Rocket, and Ovechkin had 47 assists to Hull's rounded 46. The same type of player with the same amount of assists. Scoring just doesn't change. The bounds are wide, but you'll see the same variations over and over again. That Hull 59-60 season in terms of G%/P% was 20.4% G% and 42.4% P%. Ovechkin's 08-09 season was 20.9% G% and 41.0% P%. Different players, 50 years apart, almost identical G%/P%.

This some interesting data. Are your percentages based off of the real data or adjusted points?

 

[daver]

This is why using ranks to approximate impact is so flawed.

Using a method that is soundly rejected by the majority in the HOH due to it's major flaws is not a way to show that ranking players by placements is flawed.

What is generally accepted is a context placed on placements given the different league sizes. A reasonable assumption to make is that generational/superstar players from any era would separate themselves from the pack in a similar manner in any era and that the pack of elite scorers (or the 1st liners or Top 6 forwards) has generally expanded as the league has expanded.

For example, if you calculate the % behind the leaders (#1and #2) for the Top 10 scorers from the O6 through to the current era, generally speaking, you will see that the #3 scorer in the O6 was behind #1/#2 the same amount as the #5/#6 in the current era. The #5 scorer in the O6 is, generally speaking, behind #1/#2 scorers by the same amount as the #10 to #12 scorers in the current era and the #10 scorer is behind the #1/#2 scorer by the same amount as the #20 to #25 scorer in the current era.

Based on this, IMO, it is reasonable to give an edge to a player with similar career placements as an O6 player but I would not go so far as to move a player up a level offensively. Crosby has similar Art Ross placements as Hull and Beliveau but when you calcalute the % behind the leaders, he is clearly closer to the leaders than Hull and Beliveau were. Howe is a closer comparable.

Hull has more Top 10 Art Ross placements than Ovechkin (11 to 8):

Hull - 1 ,1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Ovechkin - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 9 (11, 13, 15)

 

[Hippasus]

I agree with the first part of Daver's post above. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying a bit, but comparison with peers is preferable to league-wide points adjustments, as well as VsX for that matter, if one selects a good denominator that crosses boundaries across history. E.g. average first-liner, average top-four defenseman, etc. For instance, despite differences in league-size over the decades, there has pretty much always been an average top-four defenseman in a given season. Then everyone, for a given season, is considered on a level playing-field in terms of how he performed against his peers. It wouldn't matter about differences in stick technology, training, league-size, even, since all players for a given season are treated as on a level playing-field. This way one can, more-or-less fairly, compare different eras in hockey with one another.

 

[Vilica]

This some interesting data. Are your percentages based off of the real data or adjusted points?

I'll start with the bottom quote first. Basically, what I've found out is that while the raw numbers of goals, assists and points varies based on scoring levels and number of games played, the underlying G%/P% (and A%, though I don't actually calculate that, it's just inferred) does not change. If league average goals was somehow 500, say they played 162 games instead of 82 (and players had a similarly-high percentage of games played in both situations), the peak player-seasons are still going to garner points on somewhere between 40-50% of their team's goals. If that team in a league average of 250 scores exactly 250 goals, a P% of 40 means they'd have 100 points. In a league average of 500, they'd have 200 points. In a league average of 125, they'd have 50 points.

If you want a different comparable, the shortened 19-20 season is a perfect example. Because the season was shortened, they played 70 games, in a league average of 208, and you have a perfect comparable in the 62-63 season, where they also played 70 games in a league average of 208. Look at these player-seasons:

Rank	Name	Year	Team	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Team GF	LA GF	% LA	G%	P%	VsX	Avg VsX
2	Andy Bathgate	62-63	NYR	70	35	46	81	211	208	1.014	0.166	0.384	100	88.83
3	Stan Mikita	62-63	CHI	65	31	45	76	194	208	0.933	0.160	0.392	93.83	83.35
4	Frank Mahovlich	62-63	TOR	67	36	37	73	221	208	1.063	0.163	0.330	90.12	80.06
4	Henri Richard	62-63	MTL	67	23	50	73	225	208	1.082	0.102	0.324	90.12	80.06
16	Dave Keon	62-63	TOR	68	28	28	56	221	208	1.063	0.127	0.253	69.14	61.42
8	Patrick Kane	19-20	CHI	70	33	51	84	208	208	1.000	0.159	0.404	86.60	92.12
10	Jack Eichel	19-20	BUF	68	36	42	78	193	208	0.928	0.187	0.404	80.41	85.54
14	Evgeni Malkin	19-20	PIT	55	25	49	74	221	208	1.063	0.113	0.335	76.29	81.16
17	JT Miller	19-20	VAN	69	27	45	72	224	208	1.077	0.121	0.321	74.23	78.96
51	Bryan Rust	19-20	PIT	55	27	29	56	221	208	1.063	0.122	0.253	57.73	61.42

