Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[tarheelhockey]

I did a post-mortem on the project, looking at players by years of births (or maybe it was by career span). I don't have the link handy, but can search. (EDIT - link here - HOH Top 100 project - comparison to other lists)

Comparing our list to the two other major lists (the 1997 Hockey News ranked list, and the 2017 NHL centennial unranked list), our list featured the lowest percentage of Original Six players, and the highest percentage of recent/modern players.

The HOH list is a more modern, less O6-focused list than any other ranking that I'm aware of. Someone can let me know if there's any other list that has less of an O6 focus than ours.

And in addition to the lack of an O6 bias, the pre-O6 rankings are clearly evidence-based.

If someone takes issue with Nighbor's ranking (which is fully justified by evidence drawn from primary sources) then they need to square that criticism with Nels Stewart being demoted (for the exact same reason).

 

[wetcoast]

I'll never understand the "the old days was a six-team, all-Canadian League so everything was easier than now!" argument.

Let's break this down:
-- It's generally harder to score (or succeed) against higher-level players than against average-level players. Agreed?
-- There are something like 400 Canadian NHL players today, right?
-- There were something like 110 Canadian NHL players in the early-1960s, right?

For the NHL of today to equate the "Canadian level of talent" of the 1943-1967 era, we'd have to get rid of all European and most American players, yes, but then we'd also have to get rid of the less elite 72% of today's Canadian players, who would no longer be good enough to play.

So, now, there'd be six NHL teams with all Canadian players, and we'd throw Ovechkin in there as the only European. Now, I ask you: If 72% of today's Canadian players wouldn't be good enough to make this League, would Ovechkin have an easier or a harder time scoring? It might be the same, but it certainly wouldn't be easier.

Ovechkin's PPG last season was 0.985 per game, so in this all-Canadian League (if his scoring levels stayed the same) he'd be around 9th in NHL scoring.

I ranked the 183 Canadian NHL forwards who played (min. 20 games) last season by PPG. There were 183 such. So, in this all-Canadian proposed League, 132 of these current NHL forwards wouldn't be good enough to play. These include players like Ryan Getzlaf, Zach Kassian, Jamie Benn, James Neal, Jake DeBrusk, Jeff Carter, Joe Thornton, etc. (Yes, I'm aware some of these guys bring things besides just scoring, but you get my point.) These kinds of players, in 2019-20, were comparatively all minor-Leaguers when Bobby Hull was young and hitting his prime.

A player like Tom Wilson (today a 1st liner on Ovechkin's team) would likely be a 4th-liner in an all-Canadian six-team NHL today. Guys like Josh Bailey and Jordan Eberle, if they made the cut, would be 4th-liners. So, Ovechkin would have higher-talented linemates to play with, but likely some of them would be goal-scorers and would take some of his PP-time away.

And obviously, the goes for defencemen, too. Ovechkin would be facing only the 30-or-so best Canadian defencemen in the NHL today. Basically, the bottom-two or three D-men on each NHL team now wouldn't be good enough to play.

It would not be easier to dominate this League.

This is a false equivalency as there is a built in assumption that Canadian talent hasn't changed and unless the quality of talent from Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba has gone down that doesn't account for the increased talent from either coast nevermind the huge influx of elite talent from non Canadian sources.

No we can't prove it but the evidence is overwhelming and substantial.

 

[wetcoast]

Most baseball people still consider Ruth the greatest player ever.

Even though The Babe played when no black players were allowed in the game. So he was absolutely not playing against all the best players at that time.

Maybe "most baseball people" have a coloured filter?

The perception of the Babe being the best of all time has a ton of nostalgia built into it to be charitable.

 

[tarheelhockey]

• Another big reason for Canada's population growth is immigration. More than half of immigrants are from Asia (broadly defined to include China, India, and the Philippines - among many other countries). My experience (being married to a woman who immigrated from one of these countries) is the vast majority of them have zero interest in hockey. I realize I'm overgeneralizing, but if you have 300K immigrants coming to Canada (of which maybe 100K are teen/adult males), you don't actually have 100K people going into the hockey talent pool. (To be clear Only a small subset would be part of the talent pool. If I moved to India tomorrow, that doesn't make me part of their cricket talent pool (as it's a sport I have no interest in playing or watching).

In January I did a manual count of NHL players (here) and found only 4 who came from Canadian immigrant families. Of those, only one came from an Asian family -- Jujhar Khaira, a rookie for the Oilers. And none of them are first generation immigrants.

