Hawerchuk vs Kovalchuk

[Ziostilon]

Ilya wasn't even born when Dale first stepped into the league.
Kovy now has 8 seasons under his belt.
Would Hawerchuk's high'er scoring 80s verus Kovalchuk's dead puck era when he first entered the league be a prominent part of this debate.

Who is the better player?
Ilya Valeryevich Kovalchuk or Dale Hawerchuk

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

Well, first of all, Kovalchuk is on pace to become one of the finest goal scorers of all-time. But he's not there yet. And his goalscoring comes at the expense of playmaking and defensive play. He also has no playoff resume to speak of at this time.

Hawerchuk was a pretty good goalscorer himself, scoring 500, though never as elite as Kovalchuk. He was better defensively, because basically anyone is. He was a better playmaker. And he fought admirably in the playoffs for the lowly Jets in those tough Smythe division battles throughout the 80s.

Hawerchuk, hands down.

If Kovalchuk gives us another 8 years of this, then we're looking at similar career lengths and we can start to really consider whether that goalscoring prowess outweighs everything else. Right now, no.

 

[EpochLink]

Hawerchuk gets no love. He was underrated and the only ones who saw his superstar potential was Jets fans and probably some of our Smythe Division rivals.

I'm glad to say that Winnipeg produced two HOF players ( Hawerchuk, Selanne )

 

[Big Phil]

Hawerchuk for sure. Granted Kovalchuk is not finished his NHL career. I think he'll finally win his first playoff game this year though, but potentially not even his first playoff series.

Interesting debate because both were very different players.
But even in their first nine years in the NHL here are their top 10 scoring finishes:

Hawerchuk 3, 4, 7, 9
Kovalchuk 3, 7, 8, 10

Pretty close if you ask me. Hawerchuk was consistently in the top 15 his first half of his career. The slight edge is to Hawerchuk. That's the thing, when you compare them to their peers initially you'd think Hawerchuk would get the clear cut edge, but looking upon closer inspection it isn't a huge difference.

Kovalchuk definitely beats him in goal scoring but Ducky wins in playmaking, defensive play, leadership and making the players around him better.

Hawerchuk overall

 

[tony d]

Dale Hawerchuk.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Hawerchuk's 1st 8 seasons >> Kovalchuk's 1st 8 seasons, plus I believe Hawerchuk started a year or two younger than when Kovalchuk started, making Hawerchuk's 1st 8 seasons all the more impressive.

 

[Stephen]

Hard to compare at this point since Kovalchuk is only half way through his career. Hawerchuk had an Yzerman/Sakic level career earlier in terms of production, but 90s Hawerchuk was subpar considering elite production of the day compared to guys like Lafontaine, Oates, Gilmour, etc.

 

[seventieslord]

Hawerchuk for sure. Granted Kovalchuk is not finished his NHL career. I think he'll finally win his first playoff game this year though, but potentially not even his first playoff series.

Interesting debate because both were very different players.
But even in their first nine years in the NHL here are their top 10 scoring finishes:

Hawerchuk 3, 4, 7, 9
Kovalchuk 3, 7, 8, 10

Pretty close if you ask me. Hawerchuk was consistently in the top 15 his first half of his career. The slight edge is to Hawerchuk. That's the thing, when you compare them to their peers initially you'd think Hawerchuk would get the clear cut edge, but looking upon closer inspection it isn't a huge difference.

Kovalchuk definitely beats him in goal scoring but Ducky wins in playmaking, defensive play, leadership and making the players around him better.

Hawerchuk overall

I agree that Hawerchuk is better, but there's a mistake in your logic there.

Goals and assists viewed separately > points viewed on its own.

goalscoring and playmaking are the two most important aspects of a player's offensive game. Point totals, since there are about 1.7 assists handed out per goal, are going to be driven more by assists than goals.

How many players can you think of who were top-10 in goals a few times but never top-10 in points because they never had assists? I can think of a ton. Bondra, Neely, Martin, Vaive... the list goes on and on and on.