Compare Bathgate to Kane, Mikita to Eichel, Mahovlich to Malkin, Richard to Miller. Their teams scored just about the same amount of goals, and they had a similar P%, thus about the same number of points. Doesn't change from 1963 to 2020 (though we're a little unlucky that we have no exact matches of Team GF/Points in the top 20). The Keon/Rust comparison was the closest I found to exactly identical seasons, though obviously Rust played fewer games. Because everybody only played 70 games instead of 82, you don't have to adjust any sort of scoring. 35 goals and 46 assists in 62-63 are 35 goals and 46 assists in 19-20.

Since G%/P% is so static, when I place a player-season into a different scoring environment, I'm not really adjusting anything. Yes, the raw numbers are different, but you can also think of it as increasing or decreasing the number of games played. Hull's 59-60 was a 206 league average in 70 games played, which is a 241 league average playing 82 games, or a 294 league average playing 100 games, or 147 playing 50 games. He has 42 assists in the 206 league, he'd have 49 assists in the 241 league, 60 assists in the 294 league, and 30 assists in the 147 league. Whether he plays 50 or 70 or 82 or 100 games, his assists per game average is still 0.60. When scoring goes up without increasing the games played, that's when per game numbers start going up, and the same as when it goes down.

[Moving up to the Pominville, Roy, Bouchard versus Ovechkin, Hull assists quickly, I feel like you made an incomplete conclusion looking at those names. Sure, Pominville, Roy and Bouchard all had more assists than Hull would have, but they also all had more assists than a peak Ovechkin season. You concentrated more on the first aspect than the second one. Also, I'm using outlier and peak mostly cavalierly, and not being consistent in my usage of both words. Bouchard's assist number is not an outlier season, in terms of raw assists, it is an outlier season in terms of his career.]

The VsX argument is actually an interesting one, because I basically built my adjusting engine to do a different calculation for VsX. Instead of relying on yearly samples, what I did was input the league average from 05-06 through 18-19. [I basically built it during the pandemic, so that was the most recent full season. I could extend it further, but 15 years seems to be accurate enough.] So Hull's 59-60 season gets put into 05-06, converts to 229.94 team goals scored, 46.95 goals, 50.56 assists, and 97.51 points. With a VsX of 106 that year, his seasonal VsX is 91.99. Do that for 14 more years, average all 15 numbers, come out with an Average VsX of 89.70, compared to Hull's actual VsX of 101.25. If you refer back to the 62-63/19-20 table above, VsX is massively different for both seasons - it is 81 in 62-63 and 97 in 19-20. Average VsX thinks it should be just about 91, or just above the middle of those two extremes. That's why both Keon and Rust have the exact same Avg VsX - same number of points, same scoring level. They shouldn't be 12 points apart.

When you take best 7 of Avg VsX, Hull goes from 108.3 to 96.11, and Ovechkin goes from 98.4 to 100.7. It goes back to the 450 player-seasons versus 1800 player-seasons. VsX numbers were softer in the O6 era because 18 top-line forwards isn't enough of a sample to produce outlier seasons every year. If you look at the seasons closest to 100 in Average VsX, it's 07-08 Jarome Iginla, 24-25 Howie Morenz, 22-23 Pastrnak/Kucherov, 10-11 Corey Perry, 89-90 Mark Messier. I did an experiment where the sample I used for Average VsX was 53-54 through 66-67 (another 15 year sample), and the benchmark of 100 there was 07-08 Ilya Kovalchuk, 30-31 Joe Primeau, 02-03 Modano/Palffy, 36-37 Sweeney Schriner, 06-07 Ovechkin, and 62-63 Bathgate (as you see above Bathgate is 88.83, versus 99.86, or just about a 11 point gap). There were just over 150 player-seasons that exceeded 100, versus about 375 using the O6 VsX.

 

[daver]

Using a method that is soundly rejected by the majority in the HOH due to it's major flaws is not a way to show that ranking players by placements is flawed.

What is generally accepted is a context placed on placements given the different league sizes. A reasonable assumption to make is that generational/superstar players from any era would separate themselves from the pack in a similar manner in any era and that the pack of elite scorers (or the 1st liners or Top 6 forwards) has generally expanded as the league has expanded.

