Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,422
11,368
1. Find me where someone said that Ryan Getzlaf was better then Ovechkin.​

BenchBrawl said:
Absolutely I would take Ryan Getzlaf over Alex Ovechkin. I believe him to be a better building block. In my own Top 100 list I ranked Ovechkin higher, but I'm sometimes subject to the forces of conformity like everyone else.

This is especially true now that I have reasons to believe Ovechkin and co. weren't very serious when he was in his prime.

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

Ted said:
2. Yes, a recently passed away member of the esteemed HOH section DID have Gretzky 7th. He had his reasons and while not everyone agreed with them, we respected his reasons.
3. I think the person who said that Crosby was actually the better goal scorer, was because Ovechkin is a volume shooter and just really shoots from anywhere. He has 2373 more shots on goal then Crosby, yet on 244 more goals. Crosby's shooting% 14.6% compared to Ovechkin's 12.7%. I disagreed with the notion that Ovechkin is a shoot only player as he's 105th all time in assists with 572. he should be in the top 80 all time for assists when he's done.

Multiple project participants stood behind the "shoot only" argument unfortunately. Seeing as how the two main proponents (farkas and exporter) root for a rival team, maybe this argument isn't entirely unbiased. The other proponents of "shoot only" are Canada pride types. If you want a better project, these guys should be encouraged do a better job of setting aside their biases. Or maybe that's a hopeless endeavor.

If a forum perpetuates or invents outright falsehoods and exaggerations due to bias, the alleged esteem is not deserved.

4. As for Sentinel, He did quit because he felt that the Russian players like Makarov, Fetisov, Kharlamov, Tretiak, Firsov, Mikhailov, Fedorov ( especially) were being unfairly underrated. That was His choice, but not a solution if you want to get a point across. Sentinel had some good arguments in the voting rounds, but he essentially took the ball ( or as in this case, the puck) home with him when He didn't get their way.

I would hope Sentinel would participate again someday, but I can relate to the sentiment. I am glad folks don't agree on everything. Agreeing is no fun. That said, I've witnessed well-respected folks in the history forum engaging in tactics that go beyond differences of opinion, and well into petty dishonesty.
 
Last edited:

TheEye

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
191
132
3. I think the person who said that Crosby was actually the better goal scorer, was because Ovechkin is a volume shooter and just really shoots from anywhere. He has 2373 more shots on goal then Crosby, yet on 244 more goals. Crosby's shooting% 14.6% compared to Ovechkin's 12.7%. I disagreed with the notion that Ovechkin is a shoot only player as he's 105th all time in assists with 572. he should be in the top 80 all time for assists when he's done.

This has been highlighted multiples times in this thread now, and is most likely attributed to my posting on the subject. I feel the need to chime in to clarify the record for Midnight Judges and ted2019. Under no circumstances did I state Crosby was in fact the superior goal scorer relative to Ovechkin. I did contend Crosby hadn't maximized his goal scoring potential, based on playing style as it relates to his positional responsibility. Please note this selectivity clearly doesn't equally apply to all players. However, when discussing the greatest 5-10 forwards in hockey history, it certainly exhibits relevance. Please see underneath for my successive posts on this topic:

Past or present, if I can select any forward to take a penalty shot, it's going to be Lemieux.

That said, you are clearly not applying proper context to the numbers. And Gretzky is definitely not just "one of the guys."

You do understand that Gretzky winning the scoring title "just" 5 times, as a centre, it actually enhances his status as a goal scorer? Especially when considering the amplified play-driving/playmaking responsibilities of a centre, and the requisite assist/goal ratios most often associated with said duty. His goal scoring titles are actually substantively more impressive when examined beyond a superficial (or era-adjusted) level.

Peruse the list of single-season goal scoring leaders. Historically, they are overwhelmingly wingers and there's a reason why that is the case. As a matter of fact, over the past 70 years, only 9 unique centres have led (or tied) the league in single-season goal scoring.

