Top 10 Best NHL Players of All Time

[jigglysquishy]

Looking to be educated, what are the points that put Hull over Ovechkin? On the surface it looks like he has no case.

Better holistic point producer.

Hull: 1,1,1,2,2,2,4,5,6,7,9
Ovechkin: 1,2,2,3,3,4,7,8

In relation, their assist finishes
Bobby Hull - 5,6,6,7,8
Ovechkin - 6,6,10

There's the video evidence. Hull jumps on the screen in a pretty incredible way in the 60s. Ovechkin does too from 2005-2010, but doesn't afterwards. Hull jumps off the screen from 1960-1972. This bleeds into contemporary reports. Game to game, season to season, Hull gets immense praise throughout the 60s. More dynamic, stronger defensively, more versatile. It's just a decade of praise.

Really, what it comes down to is that Hull was the better player. The resume helps signal the how, but it's just a plain difference in quality of play.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Back in Orr's time, no one was ranking players or comparing careers.

After the Cup win in 1970 just about everyone considered Orr the best player they had ever seen.

The talk of Orr being the greatest defenceman ever

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 8, 1967

Coach Harry Sinden said "How good is Bobby Orr? I'll tell you how good - he's the greatest player in the National Hockey League."

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Jan 6, 1968

Joe Watson of the Philadelphia Flyers "That Orr is the greatest defenceman I have ever seen "

The Phoenix · ‎May 11, 1968

"This guys almost never does anything wrong," [teammate Derek Sanderson said]. "He's the greatest I've ever seen."

The Telegraph · ‎Dec 16, 1968

Boston Coach Harry Sinden said. "As for Bobby Orr, that was the greatest offensive game 'ever played by a defenseman. He was super great. No one can tell me a defenseman ever played better."

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Jan 9, 1969

Bobby Orr is obviously the best hockey player to break into the league in many and he isn't 21 yet.

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Dec 17, 1970

Sports Illustrated, in its cover story this week called Orr "the greatest player ever to don skates. Not the greatest defenceman, the greatest player at either end of the ice."

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 31, 1970

A lot of people are beginning to suspect that Bobby Orr is the greatest hockey player who ever laced on skates.

Red Kelly, the Pittsburgh Penguins coach "He's really smart. If you try to anticipate his moves, he'll do something else and make you look foolish. He's done it a few times to our guys this season."

"Orr has everything," Dit Clapper, a former Boston great said recently. "In a couple more years he may be the perfect hockey player."

A couple more years? He may be that right now.

The Windsor Star · ‎May 11, 1970

Bobby Orr, greatest hockey player of these times, perhaps the greatest of any

 

[gary69]

Back in Orr's time, no one was ranking players or comparing careers.

After the Cup win in 1970 just about everyone considered Orr the best player they had ever seen.

Of course they were. HHOF was created in 1945 and in 1950 Morenz was selected best player of the first half of the century. By Orr's time, ranking had been going on for 20+ years.

 

[bobholly39]

Better holistic point producer.

Hull: 1,1,1,2,2,2,4,5,6,7,9
Ovechkin: 1,2,2,3,3,4,7,8

In relation, their assist finishes
Bobby Hull - 5,6,6,7,8
Ovechkin - 6,6,10

There's the video evidence. Hull jumps on the screen in a pretty incredible way in the 60s. Ovechkin does too from 2005-2010, but doesn't afterwards. Hull jumps off the screen from 1960-1972. This bleeds into contemporary reports. Game to game, season to season, Hull gets immense praise throughout the 60s. More dynamic, stronger defensively, more versatile. It's just a decade of praise.

Really, what it comes down to is that Hull was the better player. The resume helps signal the how, but it's just a plain difference in quality of play.

You always have to account for era when discussing finishes though. A #4 finish in smaller league might be the same as....# 7 or 8 in the 2010s, for example.

Just looking purely at numbers - not so sure Hull's finishes jump out as much better. The rosses do help.

But then - Ovechkin is building up a significant longevity advantage.

I have Ovechkin over Hull. I understand the counter argument, but I think it is close.

 

[Spitfire11]

You always have to account for era when discussing finishes though. A #4 finish in smaller league might be the same as....# 7 or 8 in the 2010s, for example.

Just looking purely at numbers - not so sure Hull's finishes jump out as much better. The rosses do help.

But then - Ovechkin is building up a significant longevity advantage.

I have Ovechkin over Hull. I understand the counter argument, but I think it is close.

That’s true, I personally rate the O6 era well above the others, but mathematically a top-10 finish in a 30 team league is the equivalent of a top-2 finish in a 6 team league.

 

[jigglysquishy]

That’s true, I personally rate the O6 era well above the others, but mathematically a top-10 finish in a 30 team league is the equivalent of a top-2 finish in a 6 team league.