For example, if you calculate the % behind the leaders (#1and #2) for the Top 10 scorers from the O6 through to the current era, generally speaking, you will see that the #3 scorer in the O6 was behind #1/#2 the same amount as the #5/#6 in the current era. The #5 scorer in the O6 is, generally speaking, behind #1/#2 scorers by the same amount as the #10 to #12 scorers in the current era and the #10 scorer is behind the #1/#2 scorer by the same amount as the #20 to #25 scorer in the current era.

Based on this, IMO, it is reasonable to give an edge to a player with similar career placements as an O6 player but I would not go so far as to move a player up a level offensively. Crosby has similar Art Ross placements as Hull and Beliveau but when you calcalute the % behind the leaders, he is clearly closer to the leaders than Hull and Beliveau were. Howe is a closer comparable.

Hull has more Top 10 Art Ross placements than Ovechkin (11 to 8):

Hull - 1 ,1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Ovechkin - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 9 (11, 13, 15)

To account for the difference in league size, here are those finishes in terms of % behind (or ahead) of the #1/#2 scorers:

Hull:

1. 11% ahead
2. 1% ahead
3. 0% ahead
4. 1% behind
5. 9% behind
6. 11% behind
7. 14% behind
8. 20% behind
9. 25% behind*
10. 29% behind*
11. 35% behind

* based on 120 points to account for the Orr/Esposito outlier seasons


Here are those finishes in terms of % behind (or ahead) of the #1/#2 scorers:

Ovechkin:

1. 3% ahead
2. 1% behind
3. 1% behind
4. 4% behind
5. 7% behind
6. 17% behind
7. 19% behind
8. 21% behind
9. 21% behind
10. 27% behind
11. 37% behind


Pretty close but an edge to Hull. Hull was more productive in the playoffs than Ovechkin. He was the leading playoff point producer during his prime ('60 to '72) and had the highest PPG among the Top Ten scorers. Ovechkin was 4th in points and in PPG during his prime ('08 to '18).

Statistically their goalscoring is very close, edge to Ovechkin for longevity. Overall, I think Hull was better.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Hull has more Top 10 Art Ross placements than Ovechkin:

Hull - 1 ,1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Ovechkin - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 9 (11, 13, 15)


To account for the difference in league size, here are those finishes in terms of % behind (or ahead) of the #1/#2 scorers:

Hull:

1. 11% ahead
2. 1% ahead
3. 0% ahead
4. 1% behind
5. 9% behind
6. 11% behind
7. 14% behind
8. 20% behind
9. 25% behind*
10. 29% behind*
11. 35% behind

* based on 120 points to account for the Orr/Esposito outlier seasons


Here are those finishes in terms of % behind (or ahead) of the #1/#2 scorers:

Ovechkin:

1. 3% ahead
2. 1% behind
3. 1% behind
4. 4% behind
5. 7% behind
6. 17% behind
7. 19% behind
8. 21% behind
9. 21% behind
10. 27% behind
11. 37% behind

Rank, Player, Adjusted Points, Season (Season GPG) (adjustment from actual points and how long season was, regardless of individual GP during season)

Top 250 Single Season Adjusted Points for Hull and Ovechkin:

59) Alex Ovechkin: 122 2007-08 (5.440 GPG) (+10 to 112 pts in 82 game season)
86) Alex Ovechkin: 117 2009-10 (5.531 GPG) (+8 to 109 pts in 82 game season)
110) Alex Ovechkin: 114 2008-09 (5.696 GPG) (+4 to 110 pts in 82 game season)
170) Alex Ovechkin: 107 2012-13 (5.308 GPG) (+51 to 56 pts in 48 game season)
200) Bobby Hull: 105 1968-69 (5.961 GPG) (-2 to 107 pts in 76 game season)
216) Alex Ovechkin: 104 2005-06 (6.051 GPG) (-2 to 106 pts in 82 game season)
234) Bobby Hull: 103 1965-66 (6.081 GPG) (+6 to 97 pts in 70 game season)

Career Adjusted Points:

5) Alex Ovechkin: 1776 (+153 to 1623 points)
40) Bobby Hull: 1239 (+69 to 1170 points)

 

[MadLuke]

the peak player-seasons are still going to garner points on somewhere between 40-50% of their team's goals.

The gap between scoring 40% of the 2018 Devils like Taylor Hall did and scoring 50% of those Devils goals is quite vast too.

This seem usually said with a sense than scoring those extra points would not have added goals.

Hall had 93 points in 76 Devils games, they had 243 goals that year we can imagine he scored yes ~40% points on his team goals during those 76 games.

Would he have scored 120 points and turned those Devils into a 270 goals team that year, he would have been at 44.4%

Would he have scored 150 points and turned those Devils into a 300 goals team that year, he would have been at 50%

150 points in 2018 would have been one of the greatest season in the history of the sports, beating every non McDavid in the nhl by a 50% margin, like a prime Mario Lemieux type of season. We cannot put an average top 10 finish and one of the best sseason of all time (diff between 40 and 50%) as if it was close like that.