In combination with his positional responsibility (offensively) and his otherworldly assist/goal ratios during that run, his titles are particularly imposing relative to 'goal hunters' with 1/1 (or lower) ratios. I'm dazzled when any player consistently scores at an extraordinary rate over a given number of seasons. When also leading with complementary high assist/goal ratios, well that's absolutely extraordinary. As an example, I suggest that Brett Hull scoring 86 goals with a 0.52 assist/goal ratio is inherently less impressive than Gretzky scoring 92 with a 1.30 assist/goal ratio.

Playmaking centres often break down scoring opportunities more selflessly, slightly reducing their actual goal scoring potential. Can we say the same for some of those goal hungry wingers?



Considerations for positional responsibility, deployment, assist/goal ratios and peer relative shooting percentages are unchallenging to resolve for anyone considering themselves not a 'lay' fan of the game. For the most part, elite goal scorers are less inclined to pass, as they prefer being the player who puts the puck in the net. It's general human nature. Unreservedly, some are inherently better goal scorers because they possess a better shot, better accuracy and are naturally inclined to discover soft spots in coverage. Often, and especially in special teams situations, the offence becomes customized to run through them to place the shot on net. It's comparatively a chicken or egg situation in that regard.

But when it comes to the elite of the elite, there are players who score less but are capable of scoring more. A prime example is exemplified in a player like Crosby. Look at his assist/goal ratios over his career and note how those ratios tighten up in his highest goal scoring seasons. That's likely where he's reaching the zenith of goal scoring ability without detriment to his full offensive potential. The elite players who provide low assist/goal ratios (especially less than one), are more purely focused on goal scoring, likely to the detriment of their full and well-rounded offensive potential.

Definitely, the goal scorers are inherently better at their craft and playmakers at theirs, but there is potential for both to swing their ratios. And that's what I'm arriving at with Gretzky. He scored 92 goals at his peak. But he was likely capable of scoring in excess of 100 in a couple of seasons, if he was inclined to play more selfishly. He just wasn't wired that way. When you look at his goals, assists and shot totals in combination, the number of offensive opportunities he was generating is absolutely mind boggling. Lemieux was similar, and also Howe to a lesser degree.

It isn't a prerequisite that the person who frequently has the most goals is the best goal scorer. It's partially because they are wired to shoot instead of a pass. Allow me to express this another way. If there's one minute left in the game, and you're down a goal, who is receiving the call to hop over the boards at their peak? Gretzky or Ovechkin? Lemieux or Richard? Howe or Hull? Which one of the those players does one trust most, to ensure the puck simply goes in the net when the game is on the line? I know that appears to be a digression, but in actuality it's quite pertinent to the topic matter. Personally, I take Howe, Gretzky, or Lemieux. The others can move down the bench, and I'll get them on the ice if we go to overtime.

I understand where you are coming from, and I'm not suggesting that Crosby could be the best goal scorer ever, or Gretzky could score 130 goals. Nor am I indicating sustainable higher percentages when it comes to the absolute totals. I'm actually attempting to highlight volume. Project Crosby's or Gretzky's totals if they were shooting more, instead of passing. Ovechkin has historically relied on volume to score his goals, although he's enjoyed a renewed improvement in his efficiency over the past few seasons. He's progressing along an incredible career arc and the daylight between him and Bobby Hull is becoming increasingly narrow. He has a few more chapters to write, and it will be entertaining to further study his career when completed.

Accordingly, my opinion is Gretzky was assuredly capable of generating at least 400 shots/80 games throughout his peak. And I think that's an excellent place to undertake analysis of his peak goal scoring potential. I also believe it's significant to note the 1985-86 season was in fact the goal scoring anomaly throughout Gretzky's prime. Excluding the 1985-86 season, his career shooting percentage through 1987-88 was 21.9%. The 14.9% season represents quite an outlier and, based on his career averages, he should have approximated 77 goals that year. Considering those averages a 77 goal, 138 assist total is more reflective of expectations to that point, continuing though the 1987-88 season. The absolute dividing line for Gretzky's goal scoring capabilities is the 1991-92 season. He appeared to be in a natural decline up to that point, and suddenly his percentages drop precipitously, never to recover.