Now, how many can you think of who were top-10 in assists a few times but never top-10 in points because they were not good goalscorers? Craig Janney is the only name that comes to mind for me.

To look at points as one "tell-all" offensive statistic is to say playmaking skills are worth 1.7 times as much as goalscoring skills. Most people agree it is the opposite, and I'm not here to debate that, but at the very least they should be considered of equal importance.

 

[Milos Krasic]

Hawerchuk's 1st 8 seasons >> Kovalchuk's 1st 8 seasons, plus I believe Hawerchuk started a year or two younger than when Kovalchuk started, making Hawerchuk's 1st 8 seasons all the more impressive.

Kovalchuk came into the league at 18.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Kovalchuk came into the league at 18.

You are correct sir. Mixed him up with OV for some reason.

So basically both guys came into the NHL almost the exact same age and IMO Hawerchuk's first 8 seasons were better than Kovalchuk's.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I guess I'll start out by saying Kovalchuk is more talented. I would target a relatively unknown Kovalchuk analog before a relatively unknown analog of Hawerchuk.

However, in this poll, I gotta go Hawerchuk. He's just another one of those examples of a player that just "got it". Consistently played to his strengths and never, and I mean NEVER, disappeared once the post season started.

I mean, how do you get in the Hall of Fame with no Cups, no hardware besides a Calder, having never led a single statistical category (except games played in the season, probably) and being recognized with only 1 second team all-star nomination? The answer, is consistently play the type of game that never makes you look bad, and still makes you a really productive player that makes your linemates better for a LONG time, regardless of the calibre of your team. That's pretty much exactly how I remember Hawerchuk. Oh, and I guess 500 goals and a career 1.2 PPG (or thereabouts) helps, too.

Definitely up there with Dionne among the best players to never win the Cup.

 

[Big Phil]

By the way an interesting stat. There are two players who have scored 80 or more points in 13 straight seasons. One is Wayne Gretzky, the other is Dale Hawerchuk.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree that Hawerchuk is better, but there's a mistake in your logic there.

Goals and assists viewed separately > points viewed on its own.

goalscoring and playmaking are the two most important aspects of a player's offensive game. Point totals, since there are about 1.7 assists handed out per goal, are going to be driven more by assists than goals.

How many players can you think of who were top-10 in goals a few times but never top-10 in points because they never had assists? I can think of a ton. Bondra, Neely, Martin, Vaive... the list goes on and on and on.

Now, how many can you think of who were top-10 in assists a few times but never top-10 in points because they were not good goalscorers? Craig Janney is the only name that comes to mind for me.

To look at points as one "tell-all" offensive statistic is to say playmaking skills are worth 1.7 times as much as goalscoring skills. Most people agree it is the opposite, and I'm not here to debate that, but at the very least they should be considered of equal importance.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here, but I've always felt if one player is better at goal scoring and the other better at playmaking then the rubber match is point production and comparing it to their peers.

 

[seventieslord]

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here, but I've always felt if one player is better at goal scoring and the other better at playmaking then the rubber match is point production and comparing it to their peers.

But the rubber match is not point production.

excluding cases of statistical extremes, if Player A is a 40% better goalscorer than Player B, and Player B is a 40% better goalscorer than player A, then player B will have more points because there are 1.7 times as many assists up for grabs as there are goals.

Using points as the rubber match overvalues assists. Do you think they are worth 1.7X as much? Because you may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

But the rubber match is not point production.

excluding cases of statistical extremes, if Player A is a 40% better goalscorer than Player B, and Player B is a 40% better goalscorer than player A, then player B will have more points because there are 1.7 times as many assists up for grabs as there are goals.

Using points as the rubber match overvalues assists. Do you think they are worth 1.7X as much? Because you may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying.

Have to agree here. I've seen you guys go through the motions of explaining this to the board many times, and I've seen the "normalization" used in many a spreadsheet. It should be inherently obvious that a(n arbitrary) gap of 10 goals separates players more than 10 assists; given that goalscoring typically ranges between 0-60 (excluding freaks like Gretzky), and assist totals typically range from 0-80 (again, freaks excluded).