We will see the great percentage having an hard time to down or up quite a bit because of how the feedback loop work, always on the PP, you will have a large proportions of points in goals scored, do you turn them into 26%+ power play like Lemieux-McDavid do ?

 

[daver]

The gap between scoring 40% of the 2018 Devils like Taylor Hall did and scoring 50% of those Devils goals is quite vast too.

This seem usually said with a sense than scoring those extra points would not have added goals.

Hall had 93 points in 76 Devils games, they had 243 goals that year we can imagine he scored yes ~40% points on his team goals during those 76 games.

Would he have scored 120 points and turned those Devils into a 270 goals team that year, he would have been at 44.4%

Would he have scored 150 points and turned those Devils into a 300 goals team that year, he would have been at 50%

150 points in 2018 would have been one of the greatest season in the history of the sports, beating every non McDavid in the nhl by a 50% margin, like a prime Mario Lemieux type of season. We cannot put an average top 10 finish and one of the best sseason of all time (diff between 40 and 50%) as if it was close like that.

We will see the great percentage having an hard time to down or up quite a bit because of how the feedback loop work, always on the PP, you will have a large proportions of points in goals scored, do you turn them into 26%+ power play like Lemieux-McDavid do ?

Things like % of team points, % gap over teammates are reasonable edges to give to one player over another where their statistical dominance is similar.

Moving a player up or down an offensive tier is not reasonable based on this primarily as it makes the very unproven/unprovable premise that said player would do worse or better if in a different team situation.

Ovechkin was just as productive when he was a 1 man show, for the most part, or the biggest piece of one of the best offensive teams of the era in the 09/10 Caps. Great players tend to always get their points regardless of the quality of their team.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Rank, Player, Adjusted Points, Season (Season GPG) (adjustment from actual points and how long season was, regardless of individual GP during season)

Top 250 Single Season Adjusted Points for Hull and Ovechkin:

59) Alex Ovechkin: 122 2007-08 (5.440 GPG) (+10 to 112 pts in 82 game season)
86) Alex Ovechkin: 117 2009-10 (5.531 GPG) (+8 to 109 pts in 82 game season)
110) Alex Ovechkin: 114 2008-09 (5.696 GPG) (+4 to 110 pts in 82 game season)
170) Alex Ovechkin: 107 2012-13 (5.308 GPG) (+51 to 56 pts in 48 game season)
200) Bobby Hull: 105 1968-69 (5.961 GPG) (-2 to 107 pts in 76 game season)
216) Alex Ovechkin: 104 2005-06 (6.051 GPG) (-2 to 106 pts in 82 game season)
234) Bobby Hull: 103 1965-66 (6.081 GPG) (+6 to 97 pts in 70 game season)

Career Adjusted Points:

5) Alex Ovechkin: 1776 (+153 to 1623 points)
40) Bobby Hull: 1239 (+69 to 1170 points)

Without getting into Ovechkin vs Hull, the adjusted points from hockey-reference.com don't make sense. Bobby Hull's 1966 season is one of the greatest (non Big Four) seasons of all-time. He was 24% ahead of the closest player (and 41% of the average of the next ten). It's not due to weak competiton (three of the next four highest scorers were high-end HOF'ers, and seven of the next top ten were in the Hall). It's not due to injuries either. The next seven highest scorers missed a total of six games, combined (besides, if we use that logic, Hull missed five games, so his lead would have been even bigger).

HR.com rates this season below Theo Fleury in 1999 (T-7th in scoring), Auston Matthews in 2024 (6th), Pierre Turgeon in 1990 (7th), and Pavol Demitra in 2003 (6th). We need to make reasonable adjustments for the size of the league, but I don't see how the formula can conclude that one of the most dominant seasons of the Original Six era is equal to a 6th or 7th place finish in the 1990's onwards.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Without getting into Ovechkin vs Hull, the adjusted points from hockey-reference.com don't make sense. Bobby Hull's 1966 season is one of the greatest (non Big Four) seasons of all-time. He was 24% ahead of the closest player (and 41% of the average of the next ten). It's not due to weak competiton (three of the next four highest scorers were high-end HOF'ers, and seven of the next top ten were in the Hall). It's not due to injuries either. The next seven highest scorers missed a total of six games, combined (besides, if we use that logic, Hull missed five games, so his lead would have been even bigger).