There's definitely an argument to be made that Gretzky is not the best goal scorer ever throughout his prime. Outside the top five? All things considered, that's a very, very bold statement.
 

JasonRoseEh

Registered User
Oct 23, 2018
2,933
2,347
For all of you who want to rank Ovechkin in the top 10, I'm inviting you to the HOH section as he will be having the top #101-200 players rankings of all time. Everyone will be submitting their top 220/240 players of all time and then there will be civil discussions and comparisons for players from ALL eras and positions.
Nah, the nostalgia goggles are far too strong on that board to reach any sort of sensible understanding. Only amongst hockey fans do we color the past so rosey compared to the modern era, literally no other pro sport does this.

The truth is that with context Ovechkin's individual accolades become even more impressive.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,491
15,797
1. Find me where someone said that Ryan Getzlaf was better then Ovechkin.

Midnight Judges posted the quote from one of the voters about Getzlaf. But it's important to emphasize that Getzlaf received zero votes during the top 100 players project. So even the voter who said that ranked Ovechkin 20th, and Getzlaf wasn't part of his top 120 list. I think someone's voting record is more important than a (possibly facetious) post.
 
Last edited:

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,422
11,368
This has been highlighted multiples times in this thread now, and is most likely attributed to my posting on the subject. I feel the need to chime in to clarify the record for Midnight Judges and ted2019. Under no circumstances did I state Crosby was in fact the superior goal scorer relative to Ovechkin. I did contend Crosby hadn't maximized his goal scoring potential, based on playing style as it relates to his positional responsibility. Please note this selectivity clearly doesn't equally apply to all players. However, when discussing the greatest 5-10 forwards in hockey history, it certainly exhibits relevance. Please see underneath for my successive posts on this topic:

I think your rationale is well-stated. You can always argue that this player or that player could have focused more on something else. It is interesting to think about. My sense is that professional coaches and players are generally making the best decisions in order to maximize effectiveness. And so what they did do is generally the best they could do.

My posts were not referring to you.
 
Last edited:

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,422
11,368
Midnight Judges posted the quote from one of the voters about Getzlaf. But it's important to emphasize that Getzlaf received zero votes during the top 100 players project. So even the voter who said that ranked Ovechkin 20th, and Getzlaf wasn't part of his top 120 list. I think someone's voting record is more important than a (possibly facetious) post.

It's obvious he wasn't being facetious.

BenchBrawl said:
...if my life was on the line and I was coaching some team, I really but really would pick Ovechkin over Getzlaf. Would I? I don't think I would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonRoseEh

Weztex

Registered User
Feb 6, 2006
3,138
3,833
Nah, the nostalgia goggles are far too strong on that board to reach any sort of sensible understanding. Only amongst hockey fans do we color the past so rosey compared to the modern era, literally no other pro sport does this.

The truth is that with context Ovechkin's individual accolades become even more impressive.

Really? I feel exactly the opposite.

Hockey is the only sport where I’ve heard people say that Gretzky, Howe or Orr are overrated because they wouldn’t make the NHL today. Every week (edit: day) I read people on HFBoards talking about how modern superhuman bionic players would destroy everyone and their families had they played a mere 20 years ago.

Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

Nothing’s perfect but the HOH forum is probably the more resourceful place online to engage in those kinds of comparaisons.
 

Zuluss

Registered User
May 19, 2011
2,482
2,210
Midnight Judges posted the quote from one of the voters about Getzlaf. But it's important to emphasize that Getzlaf received zero votes during the top 100 players project. So even the voter who said that ranked Ovechkin 20th, and Getzlaf wasn't part of his top 120 list. I think someone's voting record is more important than a (possibly facetious) post.