I wouldn't want to assign such a firm value such as 1.7 to it (although I understand exactly where it comes from), but being the guy who finally puts the puck behind a goalie into the 4X6 hole should always be valued (at least a bit) more than the guys who get the puck to him (no matter how beautiful the best setups are). Especially since games are decided by goals, and not total team points in the boxscore.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

But the rubber match is not point production.

excluding cases of statistical extremes, if Player A is a 40% better goalscorer than Player B, and Player B is a 40% better goalscorer than player A, then player B will have more points because there are 1.7 times as many assists up for grabs as there are goals.

Using points as the rubber match overvalues assists. Do you think they are worth 1.7X as much? Because you may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying.

Using this logic though, players like Bure, Selanne, Neely and Kariya in their primes would be considered better players than Forsberg, Thornton, Malkin, and Crosby (before this season).

Although the latter 4 are not by far better by any means, most would agree they are clearly better. Also more often than not all things being relatively equal in total points, the playmaker is usually more defensively responsible. Of course, this could contribute to a lot of the best playmakers being centreman, and a lot of the best goal scorers being wingers who usually don't have the defensive responsibilities of a centreman, but the point still stands regardless.

 

[seventieslord]

Using this logic though, players like Bure, Selanne, Neely and Kariya in their primes would be considered better players than Forsberg, Thornton, Malkin, and Crosby (before this season).

Are you sure? I think that, at their peaks, the latter 4 probably had a greater percentage gap in adjusted assists than the former 4 had in adjusted goals, if you take each player's 3 best seasons.

Although the latter 4 are not by far better by any means, most would agree they are clearly better. Also more often than not all things being relatively equal in total points, the playmaker is usually more defensively responsible. Of course, this could contribute to a lot of the best playmakers being centreman, and a lot of the best goal scorers being wingers who usually don't have the defensive responsibilities of a centreman, but the point still stands regardless.

I'm not trying to say goals always > assists. In the case of elite playmakers (you know who they are, they drive the offense all the way, they just don't take the shot) assists are worth as much as goals. But for most players they aren't.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Using this logic though, players like Bure, Selanne, Neely and Kariya in their primes would be considered better players than Forsberg, Thornton, Malkin, and Crosby (before this season).

Although the latter 4 are not by far better by any means, most would agree they are clearly better. Also more often than not all things being relatively equal in total points, the playmaker is usually more defensively responsible. Of course, this could contribute to a lot of the best playmakers being centreman, and a lot of the best goal scorers being wingers who usually don't have the defensive responsibilities of a centreman, but the point still stands regardless.

I don't think these comparisons are quite "accurate". For example, when Bure was scoring roughly 60 goals and 90 points, that should be compared to someone like Recchi (who scored around 30 goals and 90 points). When Selanne was scoring roughly 50 goals and 100 points, Kariya and Forsberg were scoring roughly 40 and 100. When Neely as scoring 50/90, Tocchet was roughly 40/90. Etc...

Given equal point totals, the guys with more goals have (for the most part) been thought of as "more valuable" (I think). And during those periods, I think most would agree that the above formers were "more valuable" than the latters. It's hard to evaluate with such a narrow focus (one year at a time, like I just did), but remember that you should be careful to keep your comparisons between contemporaries with similar point totals.

 

[Blades of Glory]

The goal vs. assist debate will go on forever, but the fact that Hawerchuk had two 75 assist in Winnipeg pretty impressive. While this was in an offensive era, his list of team/line-mates during his prime is pretty under-whelming. Wasn't Paul Maclean his most common and probably best line-mate in Winnipeg? Maclean wasn't some plugger, by any means, but he wasn't close to elite, either.

However, in Buffalo, while Lafontaine was Mogilny's usual center, Hawerchuk did often play with them on the powerplay, and it shows in his point totals, which are PP-inflated in his later years. The difference between Buffalo and Winnipeg is that Hawerchuk ran the Jet powerplay, and his point totals are in no way helped by other players. Not quite the case in Buffalo, who often went with four forwards and Doug Bodger, as the only defenseman, on the powerplay. Not surprising that his two best years in Buffalo came when Lafontaine and Mogilny were at their very, very best.