I would argue that the pipeline of Canadian talent to the NHL is actually approaching something close a pre-WWII level. The numbers are startling, and they're getting worse very quickly.

 

[HF007]

So how was Hull able to rack up higher assist placings while also being the league's most dominant goalscorer?

Nothing wrong with acknowledging OV has been a designated triggerman for quite awhile now. Nothing wrong with placing value on his contribution but clearly a number of players bring more value with a better all around offensive game.

Look no further than OV's Hart and Lindsay showings since 2013/14 to see how much value is placed on his goalscoring.

It’s not like goals are the main reason you play hockey or anything. Why would OV need to pass when he has backstrom, kuzy, and Carlson who are elite passers. Let players do what they’re best at.

 

[Theokritos]

This is a false equivalency as there is a built in assumption that Canadian talent hasn't changed and unless the quality of talent from Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba has gone down that doesn't account for the increased talent from either coast

You keep saying this, but you're only looking at the geographical sources of the talent. What we're not talking about is the socio-economic side of the equation. A quick search brings up the following occupations the fathers of some O6 stars earned their money with:

Gordie Howe – construction worker
Richard brothers – woodworker
Bobby Hull – concrete foreman
Jacques Plante – factory worker
Pierre Pilote – mill worker
Doug Harvey – truck driver
Andy Bathgate – truck driver

Would a kid with a similar background have a chance to make it to the NHL today?

So perhaps the upper class and upper middle class of other provinces were added as sources of talent, but in the meantime the entire working class of Ontario and Québec was lost?

 

[Theokritos]

Who are all these great Europeans we were missing in 1962...?

The ones Europe is providing today. Yes, the Canadians of 1962 were competing with the best of the world in their time in the NHL. There were hardly any Europeans (if any at all) who could have made an impact. But that's the point: if non-Canadian sources (European countries and the USA too) are providing talent today that wasn't there in 1962, then the Canadian players have more competition today than they had in 1962 and it is harder for them to stand out.

 

[Staniowski]

Threads like these bother me because they lack structural integrity and intellectual rigour.

When members of this board undertook the most recent Top 100 Players of All-Time project, the end result had 21 players ahead of Alexander Ovechkin.

Yet, this thread and so many others like it quickly focus on one player, #5 all-time Bobby Hull. The simplistic rationale seems to be that Hull and Ovechkin both played the wing and scored a lot of goals, so let’s just ignore the other 20 players ranked ahead of Ovechkin, focus on a single top-5 player, and build a case to supplant him.

No. A thousand times No.

In the most recent Top 100 project, Hull was evaluated against 3 defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque), 1 goaltender (Roy), 3 centres (Beliveau, Gretzky, Lemieux) and 2 other wingers (Howe, Rocket) just in the FIRST round of debate.

Subsequent to this, he was compared to an additional defenceman (Shore), another goaltender (Hasek), and 2 more centres (Morenz, Crosby).

In other words, no steps were skipped. Interpositional discussion (goaltender vs winger vs defenceman vs centre) was extraordinarily tough but absolutely necessary slogging for the project participants, and the final list has integrity because an intellectually rigorous process was followed.

If some posters believe that Ovechkin should be more highly ranked, my suggestion is start with #21 Mark Messier and thoroughly make your case before then moving to #20 on the list. Don’t skip 16 players because it’s too much work.

The obvious fundamental problem with what you are saying is that you are referring to a ranking that is your personal opinion (or the composite opinion of a small group of people).

If you want to believe that Hull is #5 and Ovechkin is #22, that is fine. But I think we can assume that over 99% of the people in the hockey world would not exactly agree with these placements.

If somebody wants to compare Hull and Ovechkin, they can do so.

Many people might already rank Ovechkin ahead, which, in the same way, is merely their personal opinion.

 

[wetcoast]

You keep saying this, but you're only looking at the geographical sources of the talent. What we're not talking about is the socio-economic side of the equation. A quick search brings up the following occupations the fathers of some O6 stars earned their money with:

Gordie Howe – construction worker
Richard brothers – woodworker
Bobby Hull – concrete foreman
Jacques Plante – factory worker
Pierre Pilote – mill worker
Doug Harvey – truck driver
Andy Bathgate – truck driver

Would a kid with a similar background have a chance to make it to the NHL today?

So perhaps the upper class and upper middle class of other provinces were added as sources of talent, but in the meantime the entire working class of Ontario and Québec was lost?