Anyone who believes that Getzlaf, at any point of time outside of maybe 2013/14, was better/more valuable to the team than Ovechkin, severely underrates what Ovechkin has done outside of his peak years. So if that person ranks OV 20th all-time, you can say with certainty Ovechkin should be ranked higher.
One can say that everyone has his own bias and then the biases will average out in the final ranking - but the fact that the project averaged everyone's opinion and ranked Ovechkin 22nd in the end (i.e., lower than the ranking from the guy who said Getzlaf is more valuable) is very concerning.

This has been highlighted multiples times in this thread now, and is most likely attributed to my posting on the subject. I feel the need to chime in to clarify the record for Midnight Judges and ted2019. Under no circumstances did I state Crosby was in fact the superior goal scorer relative to Ovechkin. I did contend Crosby hadn't maximized his goal scoring potential, based on playing style as it relates to his positional responsibility. Please note this selectivity clearly doesn't equally apply to all players. However, when discussing the greatest 5-10 forwards in hockey history, it certainly exhibits relevance. Please see underneath for my successive posts on this topic:

That's just some innocuous double-dipping :) HoH forum has produced way worse than that: I tried arguing there with at least two people who tried to convince me that a player can turn goals into assists as easily as one moves change from right to left pocket, and a 40g+60a guy can turn into a 60g+40a guy if he so desires.
What you are arguing is different: you are just trying to add some extra luster to, say, Gretzky's 92 goals because he simultaneously had 130 assists to go with that. But did not he already get credit for his 212 points and posting the best season ever? I think there is nothing wrong in saying that as a goal-scorer Brett Hull peaked as high as Gretzky. Yes, Gretzky also had way more assists at his goal-scoring peak and thus was a much better player than peak Brett Hull. But why cannot two players be equally good goalscorers while one of them is better than the other overall?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonRoseEh

JasonRoseEh

Registered User
Oct 23, 2018
2,933
2,347
Really? I feel exactly the opposite.

Hockey is the only sport where I’ve heard people say that Gretzky, Howe or Orr are overrated because they wouldn’t make the NHL today. Every week (edit: day) I read people on HFBoards talking about how modern superhuman bionic players would destroy everyone and their families had they played a mere 20 years ago.

Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

Nothing’s perfect but the HOH forum is probably the more resourceful place online to engage in those kinds of comparaisons.
Does it happen? Sure but not even remotely as close as much as it does in the NBA, MLB or the NFL. Name one current player who is considered to be in the running for the GOAT or even a top 3 position in the NHL whereas it's seemingly a discussion in every other major sport.

MLB analytics people proclaim pitchers from a mere decade ago are vastly inferior because average velocity was lower. Many herald Mike Trout as the greatest hitter the game has seen, people think the NBA was full of plumbers in the 90's and Lebron could've been the GOAT after 2 championships, but NHL fans still believe Richard, who played in a diminished, 2 country league is somehow still better than a Russian who's surpassed him at literally everything from an individual standpoint and did in a vastly more competitive league. It should be a no brainer that both Crosby and Ovechkin are top 10 all time players because they absolutely are, yet here we are 67 pages deep. They have the individual accolades, they pass the eye test, they've won and done things in the modern game that many thought impossible.

Your Score example outlines the nostalgia issue perfectly and cements my point; they left Malkin off the top 100.

Again, some of the takes from rose colored goggled posters in HOH are just laughably insulting to the modern era of hockey that I don't even bother.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,491
15,797
Anyone who believes that Getzlaf, at any point of time outside of maybe 2013/14, was better/more valuable to the team than Ovechkin, severely underrates what Ovechkin has done outside of his peak years. So if that person ranks OV 20th all-time, you can say with certainty Ovechkin should be ranked higher.
One can say that everyone has his own bias and then the biases will average out in the final ranking - but the fact that the project averaged everyone's opinion and ranked Ovechkin 22nd in the end (i.e., lower than the ranking from the guy who said Getzlaf is more valuable) is very concerning

Right, but the point is the poster who was quoted didn't actually vote that way. He made a facetious statement in order to get a rise out of people (which is working, by the way). There wasn't a single vote for Ryan Getzlaf in the entire project.