Assists may be less difficult to "accomplish" than goals, but it's also more difficult to rack up huge assist numbers without major offensive help than it is to rack up huge goal numbers in the same situation. I find Joe Thornton's two 90 assist seasons and Crosby's Hart year to be even more impressive than they already are due to the fact that neither had the benefit of playing with a real goal-scorer, unless of course he made him a real goal-scorer (I'm looking at you, Cheechoo).

What is more impressive? Leading the league in assists and out-pointing the next highest point scorer on your team by over 40, as Joe Thornton did in 2007-08. Or finishing second in goals, to Ovechkin, on a bad team? It depends on how you view the value of an assist to the value of a goal? Joe Thornton clearly made his team-mates better, despite the fact his line-mates have never really been much better (until last year) than Kovalchuk's line-mates over the years in Atlanta.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Are you sure? I think that, at their peaks, the latter 4 probably had a greater percentage gap in adjusted assists than the former 4 had in adjusted goals, if you take each player's 3 best seasons.



I'm not trying to say goals always > assists. In the case of elite playmakers (you know who they are, they drive the offense all the way, they just don't take the shot) assists are worth as much as goals. But for most players they aren't.

adjusted goals:

Bure 65,64,59 = 188 goals
Selanne 62, 60, 54 = 176 goals
Kariya 48, 46,46 = 140 goals
Neely 46, 46, 45 = 137 goals
Crosby 56,39,38 = 133 goals
Malkin 52,37,35 = 124 goals
Thornton 41,40,32 = 113 goals
Forsberg 34,33,29 = 96 goals

adjusted assists:

Thornton 92, 92, 73 = 257 assists
Forsberg 85, 83, 76 = 244 assists
Crosby 84, 71, 61 = 216 assists
Malkin 80, 63, 52 = 195 assists
Selanne 68, 65, 60 = 193 assists
Kariya 70, 62, 57 = 189 assists
Bure 45,43,40 = 128 assists
Neely 35,31,31 = 97 assists

Selanne
Thornton has 33.2% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 55.8% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 26.4% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 83.3% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 11.9% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 32.3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 1.0% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 41.9% more goals than Malkin

Selanne wins 4 and loses 0

Bure
Thornton has 100.08% more assists than Bure
Bure has 66.4% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 90.6% more assists than Bure
Bure has 95.8% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 68.8% more assists than Bure
Bure has 41.4% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 52.3% more assists than Bure
Bure has 51.6% more goals than Malkin

Bure wins 1 and loses 3

Kariya

Thornton has 36% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 23.9% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 29.1% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 45.8% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 14.3% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 5.3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 3.2% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 12.9% more goals than Malkin

Kariya wins 2 and loses 2

Neely

Thornton has 165% more assists than Neely
Neely has 21.2% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 152% more assists than Neely
Neely has 42.7% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 122.7% more assists than Neely
Neely has 3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 101% more assists than Neely
Neely has 10.5% more goals than Malkin

Neely wins 0 and loses 4

Head to head wins:

Selanne 4
Thornton 3
Crosby 3
Malkin 2
Kariya 2
Bure 1
Forsberg 1

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting stuff there. I am not surprised that Bure and Neely weren't putting up enough assists to have a greater overall advantage. It did surprise me that Selanne was dominant enough to have a (supposed) greater overall offensive impact in his best seasons.