I respect your point of view but literally every hockey player you mentioned grew up in a time of exclusive pond hockey at its base origin.

That probably has changed, especially outside of traditional hockey talent producing areas but I doubt it has had a huge impact on things.

I grew up in Vancouver in the 70s and most of the hockey talent emerging from BC at the time was probably working class but more upper working class.

To put it simply it's really hard to argue that elite NHL talent in all positions is vastly greater now than during Bobby Hulls era.

 

[bobholly39]

The obvious fundamental problem with what you are saying is that you are referring to a ranking that is your personal opinion (or the composite opinion of a small group of people).

If you want to believe that Hull is #5 and Ovechkin is #22, that is fine. But I think we can assume that over 99% of the people in the hockey world would not exactly agree with these placements.

If somebody wants to compare Hull and Ovechkin, they can do so.

Many people might already rank Ovechkin ahead, which, in the same way, is merely their personal opinion.

I have Hull and Ovechkin closer as well - but for me it's more about not being as high on Hull as many here. I'd have them both in the ~10-15 range.

But i have to say this is something that happens all the time - which is very frustrating. "Hull is great, 5th best player ever. Him and Ovechkin are so comparable....which means Ovi is 7th at worst". No - not really. There's a bunch of other players in there. They can be close and still be....15 ranks apart, hypothetically.

It's similar to people who say "Bourque Lidstrom are so close, they have to be back to back". No - not really. There's so many great players in history - why can't you have an Ovechkin in between both those guys, for example?

 

[Staniowski]

You keep saying this, but you're only looking at the geographical sources of the talent. What we're not talking about is the socio-economic side of the equation. A quick search brings up the following occupations the fathers of some O6 stars earned their money with:

Gordie Howe – construction worker
Richard brothers – woodworker
Bobby Hull – concrete foreman
Jacques Plante – factory worker
Pierre Pilote – mill worker
Doug Harvey – truck driver
Andy Bathgate – truck driver

Would a kid with a similar background have a chance to make it to the NHL today?

So perhaps the upper class and upper middle class of other provinces were added as sources of talent, but in the meantime the entire working class of Ontario and Québec was lost?

What you're saying would require a lot more study, I think.

When Maurice Richard, for example, was growing up, the large majority of people were lower class or lower middle class. There was a large rural population, everybody was farmers, and urban areas had mills, factories, etc. where most people worked. The upper class and middle class was extremely small.

Canada today is very different. Hardly anybody farms, the factories are largely gone, the mills are mostly gone, etc. The old lower and lower middle class doesn't really exist any more.

People are a lot richer now, in general. The children of the farmers and mill workers are government workers, lawyers, accountants, administrative workers at large companies.

The farmers of yesterday and the lawyers of today are significantly the same people, they just have more money today.

Where are the millworkers going to come from today, when there are no mills?

This is not to say there is no lower class today. But it looks very different.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Threads like these bother me because they lack structural integrity and intellectual rigour.

When members of this board undertook the most recent Top 100 Players of All-Time project, the end result had 21 players ahead of Alexander Ovechkin.

Yet, this thread and so many others like it quickly focus on one player, #5 all-time Bobby Hull. The simplistic rationale seems to be that Hull and Ovechkin both played the wing and scored a lot of goals, so let’s just ignore the other 20 players ranked ahead of Ovechkin, focus on a single top-5 player, and build a case to supplant him.

No. A thousand times No.

In the most recent Top 100 project, Hull was evaluated against 3 defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque), 1 goaltender (Roy), 3 centres (Beliveau, Gretzky, Lemieux) and 2 other wingers (Howe, Rocket) just in the FIRST round of debate.

Subsequent to this, he was compared to an additional defenceman (Shore), another goaltender (Hasek), and 2 more centres (Morenz, Crosby).

In other words, no steps were skipped. Interpositional discussion (goaltender vs winger vs defenceman vs centre) was extraordinarily tough but absolutely necessary slogging for the project participants, and the final list has integrity because an intellectually rigorous process was followed.

If some posters believe that Ovechkin should be more highly ranked, my suggestion is start with #21 Mark Messier and thoroughly make your case before then moving to #20 on the list. Don’t skip 16 players because it’s too much work.

The list you start from was created without intellectual rigor.

The top 100 players project was doomed from day 1 for not having clear objectives (top = best or greatest?). This led to numerous debates where posters were talking past one another.