Don't think any statistical adjusting method is ever going to be perfect. It's statistically a very high scoring season though, so what factors would uniquely drive down top line scorers? In a 6 team league, you had 28 guys with twenty goals. That's higher on a per team basis than the number of 20 goal scorers in 2024-25 (4.594 vs. 4.667) and Powerplay Opportunities were higher then as well.

 

[MadLuke]

so what factors would uniquely drive down top line scorers?

Maybe not the Hawks at home, but less assists per goals.

Top 20 scorer had 1.33 assists per goals in 1966, it was 1.52 in 2024. Could be legitimate in some way, I do not know but looking at home vs away assists rate for the Hawks player, could be score keeping.

Still a gap in goals going on at the top:

1. A. Matthews 0.852
2. S. Reinhart 0.695
3. Z. Hyman 0.675
4. N. MacKinno 0.622
5. K. Kaprizov 0.613
6. A. Panarin 0.598
7. F. Forsberg 0.585
8. D. Pastrňák 0.573
9. B. Point 0.568
10. N. Kucherov 0.543

vs
1. B. Hull* 0.831
2. F. Mahovlich* 0.471
3. A. Delvecchio* 0.443
3. N. Ullman* 0.443
5. S. Mikita* 0.441
6. J. Béliveau* 0.433
7. J. Bucyk* 0.429
B. Rousseau 0.429
9. B. Nevin 0.420
10. G. Howe* 0.414

Looking at on the ice power play goals stats:

NHL Yearly Top 10 Leaders and Records for Power Play Goals On-Ice For | Hockey-Reference.com

NHL Yearly Top 10 Leaders and Records for Power Play Goals On-Ice For

www.hockey-reference.com

Maybe they went less heavy on a first pp unit back that year versus now

(three of the next four highest scorers were high-end HOF'ers, and seven of the next top ten were in the Hall)

While true there is a nice list of big name the closest competition is Bobby Rousseau.

Beliveau, Howe, Delvecchio all time great sure but they were 34-37-33 by then, but those 3 at 24-27 like Hull-Mikita and maybe the gap goes away

 

[Vilica]

Without getting into Ovechkin vs Hull, the adjusted points from hockey-reference.com don't make sense. Bobby Hull's 1966 season is one of the greatest (non Big Four) seasons of all-time. He was 24% ahead of the closest player (and 41% of the average of the next ten). It's not due to weak competiton (three of the next four highest scorers were high-end HOF'ers, and seven of the next top ten were in the Hall). It's not due to injuries either. The next seven highest scorers missed a total of six games, combined (besides, if we use that logic, Hull missed five games, so his lead would have been even bigger).

HR.com rates this season below Theo Fleury in 1999 (T-7th in scoring), Auston Matthews in 2024 (6th), Pierre Turgeon in 1990 (7th), and Pavol Demitra in 2003 (6th). We need to make reasonable adjustments for the size of the league, but I don't see how the formula can conclude that one of the most dominant seasons of the Original Six era is equal to a 6th or 7th place finish in the 1990's onwards.

I've got a couple posts in the pipeline, but here's a season very close to Bobby Hull's 65-66:

Rank	Name	Year	Team	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Team GF	LA GF	% LA	G%	P%
1	Bobby Hull	65-66	CHI	65	54	43	97	240	213	1.127	0.225	0.404
3	David Pastrnak	19-20	BOS	70	48	47	95	227	208	1.091	0.211	0.419
1	Bobby Hull	65-66	CHI	65	54	43	97	226	213	1.061	0.239	0.429

The Blackhawks scored 14 goals in the 5 games that Hull missed that year, so both players had a nearly-identical team scoring environment. Hull's season is marginally more impressive, but not functionally different than Pastrnak's season, without adjusting for any scoring, or 82 games instead of 70. However, Pastrnak finished 15 points behind Draisaitl, while Hull was 19 points ahead of Mikita and Rousseau. That's the consequence of 6 teams versus 30. If you did put both seasons into the 24-25 scoring environment of 247, Pastrnak's season converts to 57+56=113, while Hull's season is 63+50=113, rounding. That's pretty clearly 3rd this year, but 8 points behind Kucherov. Adjusted points on h-r has it 112 for Pastrnak and 103 for Hull, there shouldn't be that big of a gap, I agree.

The seasons that Average VsX see as closest to that Hull year include Bossy's 81-82, Lafleur's 75-76, Vincent Lecavalier's 06-07, Ebbie Goodfellow's 30-31, Selanne's 96-97, Joe Malone's 1917-18, as well as Panarin's 19-20 to go with Pastrnak, all within a point on the high side, and Zhamnov's 94-95, Bill Cook's 29-30, Howe's 68-69, Nels Stewart's 28-29, Howe's 50-51, and Geoffrion's 60-61, all within a point on the low side.