There are certainly legitimate reasons for disagreeing with the final rankings. (I was voter, and there are many rankings that I disagree with, so I'm not suggesting that the list is above criticism). But in a thread about Ovechkin's ranking, why are we talking about a player who was unranked by all 30 participants?
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
Malkin's lack of motivation being 2C?
Malkin's PPG 1.35 without Crosby.
Crosby's PPG 1.22 without Malkin.
Personally I think he is more talented than Ovechkin and Crosby.



Funny your quote said Crosby was useless without Malkin.

A 1.22 PPG rate is simply elite.

Sure I agree that Malkin has more pure talent than either guy much like Mario had more than Gretzky.

But both Wayne and Sid are greater overall players and in actual execution than their respective contemporizes.
 

Zuluss

Registered User
May 19, 2011
2,482
2,210
Right, but the point is the poster who was quoted didn't actually vote that way. He made a facetious statement in order to get a rise out of people (which is working, by the way). There wasn't a single vote for Ryan Getzlaf in the entire project.

Voting Ovechkin 20th all-time is quite consistent with sincerely believing that in several of his post-peak seasons (and/or as of the moment of voting) he was worse than Getzlaf.
Both are wrong and both represent rather popular under-appreciation of Oveckin's post-peak years, which is happening in this thread as well.

I think it was you who once posted total Hart votes by decades, which showed that in the 2010s Ovechkin had second-most Hart votes (behind Crosby and ahead of McDavid). And that's all in his post-peak years (he was also 1st in total Hart votes in the 2000s on the strength of his three peak seasons alone). That I think puts a proper perspective on Ovechkin's peak and post-peak play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonRoseEh

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,702
144,267
Bojangles Parking Lot
Does it happen? Sure but not even remotely as close as much as it does in the NBA, MLB or the NFL. Name one current player who is considered to be in the running for the GOAT or even a top 3 position in the NHL whereas it's seemingly a discussion in every other major sport.

MLB analytics people proclaim pitchers from a mere decade ago are vastly inferior because average velocity was lower. Many herald Mike Trout as the greatest hitter the game has seen, people think the NBA was full of plumbers in the 90's and Lebron could've been the GOAT after 2 championships, but NHL fans still believe Richard, who played in a diminished, 2 country league is somehow still better than a Russian who's surpassed him at literally everything from an individual standpoint and did in a vastly more competitive league. It should be a no brainer that both Crosby and Ovechkin are top 10 all time players because they absolutely are, yet here we are 67 pages deep. They have the individual accolades, they pass the eye test, they've won and done things in the modern game that many thought impossible.

Your Score example outlines the nostalgia issue perfectly and cements my point; they left Malkin off the top 100.

Again, some of the takes from rose colored goggled posters in HOH are just laughably insulting to the modern era of hockey that I don't even bother.

To be fair, hockey fans aren't some monolith who all have one view. The vast majority would agree that Crosby is a top-10 player, and even on HOH we're seeing that opinion start to solidify. I feel absolutely certain that if we did another top-100 list today, Crosby would be ranked above Richard in the top-10.

The reason for this is that lot of what you're railing against here isn't the question of "how good is this player?", but "how great was this player?". The HOH list ranked Frank Nighbor over Mark Messier, but nobody in that forum seriously thinks Nighbor was an objectively better player head-to-head in a real life game. It's a question of who was the greater player relative to his time and place. I would certainly hope that MLB fans would still rank Babe Ruth over Mike Trout on an all-time list, understanding that technical precision is a completely different question than what a player has achieved in context of his time and place.
 