The group was a poor representation of hockey fandom (how many Russians or non-Canadians participated? 5%? 10%? 20%? How many Penguins fans - like 20%-30% of the group or something like that?). It would be like conducting a poll with a sample of 70% Republicans.

The group did not follow their own rules. Ridiculous lists - like the one that had Gretzky 7th and Ovechkin 59th - were not removed from consideration. Massively biased people (like the poster in this thread who said Ryan Getzlaf > Ovechkin) were not removed from participation. I cannot put stock in such opinions.

The group also struggled to say things that were factually accurate, often going unchallenged unless non-participants stepped in to check the [MOD] statements made by participants - specifically calling Ovechkin a "shoot only" player, and other objectively false assertions.

The project was a neat idea, but the end result is fatally tainted.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"The things I didn't agree with happened, and now I am upset." is how most of that reads. When you develop a better way, you know where to find us.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What you're saying would require a lot more study, I think.

When Maurice Richard, for example, was growing up, the large majority of people were lower class or lower middle class. There was a large rural population, everybody was farmers, and urban areas had mills, factories, etc. where most people worked. The upper class and middle class was extremely small.

Canada today is very different. Hardly anybody farms, the factories are largely gone, the mills are mostly gone, etc. The old lower and lower middle class doesn't really exist any more.

People are a lot richer now, in general. The children of the farmers and mill workers are government workers, lawyers, accountants, administrative workers at large companies.

The farmers of yesterday and the lawyers of today are significantly the same people, they just have more money today.

Where are the millworkers going to come from today, when there are no mills?

The issue is less about overall wealth, and more about access to hockey development at different economic strata.

Any kid today can pick up a street hockey stick for $15 and an old tennis ball for free, and boom... they're playing hockey. In that sense, the game is universally accessible.

But elite development is significantly less accessible today than it was 50 years ago. I don't think anyone really even questions that. Every cost factor associated with playing hockey -- league fees, equipment, tournaments, travel costs, insurance, etc -- has been on a steady upward trajectory for decades. That necessarily creates an increasingly exclusive environment and reduces the number of participants. At some point the problem becomes circular, as a lack of participants causes a self-sustaining increase in per capita cost (not to mention forcing more travel).

We're really not even talking about excluding the sons of construction workers and farmers these days. We're talking about solidly middle-class families, sons of office workers, not having close to the financial resources required to access elite hockey training.

 

[Staniowski]

The issue is less about overall wealth, and more about access to hockey development at different economic strata.

Any kid today can pick up a street hockey stick for $15 and an old tennis ball for free, and boom... they're playing hockey. In that sense, the game is universally accessible.

But elite development is significantly less accessible today than it was 50 years ago. I don't think anyone really even questions that. Every cost factor associated with playing hockey -- league fees, equipment, tournaments, travel costs, insurance, etc -- has been on a steady upward trajectory for decades. That necessarily creates an increasingly exclusive environment and reduces the number of participants. At some point the problem becomes circular, as a lack of participants causes a self-sustaining increase in per capita cost (not to mention forcing more travel).

We're really not even talking about excluding the sons of construction workers and farmers these days. We're talking about solidly middle-class families, sons of office workers, not having close to the financial resources required to access elite hockey training.

Cost of playing hockey is certainly concerning, and somewhat scary at the elite levels. But, it's not the biggest issue with respect to the number of kids playing hockey.

I know lots of people playing minor hockey today, and a lot of them at the AAA level.

Most of the people I know don't have much money. In most cases, they will find the money. And in the large majority of cases, the people who want to start out playing hockey, do it.

The bigger problem is that there are a lot more things to do today, than play hockey.

People who in previous generations would have put their kids in hockey, are not doing it anymore. And it's generally not because of money.

 

[Staniowski]

The issue is less about overall wealth, and more about access to hockey development at different economic strata.

Any kid today can pick up a street hockey stick for $15 and an old tennis ball for free, and boom... they're playing hockey. In that sense, the game is universally accessible.

But elite development is significantly less accessible today than it was 50 years ago. I don't think anyone really even questions that. Every cost factor associated with playing hockey -- league fees, equipment, tournaments, travel costs, insurance, etc -- has been on a steady upward trajectory for decades. That necessarily creates an increasingly exclusive environment and reduces the number of participants. At some point the problem becomes circular, as a lack of participants causes a self-sustaining increase in per capita cost (not to mention forcing more travel).