Geoffrion's 60-61 is quite instructive, because it was his peak season, and one he never repeated to that level. In the O6, seasons like Geoffrion's happened every so often. In the current era, one year it might be Panarin, the next year Marner, the next Kyle Connor, or Filip Forsberg, or Mikko Rantanen, or Johnny Gaudreau. With 30 teams there's more opportunities for a prime-aged player to have a peak season. These seasons don't even have to be as good as the Hull year, it is more about setting an accurate VsX line. Hull and Mikita putting up back to back 97 point seasons, Dickie Moore 96, and Bernie Geoffrion 95 show those figures are possible, but only 60-61 when Beliveau put up 90 is VsX close to accurate. The sheer volume of current players ensures that somebody is going to have a 90 point season.

 

[daver]

The sheer volume of current players ensures that somebody is going to have a 90 point season.

Any method that hypothetically places players from one era into another is ineherantly flawed and opens up fields of rabbit holes that, depending on your opinion or bias towards a player, yields endless subjective interpretions.

The starting point here is not "Hull put up 97 points, I wonder if that is better than the 97 points that Player X put up?", the starting point here is Hull dominated his compeition in 65/66 in a way that warrants being compared with the very best of the O6 save for Howe's 52/53 season. You have not presented any argument that disputes this.

Saying that there are now five times as many Hull-level players in the league due to expansion over the years simply doesn't pass the smell test. You can start tracing a line back from the consensus "Best players in the league": McDavid to Crosby to Jagr to Mario to Wayne etc back to Rocket Richard and reasonably place them on tiers given their respective levels of domination.

It is the measurement of "domination" that most in the HOH are willing to consider given the league size and the reasonable assumption that the number of elite scorers has increased as the league size has increased. How that translates into the gap that a generational talent creates is not as simple as multiplying by the number of team in the league.

 

[Vilica]

Any method that hypothetically places players from one era into another is ineherantly flawed and opens up fields of rabbit holes that, depending on your opinion or bias towards a player, yields endless subjective interpretions.

The starting point here is not "Hull put up 97 points, I wonder if that is better than the 97 points that Player X put up?", the starting point here is Hull dominated his compeition in 65/66 in a way that warrants being compared with the very best of the O6 save for Howe's 52/53 season. You have not presented any argument that disputes this.

Saying that there are now five times as many Hull-level players in the league due to expansion over the years simply doesn't pass the smell test. You can start tracing a line back from the consensus "Best players in the league": McDavid to Crosby to Jagr to Mario to Wayne etc back to Rocket Richard and reasonably place them on tiers given their respective levels of domination.

It is the measurement of "domination" that most in the HOH are willing to consider given the league size and the reasonable assumption that the number of elite scorers has increased as the league size has increased. How that translates into the gap that a generational talent creates is not as simple as multiplying by the number of team in the league.

I'm not denigrating Hull's year at all. By my numbers, it is like the 9th-10th best year of the entire O6 era. The point I continually try to make is that O6 era is a very small sample compared to the current era. By NHL stats, there are 994 forward player-seasons of at least 20 games and averaging greater than 0.5 points per game between the 42-43 and 66-67 seasons. Via the same source, there are 934 forward player-seasons of at least 20 games and 0.5 points per game between the 19-20 and 23-24 seasons. So when you say "Hull's year is one of the 10 best in the entire O6 era", you're talking about the same functional sample as the five years between 19-20 and 23-24, in which David Pastrnak had the ~12th best year. [I moved this sample back one year to include the Pastrnak season as it is the closest comparable to Hull's year.]

If you want to expand the samples, there were ~1000 forward player-seasons between 05-06 and 09-10, another 1000 between 10-11 and 14-15, another 1000 between 15-16 and 19-20, and another 1000 between 20-21 and 24-25. The Hull year is the 13th best in the 05-06 to 09-10 sample, 5th best in the 10-11 through 14-15 sample, 8th best in the 15-16 through 19-20 sample, and 12th best in the 20-21 through 24-25 sample. It ranks high in every single sample, it's just that there are 4 such samples in the past 20 years, compared to 1 sample covering the entire 25 years of the O6.

Look at these player-seasons I said were around Hull.