That's not true at all. The relationship is not linear in that respect.

 

[MadLuke]

That’s true, I personally rate the O6 era well above the others, but mathematically a top-10 finish in a 30 team league is the equivalent of a top-2 finish in a 6 team league.

Not sure it is possible to come up with some rules of the sorts

Top 10 finish in 1967:
Points

1.	Stan Mikita* • CBH	97
2.	Bobby Hull* • CBH	80
3.	Norm Ullman* • DET	70
4.	Gordie Howe* • DET	65
	Kenny Wharram • CBH	65
6.	Bobby Rousseau • MTL	63
7.	Phil Esposito* • CBH	61
	Phil Goyette • NYR	61
9.	Doug Mohns • CBH	60
10.	Alex Delvecchio* • DET	55

In 1968, lot of player repeat, more importantly no player in top 10 was not already in the nhl, no one playing on the 6 expansion team even got close to a top 10 and that an extreme situation were they played an much easier schedule, against expansion team most of their games.

Points

1.	Stan Mikita* • CBH	87
2.	Phil Esposito* • BOS	84
3.	Gordie Howe* • DET	82
4.	Jean Ratelle* • NYR	78
5.	Rod Gilbert* • NYR	77
6.	Bobby Hull* • CBH	75
7.	Norm Ullman* • 2TM	72
8.	Alex Delvecchio* • DET	70
9.	Johnny Bucyk* • BOS	69
	Kenny Wharram • CBH	69

There was the double of team in 1968, no one would suggest that Bucyk 10 place is the same as Howe-Wharram tie for 4-5 the year before or that Howe 1 year older became that much bettwer with a top 3 versus an ~8-9 the year before.

In generals (there the Mt StLouis exception and teams are not perfect) an able to finish in the top 5 in the nhl player should be in it regardless the numbers of team and should gain a good spot on the teams he is on, that make doubling the size of the league not necessarily moving the top 5-10 that much.

Top 20, 30, 50, can be and you have the StLouis scenario of someone winning an art ross that maybe would have been kept on the farm team of the best 06, not valuable outside a top 6 spot, never getting a top 6 spot, we can imagine.

But that more a marging things than a literal double how hard it is as you expend spot. Malkin-Crosby both could win the Ross on the same team, Sakic-Forsberg could have, as long as you get first pp unit ice, you do not need to be on a clear cut first line or bust either (as Mikita-Hull just above can show).

it is more what the elite talent level look like are they healthy that season, etc... much more than the amount of team, specially once you have 12 or more of them, it get hard to imagine a top 10 level player not finding a spot, top 50 yes for sure it get harder (a Seatles team can use someone that is a defensive liabiltiy a good team in a 10 team league would not like but can score quite well and will have first pp-first line go for it style, that can make it hard to beat in a top 50 spot race)

 

[Spitfire11]

That's not true at all. The relationship is not linear in that respect.

What would the magic formula be?

There are obviously other factors to consider, but you’re comparing finishing top 10/108 vs top 10/540
It’s got to be a pretty significant difference in difficulty to accomplish

 

[MadLuke]

What would the magic formula be?

There would not be one, make the thought experiment, the nhl announce that next year there will be 100 nhl teams.

Will it really be 3 times harder for McDavid to make the top 10 or very few of the added players will compete with him for a top 10 spot ?

Or imagine they announce the opposite, 16 nhl team next year, how easier would it be, how many player in the top 30 will not be there next year still competing for that top 10, how many will be buried and not placed in a position to score ?

And with an higher level talent league, could help some, could hurt some, to detach themselve from the pack, it is hard to imagine the factor is zero, even when the league is already big and even for the Art Ross, but the bigger the league and the higher the finish, the less of a factor it is and I doubt it is close to linear.

Wayne Gretzky coming to the nhl was a game changer on how hard it was to win the art ross for everyone else, him drafted, signed vs coming with a whole new Oilers teams, not really important.

 

[Spitfire11]

There would not be one, make the thought experiment, the nhl announce that next year there will be 100 nhl teams.

Will it really be 3 times harder for McDavid to make the top 10 or very few of the added players, will compete for a top 10 ?

Or imagine they announce the opposite, 16 nhl team next year, how easier would it be, how many player in the top 30 will not be there next year still competing for that top 10, how many will be buried and not place in a position to score ?

And with an higher level talent league, could help some, could hurt some, to detach themselve from the pack, it is hard to imagine the factor is zero, even when the league is already big and even for the Art Ross, but the bigger the league and the higher the finish, the less of a factor it is and I doubt it is close to linear.

Wayne Gretzky coming to the nhl was a game changer on how hard it was to win the art ross for everyone else, him drafted, signed vs coming with a whole new Oilers teams, not really important.