We're really not even talking about excluding the sons of construction workers and farmers these days. We're talking about solidly middle-class families, sons of office workers, not having close to the financial resources required to access elite hockey training.

"Any kid today can pick up a street hockey stick....and they're playing hockey".

The big issue, though, is that kids are not picking up a street hockey stick...

 

[Theokritos]

The group was a poor representation of hockey fandom (how many Russians or non-Canadians participated?

There were 32 voters. If I'm not mistaken, 13 of them (=40%) were non-Canadians.

The group did not follow their own rules. Ridiculous lists - like the one that had Gretzky 7th and Ovechkin 59th - were not removed from consideration. Massively biased people (like the poster in this thread who said Ryan Getzlaf > Ovechkin) were not removed from participation.

Lists some consider "ridiculous" are not against the rules. The purpose of the screening is just to inquiry about potential errors and omissions.

Gretzky being ranked 7th on one list had no impact on his aggregate ranking, he was still 1st. Ovechkin being ranked 59th on one list probably cost him one spot on the aggregate list: he was ranked 20th there and could have been 19th. Which in turn had no impact on when he came up for voting in the second stage.

 

[Midnight Judges]

"The things I didn't agree with happened, and now I am upset." is how most of that reads. When you develop a better way, you know where to find us.

I requested that the participants type things that were actually true.

It was met with resistance from you specifically, among others.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lists some consider "ridiculous" are not against the rules. The purpose of the screening is just to inquiry about potential errors and omissions.

Fair enough.

 

[895]

Did a supposedly regular contributor of this forum actually say they would take Ryan Getzlaf over Ovechkin?

Come the f*** on.

 

[Theokritos]

I requested that the participants type things that were actually true.

It was met with resistance from you specifically, among others.

There is quite some wiggle room between using exaggerations, simplifications and pointed phrasing on one hand and "typing things that are not actually true" on the other.

 

[Sentinel]

The peers relevant for the comparison are the best players in the world in their time – that's what makes the difference between the O6 NHL and the Soviet league.

Can we be absolutely certain that Anatoli Firsov or Vyacheslav Starshinov would not give Bobby Hull a run for his money?

 

[Sentinel]

Ahead of Hull as a goal scorer? You can certainly argue that. I won't disagree too much. Ahead as an overall player? I haven't seen a good argument yet. What else would you say he does better than Hull? Hit people? That itself makes him a better overall player? Hull was a better passer and better defensively.

Wins Hart Trophies?

He was a much better all-around player than Ovechkin.

See above.
He was a much better all-around player than Ovechkin.[/QUOTE]

For the NHL of today to equate the "Canadian level of talent" of the 1943-1967 era, we'd have to get rid of all European and most American players, yes, but then we'd also have to get rid of the less elite 72% of today's Canadian players, who would no longer be good enough to play.

So, now, there'd be six NHL teams with all Canadian players, and we'd throw Ovechkin in there as the only European. Now, I ask you: If 72% of today's Canadian players wouldn't be good enough to make this League, would Ovechkin have an easier or a harder time scoring? It might be the same, but it certainly wouldn't be easier.

You make it sound like "Today's NHL" = "O6 NHL" + 72% more of garbage players. IMO it's a ridiculous approach.

Did a supposedly regular contributor of this forum actually say they would take Ryan Getzlaf over Ovechkin?

Come the f*** on.

Yup. And Kopitar. And Toews. And f***ing Bergeron, who won't even make the all-time greatest two-way forwards list, his bread and butter. I tell ya...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Did a supposedly regular contributor of this forum actually say they would take Ryan Getzlaf over Ovechkin?

Come the f*** on.

People don’t actually have to be regulars to participate in projects. The key is that everything is disclosed. That means everyone with an unconventional opinion is probably going to be asked about that opinion.

Do you imagine if you submitted a list of the top-120 players of all-time, you would not have an unconventional opinion as well?

 

[GMR]

Wins Hart Trophies?

See above.

3 versus 2? Big freaking deal.

Hull had higher peak seasons. His runner-up Hart finishes were to Howe and Beliveau, who are both top 5 caliber players. Ovechkin finished runner-up twice, to Sedin and Price. Not exactly the same elites as Hull competed against. That "weak original six competition" everyone mentions doesn't make sense. It's not easy to win the Hart trophy with Mikita on your team and players like Howe, Beliveau, Harvey, and Plante around. Then a guy named Orr comes along.