RageQuit77

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
5,205
3,741
Finland, Kotka
Voting Ovechkin 20th all-time is quite consistent with sincerely believing that in several of his post-peak seasons (and/or as of the moment of voting) he was worse than Getzlaf.
Both are wrong and both represent rather popular under-appreciation of Oveckin's post-peak years, which is happening in this thread as well.

I think it was you who once posted total Hart votes by decades, which showed that in the 2010s Ovechkin had second-most Hart votes (behind Crosby and ahead of McDavid). And that's all in his post-peak years (he was also 1st in total Hart votes in the 2000s on the strength of his three peak seasons alone). That I think puts a proper perspective on Ovechkin's peak and post-peak play.

"Post-peak" is very hard thing to establish for OVI as he was "washed up" already a decade and 7 rockets ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,491
15,797
Voting Ovechkin 20th all-time is quite consistent with sincerely believing that in several of his post-peak seasons (and/or as of the moment of voting) he was worse than Getzlaf.
Both are wrong and both represent rather popular under-appreciation of Oveckin's post-peak years, which is happening in this thread as well.

I think it was you who once posted total Hart votes by decades, which showed that in the 2010s Ovechkin had second-most Hart votes (behind Crosby and ahead of McDavid). And that's all in his post-peak years (he was also 1st in total Hart votes in the 2000s on the strength of his three peak seasons alone). That I think puts a proper perspective on Ovechkin's peak and post-peak play.

The bolded sounds like the type of thing I'd post. And yes, that's accurate.

My broader point was - that's fine, if you disagree with Ovechkin being ranked 20th (as of two years ago), argue that. Maybe you could argue that the project undervalued goal-scoring; or maybe it overvalued playoff success; etc. Just that those arguments can be made without ever bringing up Ryan Getzlaf who, once again, received zero votes.

BenchBrawl is probably laughing at everyone here - myself included - for spending so much time discussing his provocative throw-away comment.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
You're so good at glossing over every point to the contrary, and then with a mere waive of the hand dismiss it as "not very well thought out."

1.7 = 1. Classic stuff, daver lite.

Its not well thought out its is almost entirely specific for one player and that's what makes it very weak.

Look at my Forsberg Hedjuk example for 02-03 where Sakic was the first object of contention.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
The "best" usually have a peak goalscoring season that is, at least, arguably among the best all-time. IMO, OV's 2007/08 is outside the Top 5.

Wayne and Hull are right there with him as the "greatest", add Mario to the list if you want to talk "best".

And Wayne and Mario will always have the caveat of being far superior overall offensive forces, which will always make me uncomfortable in placing OV ahead of them by limiting the discussion to just goalscoring.

As we have seen from OV, being the "best" goalscorer in at least half of years he won the Richard didn't put him close to be the "best" player in the league.

This simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Adjusted Ovis 07-08 trails only Brett Hull in 90-91.

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

while not perfect it does suggest something right.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
Sure, except for 2015 when he was the best skater, and 2018 when he won the Rocket and Conn Smythe.

Sure he was voted 2nd in Hart voting in 15 but there were 4 other guys arguebly as good a forward that season.

And 18 he was 9th in Hart voting why are you trying to create a new idea (regular season + playoffs) that is only going to make Crosby look better.

Crosby 1152-530-922-1452
Ovechkin 1288-775-634-1409

Yes that's right Crosby has 43 more point in 136 less games.



Nevermind that Ovechkin has 166 more goals than Crosby in that time frame.

Man how come no one has ever brought this up before this changes everything.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 412 Others

psycat

Registered User
Oct 25, 2016
3,297
1,203
Second greatest European forward is where he will end up. Lower peak, career numbers and prime than Jagr. Jagr is certain and 6th at lowest for me, Ovechkin is more borderline but comfortably ahead of Crosby in my book.

Gretzky
(there is no big 4 in my mind)
Orr
Lemieux
Howe

Hasek
Jagr
Hull
Bourque
Beliveau

Ovechkin/LaFleur/Esposito/Lidström/Roy/Crosby/Shore etc
Something like that.
 