Rank	Name	Year	Team	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Team GF	LA GF	% LA	G%	P%	VsX	VsX Year	Avg VsX
2	Mike Bossy	81-82	NYI	80	64	83	147	385	321	1.199	0.166	0.382	147	100.00	104.46
1	Guy Lafleur	75-76	MTL	80	56	69	125	337	273	1.234	0.166	0.371	119	105.04	104.45
3	Vincent Lecavalier	06-07	TBL	82	52	56	108	243	236	1.030	0.214	0.444	114	94.74	104.39
2	Ebbie Goodfellow	30-31	DET	44	25	23	48	102	105	0.971	0.245	0.471	43	111.63	104.28
1	Joe Malone	17-18	MTL	20	44	4	48	115	105	1.095	0.383	0.417	46	104.35	104.28
3	Artemi Panarin	19-20	NYR	69	32	63	95	233	208	1.120	0.137	0.408	97	97.94	104.19
3	David Pastrnak	19-20	BOS	70	48	47	95	227	208	1.091	0.211	0.419	97	97.94	104.19
2	Teemu Selanne	96-97	ANA	78	51	58	109	245	239	1.025	0.208	0.445	109	100.00	104.04
1	Bobby Hull	65-66	CHI	65	54	43	97	240	213	1.127	0.225	0.404	78	124.36	103.88
3	Alexei Zhamnov	94-95	WIN	48	30	35	65	157	143	1.098	0.191	0.414	70	92.86	103.69
4	Bill Cook	29-30	NYR	44	29	30	59	136	130	1.046	0.213	0.434	62	95.16	103.53
3	Gordie Howe	68-69	DET	76	44	59	103	239	227	1.053	0.184	0.431	107	96.26	103.51
2	Nels Stewart	28-29	MTM	44	21	8	29	67	64	1.047	0.313	0.433	29	100.00	103.37
1	Gordie Howe	50-51	DET	70	43	43	86	236	190	1.242	0.182	0.364	66	130.30	103.25
1	Bernie Geoffrion	60-61	MTL	64	50	45	95	254	210	1.210	0.197	0.374	90	105.56	103.20

You have representation from basically every decade in NHL history. You have seasons of 29 points in 44, and seasons of 147 points in 80 games. You have seasons of 22 games, 44 games, 48 games, 70 games, 76 games, 80 games, and 82 games. You have Howe's age-22 season, and you have his age-40 season. If you sorted every player-season by Average VsX, this is like the ~108th through ~122nd best seasons in NHL history. There's a 1.25 point gap between the highest and lowest Average VsX, but that doesn't mean there's any functional difference between seasons. Bossy's year in 24-25 scoring is the equivalent of 49+64=113 points, Geoffrion's year is 59+53=112 points (Hull is 63+50=113 points).

Joe Malone's season is the least believable in 24-25, as it is either 103+10=113, or 104+9=113, depending on how you round. The point total is correct, the ratio of goals to assists is not. However, you can see his league average is the same as Ebbie Goodfellow's 30-31, though Goodfellow played double the games. Ebbie's season is the equivalent of 59+54=113 points, which is probably around what Malone's season would be in a modern context. [Nels Stewart suffers from this as well, his season converting to 81+31=112 points.]

The final point I want to make is the comparison between Geoffrion's 60-61 and Hull's 65-66. They aren't identical seasons, but they're pretty close. VsX is set at 90 for Geoffrion's season because Beliveau had a top-line year. Every year between 58-59 and 66-67, VsX should've been in that 90ish range, but that only happened in 58-59 and 60-61. The other years, despite being similar scoring, didn't have a 2nd person reach those point totals. Nobody had that year in 65-66, so VsX was set at 78. That's basically the only difference between the seasons. They are not different enough to have one be a 124.36 and the other a 105.56 by VsX.

[[Also, as an aside, the four benchmark seasons in Average VsX of 25, 50, 75, and 100 all happen to be modern years - Kucherov's 18-19 is tied with Lemieux's 92-93 at 25th (Avg VsX of 119.67), being 129-130 points in 24-25 scoring, Kucherov's 24-25 is 50th (Avg VsX of 111.75), obviously 121 points still, Crosby's 13-14 is 75th (Avg VsX 108.33), between 117-118 points, and 100th is Joe Thornton's 02-03 (Avg VsX 105.66), between 114-115 points. Edit - I missed a season when ranking, those are actually 26, 51, 75, 101, but I'm keeping them because they're clearer than their replacements.]]

 

[daver]

I'm not denigrating Hull's year at all. By my numbers, it is like the 9th-10th best year of the entire O6 era. The point I continually try to make is that O6 era is a very small sample compared to the current era. By NHL stats, there are 994 forward player-seasons of at least 20 games and averaging greater than 0.5 points per game between the 42-43 and 66-67 seasons. Via the same source, there are 934 forward player-seasons of at least 20 games and 0.5 points per game between the 19-20 and 23-24 seasons. So when you say "Hull's year is one of the 10 best in the entire O6 era", you're talking about the same functional sample as the five years between 19-20 and 23-24, in which David Pastrnak had the ~12th best year.