I understand your point, but look at it this way too. Here’s the top 10 from last year:

Kucherov
MacKinnon
McDavid
Panarin
Pasternak
Matthews
Draisaitl
Rantanen
Miller
Nylander

If you compress the league down to 6 teams are JT Miller, Panarin, and Nylander getting top line minutes? Take 2 out and Crosby gets another ‘top-10’ points finish to his resume. The previous year you have Nugent-Hopkins and Robertson in the top 10.

 

[MadLuke]

If you compress the league down to 6 teams are JT Miller, Panarin, and Nylander getting top line minutes?

There is 60 minutes of hockey, way less of even strength, so a team could play 3 lines that have all have top minutes if they have good enough players to play them with no 4th line, that 18 set (54) of first line minutes players spot.

2 line getting top line minutes easily many do, that 36 players, first pp unit would be more crowded and a possible issue of cutting people, the Henri Richard having really strong EV numbers but modest top finish with the absence of powerplay would be happening to what would have been big numbers player for sure.

A Panarin would get top lines minutes for many coaches-teams in a six team league.

But that an 6 from 32 type of jumps, no one is saying that would have 0 effect, 16 to 32 or vice versa effect would not be twice and the 32 to 6 would not be more than 5x.

 

[Professor What]

I understand your point, but look at it this way too. Here’s the top 10 from last year:

Kucherov
MacKinnon
McDavid
Panarin
Pasternak
Matthews
Draisaitl
Rantanen
Miller
Nylander

If you compress the league down to 6 teams are JT Miller, Panarin, and Nylander getting top line minutes? Take 2 out and Crosby gets another ‘top-10’ points finish to his resume. The previous year you have Nugent-Hopkins and Robertson in the top 10.

And that proves what exactly? You showed where a guy might have finished slightly higher in the points standings if there were 6 teams. You didn't show where a 50th place finish today is like a 10th place finish in the O6 era.

You're looking at things in a linear manner, when that's not at all how they work. In truth, it's going to be the best players that are making the league, whether it's six teams, 12 teams, or 32 teams. You can argue it's not one to one. That's fine. What you can't argue with any real foundation is that the increase of teams makes it proportionately more difficult to score in the top 10. We're talking about the best of the best. We're not talking about guys that are borderline of making the league depending on the league size. We're talking about guys that are no-doubters.

 

[Spitfire11]

You're looking at things in a linear manner, when that's not at all how they work. In truth, it's going to be the best players that are making the league, whether it's six teams, 12 teams, or 32 teams. You can argue it's not one to one. That's fine. What you can't argue with any real foundation is that the increase of teams makes it proportionately more difficult to score in the top 10. We're talking about the best of the best. We're not talking about guys that are borderline of making the league depending on the league size. We're talking about guys that are no-doubters.

That’s why I’m asking what the formula would be, because it’s not negligible, and therefore not really fair to compare an arbitrary cutoff like top-10 across such different eras when comparing players. There has to be some way make it more comparable.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That’s why I’m asking what the formula would be, because it’s not negligible, and therefore not really fair to compare an arbitrary cutoff like top-10 across such different eras when comparing players. There has to be some way make it more comparable.

The answer is never a formula and it's always proper talent evaluation. There's just no shortcuts for this kind of thing.

8th in X year vs. 8th in the O6 could be vastly different or it could be exactly the same. There's a lot of factors that go into it. You don't want to be paralyzed by over-analysis, but lazy stuff like number of teams and what not isn't gonna cut it, reasonably.

Rating the quality of the league year by year might be helpful. Create sort of a coefficient that can be tagged to various aspects of this. But no matter what, a lot of video needs to be evaluated.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The answer is never a formula and it's always proper talent evaluation. There's just no shortcuts for this kind of thing.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, I think there's context needed and some awareness of flexibility, year by year, in trying to compare the "5th best" scorer in 1953 with the same in 2012 or whatever. There is certainly no simple formula that's going to work for every case.

Generally, the top players are the top players, regardless of how many teams there are. So, if the top players today are McDavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Makar, Hellebuyck, Matthews, Barkov, Hughes, etc., and the if the NHL switched overnight to a 10-team League instead of a 32-team League, the top players would still be... McDavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Makar, Hellebuyck, Matthews, Barkov, Hughes, etc. That is, nothing much is going to change at the top.

What changes in a smaller League is that there is more high-level talent concentrated on each club. This probably makes it "harder" to lead a team in scoring year after year (because there are more good players on each club), but conversely with a larger League, like today, I think it's harder to be consistently high in scoring every year. That is, Ovechkin will still be among the top point scorers over any 10-year aggregate period, but year-by-year it's more difficult in a larger league to stay up in the top-5 or whatever.