Of course, we are comparing these guys to elite playmakers so it's not really the perfect comparison.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

adjusted goals:

Bure 65,64,59 = 188 goals
Selanne 62, 60, 54 = 176 goals
Kariya 48, 46,46 = 140 goals
Neely 46, 46, 45 = 137 goals
Crosby 56,39,38 = 133 goals
Malkin 52,37,35 = 124 goals
Thornton 41,40,32 = 113 goals
Forsberg 34,33,29 = 96 goals

adjusted assists:

Thornton 92, 92, 73 = 257 assists
Forsberg 85, 83, 76 = 244 assists
Crosby 84, 71, 61 = 216 assists
Malkin 80, 63, 52 = 195 assists
Selanne 68, 65, 60 = 193 assists
Kariya 70, 62, 57 = 189 assists
Bure 45,43,40 = 128 assists
Neely 35,31,31 = 97 assists

Selanne
Thornton has 33.2% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 55.8% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 26.4% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 83.3% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 11.9% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 32.3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 1.0% more assists than Selanne
Selanne has 41.9% more goals than Malkin

Selanne wins 4 and loses 0

Bure
Thornton has 100.08% more assists than Bure
Bure has 66.4% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 90.6% more assists than Bure
Bure has 95.8% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 68.8% more assists than Bure
Bure has 41.4% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 52.3% more assists than Bure
Bure has 51.6% more goals than Malkin

Bure wins 1 and loses 3

Kariya

Thornton has 36% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 23.9% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 29.1% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 45.8% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 14.3% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 5.3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 3.2% more assists than Kariya
Kariya has 12.9% more goals than Malkin

Kariya wins 2 and loses 2

Neely

Thornton has 165% more assists than Neely
Neely has 21.2% more goals than Thornton

Forsberg has 152% more assists than Neely
Neely has 42.7% more goals than Forsberg

Crosby has 122.7% more assists than Neely
Neely has 3% more goals than Crosby

Malkin has 101% more assists than Neely
Neely has 10.5% more goals than Malkin

Neely wins 0 and loses 4

Head to head wins:

Selanne 4
Thornton 3
Crosby 3
Malkin 2
Kariya 2
Bure 1
Forsberg 1

See, the order of this just shows it doesn't make sense to compare players like that. Is anyone honestly going to argue that Selanne and Thornton are better than Crosby, Malkin, and Forsberg? If anything this just shows it favours players with more balanced goals/assists.

Also, which seasons did Thornton have 41 and 40 adjusted goals? I've done projects with many players using their best 3 years with adjusted stats and I don't remember any such seasons for him.

 

[Blades of Glory]

See, the order of this just shows it doesn't make sense to compare players like that. Is anyone honestly going to argue that Selanne and Thornton are better than Crosby, Malkin, and Forsberg? If anything this just shows it favours players with more balanced goals/assists.

Also, which seasons did Thornton have 41 and 40 adjusted goals? I've done projects with many players using their best 3 years with adjusted stats and I don't remember any such seasons for him.

Thornton had 37 goals in 72 games in 2001. Adjusted, that number rises to 41 despite missing 10 games. He had 36 goals in 2003, which adjusts to 40.

 

[matnor]

But the rubber match is not point production.

excluding cases of statistical extremes, if Player A is a 40% better goalscorer than Player B, and Player B is a 40% better goalscorer than player A, then player B will have more points because there are 1.7 times as many assists up for grabs as there are goals.

Using points as the rubber match overvalues assists. Do you think they are worth 1.7X as much? Because you may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying.

I think you're not entirely correct here. While each goal has on average 1.7 assists on it doesn't mean that the assists is worth only 60% of what a goal is worth. Consider a hypothetical example where we have two players playing for the same team with the same linemates. Each play one season but they don't play with each other (so player A plays one season, gets traded, and player B plays next season). Player A goes 50+30=80 and player B goes 20+80=100. If we take the values you assigned then player A's contribution would be 50 + (1/1.7) * 30 = 68 and player B's contribution would be 20 + (1/1.7) * 80 = 67. We would conclude player A was (slightly) more valuable than player B. However, I would argue that it does not accurately reflect the value of the players. Since they have identical linemates the reason player B has more points is simply because he creates more goals, i.e. he is more valuable.

This does not means that assists is generally of the same value as goals. The key difference is that the value of assists differs between teams (and to a lesser extent between lines). Specifically, the value of assists is generally lower if you have very good linemates. However, within the same line the most important player is the one with the most points regardless of the composition of goals and assists.