The O6 is not a sample of the current era because it is not part of the current era.

The definition of a sample:

• representative part or a single item from a larger whole or group especially when presented for inspection or shown as evidence of quality.
• a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like

To be clear, I am not accusing you of being biased and applaud your efforts for trying to present things statistically. Everyone would love to answer the unanswerable question of how Player X would do if they played in another era given the considerable differences in point totals and PPGs of the players consdered to be GOATS.

 

[daver]

The final point I want to make is the comparison between Geoffrion's 60-61 and Hull's 65-66. They aren't identical seasons, but they're pretty close. VsX is set at 90 for Geoffrion's season because Beliveau had a top-line year. Every year between 58-59 and 66-67, VsX should've been in that 90ish range, but that only happened in 58-59 and 60-61. The other years, despite being similar scoring, didn't have a 2nd person reach those point totals. Nobody had that year in 65-66, so VsX was set at 78. That's basically the only difference between the seasons. They are not different enough to have one be a 124.36 and the other a 105.56 by VsX.

It is also simplistic to use one piece of data in a comparison.

You are absolutely correct that Geoffrion's season matches well with Hull's statistically. Their goal totals, point totals and PPGs compared with the other Top 10 scorers is very close.

I think most people place Hull's clearly ahead based on his pedigree and that Geoffrion played a lot with other Art Ross calibre players; it was more of a one off season for him.

This is an example of where looking at raw point totals from different seasons as a metric is reasonable. The issue is where to draw the line at what is "reasonable" or not.

 

[overpass]

I guess a question for a sanity check purpose is if Montreal in 50s really had their top center, top winger, top defenseman, top goaltender all be in the top 20 or whatever of all players in hockey history in a small league where 3 of the teams were usually not very good (especially in a sustained way) with not a very deep global talent pool, should they have been ever more dominant (particularly regular season)? Or is that splitting hairs? 70s Canadiens seem to get more recognition (with team stats to back it up), how different was beating up on diluted league versus beating up some of the bad O6 teams?

Maybe it seems unlikely a priori that one team could be so stacked, but if you look at the actual history, the late 50s Habs dynasty really were all that.

There was no entry draft to spread out the talent. Frank Selke was a master at acquiring junior talent, he acquired much of the talent for the Toronto dynasty of the 1940s. Then he moved to Montreal in 1946 and built their dynasty in the same way. The Canadiens organization spent more than their big league payroll on their junior and minor league sponsorships. In one year they acquired the three best junior players in Canada who all became superstar forwards - Beliveau, Geoffrion, and Moore. There's no way that could happen today with the draft. It's like one team drafting Crosby, Stamkos, and Toews in one draft. Impossible. But it actually happened in 1950.

It's not that the other teams in the league were bad, it's that Montreal was really that good. They had maybe the best goalie and defenceman to date in Plante and Harvey, and 4-5 legitimate superstar forwards. They were good enough that they probably could have lost a star forward, maybe two, and still won all five Cups.

Why didn't they do better in the regular season? For one, the regular season game and travel schedule was gruelling. Montreal and Toronto played around 20 of their 70 games on the road as the second half of back to backs. Almost every week Montreal played at home on Saturday night and then in an American city on Sunday. Think about finishing a Saturday night game in Montreal and then getting on a train to Boston, NY, Detroit, or Chicago for another game the next day. Those were hard games to win and the opponents were no pushovers. Bad O6 teams were much better than bad post-expansion teams.

Take 1956-57, when Montreal only finished second in league play. Their record in those Sunday road games was 4-13-3. The playoff schedule, with at least a day of rest between games, was easy in comparison. I think the 40-9 playoff record from 1956 to 1960 better represents their team strength.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There's another point about Ovechkin's assists I want to make. Nobody who watches the Washington power play comes away thinking that Ovechkin is unimportant to it working. He plays 95% of every power play, and his gravity creates space for every other player out there. Despite that, over his career, Ovechkin's IPP% on the power play is just under 60%, which is way lower than almost every star forward. I averaged the top 50ish forwards in power play points since the lockout, and their combined IPP% was just over 65%, and superstar forwards are around 70%. Part of that is by the design of the power play, as the other two one-time options are not drawn up to come from Ovechkin, but the PK's concentration on denying Ovechkin shots creates those lanes for the other options. If you were to increase Ovechkin's IPP% to 65 or 70%, to more fully represent his power play contributions, that's an extra 3-5 assists per year.

To add to this, the Capitals are #1 in the NHL in power play percentage during Ovie’s career.

So the result of the tactics stated above was quite effective and beneficial to the team.