Last edited:

RageQuit77

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
5,205
3,741
Finland, Kotka
Things in this thread are already beaten to death long time ago...

I recently spotted a potential problem that has caused me to lose my night sleep.

jaO4b4A.png


I'm not that much concerned about Ovi's chances to emerge as one of the over the top players of hockey history than I'm concerned about Hockey-References broad sheet coding.

What catastrophic can happen when Ovi's TSA count reaches to 10000? Do we have another Y2K doomsday, or does a new 5th digit only disappear behind his S% column? Or could it be so that the site's modern programming can handle with this apparent near future problem automaticly?

Ovi's TOP-10 spot and outcome of it is generally more certain than the outcome of this potentially serious issue?

:sarcasm:
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
Weird timing of the posts lol as I posted about the invite to the HOH activity right before this haha.

Either way, there is absolutely zero basis to confirm that the average player was better back then.

# of playersCAN playerNON-CAN players% CAN
1977/1978 (min 40 GP)3232853888%
2009/2010 (min 40 GP)58132825356%
2018/2019 (min 40 GP)58825433443%
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From NHL's site, using their nationalities (may have very minor variances).

At the end of the day, yeah teams increased like 50% since the 70's, but that gap has more than been accounted for by the league becoming more international than it was. There are things to consider like population rates in Canada (it is impossible to find youth hockey numbers from back then - or at least it has been for me), so that can't be quantified. But at the end of the day, I don't think there is any basis to say that top players are more advantaged today due to more players in the league equaling lower overall quality of players. In my opinion, the gap between Crosby/Ovi and a 3rd liner is a lot less than the top players from the past and a 3rd liner equivalent (less the big 4 for obvious reasons).

Something that is a statistical fact is that being #1 out of of almost 600 players is inherently more impressive than being #1 out of 300-350 players.

I'm particularly interested in the 78 to 19 comparison when there are almost the same number of Canadians in the league.

In 78 there were some really good non Canadians and Canadian players in the WHA still as well.

1977-78 WHA Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

The drop in a decade as well is very interesting to say the least but I'm guessing the main increase is from American players..
 
  • Like
Reactions: filinski77

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,491
15,797
Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

I can't comment on basketball or football (two sports I have zero interest in), but baseball is, as a general rule, much more respectful of its past than hockey. To quickly illustrate that point, I pulled up five "greatest MLB players of all-time" polls, all of which were compiled in the past decade:
  • Six players appeared on all five lists - Ty Cobb (1911*), Babe Ruth (1923), Stan Musial (1948), Ted Williams (1949), Hank Aaron (1957), and Willie Mays (1965).
  • Walter Johnson (1913) was on four lists.
  • Lou Gehrig (1936) and Barry Bonds (2004) were on three lists.
  • Rogers Hornsby (1929) and Mickey Mantle (1962) were on two lists.
Five of those eleven players never even played against black competitors! Let alone Dominicans, Japanese, etc like you have today. Exactly one of these eleven players was active during/after 1980. I'm not saying these lists are necessarily accurate. But the MLB tends to treat its stars from the distant past with much more reverence than we see in hockey. The comment that hockey fans value older players more than baseball fans is, frankly, obviously wrong to anybody who follows both sports even casually.

(*The year indicates the final season that they were named MVP, just to give a sense of when they peaked).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weztex and wetcoast

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,828
11,668
Really? I feel exactly the opposite.

Hockey is the only sport where I’ve heard people say that Gretzky, Howe or Orr are overrated because they wouldn’t make the NHL today. Every week (edit: day) I read people on HFBoards talking about how modern superhuman bionic players would destroy everyone and their families had they played a mere 20 years ago.

Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

Nothing’s perfect but the HOH forum is probably the more resourceful place online to engage in those kinds of comparaisons.


I agree with what you say here but part of the problem in baseball and basketball (both American sports) is a reflection on the history of that nation and the limited nature of both sports professionally for far too long in their histories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weztex

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad