Top 10 Best NHL Players of All Time

[Golden_Jet]

You're fooling yourself if you think those who study hockey history don't revere Howe up there. And if you think they put McDavid on that pedestal. As for the hockey community in general, most of them don't know what they're talking about when it comes to history. I'd be more interested on the thoughts of a handful of PhDs on a topic than a mass of first graders.

Obviously you’re uninformed.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think anybody was calling Hull the best player ever but A lot of people have him ranked in the 5 to !0 range. The consensus In HOH was #5. I don't think many have Ovechkin there so there is a considerable gap. And I don't particularly care about your opinion.

If Hull was a much higher tier than Ovechkin, which was the claim, then he'd have to be the best player ever. I know that almost no one calls Hull the best ever, because he isn't that much above Ovechkin. 5 to 10 is fair for Hull, and Ovechkin has a solid case for that range too though I'd probably keep him slightly lower.

 

[The Panther]

There's only four players- Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, McDavid (probably in that order) - who currently have some significant support as the best hockey player ever.

That may be true, but it's like saying "most people today" think Taylor Swift is bigger than The Beatles. It just means most people aren't intelligent or well-informed and that their opinions aren't particularly important.

I'm not changing my opinions about hockey players based on 17-year-olds on the main boards who think Crosby is the greatest player ever (since 2010).

 

[WarriorofTime]

Hard to see any real objective case for Lemieux over Gretzky, they played in same era and Gretzky accomplished much much more. You have to get in more subjective territory with requiring both things like what someone "feels" (I watched them play and think this, which... ok I guess.. can't tell you how to feel) and turning injuries "off"

 

[Midnight Judges]

How are doing adjusted points, seems flawed.

Is this taking into consideration the seasons were 12 games shorter,

and the goals per game per season are similar in both eras, maybe slightly higher for OV, but not much.

You’re also comparing Hull at 18 vs OV at 20 ….

Hockey reference adjusted stats take season length into consideration and add points for players in 70 and 50 game seasons (they adjust all seasons to 82 games).

League-wide scoring per game was actually higher on average during Bobby Hull's career than it was during Ovechkin's career:

Year	Hull	Year	Ovechkin
1972​	3.02​	2025​	2.83​
	3.09​		2.91​
	2.88​		2.97​
	2.95​		2.92​
	2.75​		2.74​
	2.96​		2.82​
	3.02​		2.81​
	2.85​		2.78​
	2.75​		2.59​
	2.93​		2.51​
	2.98​		2.52​
	2.96​		2.56​
	2.92​		2.54​
	2.87​		2.54​
1958​	2.78​		2.61​
			2.66​
			2.73​
			2.61​
			2.77​
		2006​	2.92​
	43.71​		54.34​
Hull Avg:	2.914​	Ovie Avg:	2.717​

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[Golden_Jet]

Hockey reference adjusted stats take season length into consideration and add points for players in 70 and 50 game seasons (they adjust all seasons to 82 games).

League-wide scoring per game was actually higher on average during Bobby Hull's career than it was during Ovechkin's career:

Year	Hull	Year	Ovechkin
1972​	3.02​	2025​	2.83​
	3.09​		2.91​
	2.88​		2.97​
	2.95​		2.92​
	2.75​		2.74​
	2.96​		2.82​
	3.02​		2.81​
	2.85​		2.78​
	2.75​		2.59​
	2.93​		2.51​
	2.98​		2.52​
	2.96​		2.56​
	2.92​		2.54​
	2.87​		2.54​
1958​	2.78​		2.61​
			2.66​
			2.73​
			2.61​
			2.77​
		2006​	2.92​
	43.71​		54.34​
Hull Avg:	2.914​	Ovie Avg:	2.717​

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

None of your numbers jive with the numbers in the link, unless you provided the wrong link.

Also do we know poster was using hockey reference, they never said.

I was using the same link as you when I said that Hull was in lower era.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

None of your numbers jive with the numbers in the link, unless you provided the wrong link.

I'm matching at least on the few that I checked manually. For instance, 1971-72 (on the link) is 3.02, which matches 1972 above.

Caveat that I only checked a few.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm matching at least on the few that I checked manually. For instance, 1971-72 (on the link) is 3.02, which matches 1972 above.

Caveat that I only checked a few.

I looked at OV 23/24 link shows 3.11 not 2.83
22/23 OV shows 3.18 not 2.91

 

[Midnight Judges]

Hull is on a much higher tier than Ovechkin. People feel compelled to compare them because of their goal scoring prowess but Hull was a much superior player.

You can say it, but the record doesn't support it.

Ovie has more accomplishments against a far larger talent pool. Ovie was likely competing against 3x as many people as Bobby Hull was:

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

This makes it way more difficult to come out on top, and yet Ovie still did.

Harts
Ovechkin 3
Hull 2

Led NHL in Goals
Ovechkin: 9
Hull: 7

Led NHL in GPG
Ovechkin: 9
Hull: 8

Playoff MVPs
Ovechkin 1
Hull (probably would have had 1)

Career PPG through 1000 games (Hull played in a higher per game scoring league)
Ovechkin 1.12 (1084 games)
Hull 1.11 (1036 games)

Times led NHL in points
Ovechkin 1
Hull 3

Time led NHL in PPG
Ovechkin 3
Hull 2

Sure, you can pretend Hull's competition was equivalent in the 1960s to what Ovie's was in the 2000s and 2010s, in which case Hull ranks ahead in some limited ways relative to his peers, but that is more than overwhelmed by the enormous talent pool discrepancy by applying any reasonable adjustment.

And that's not getting into the advantage in longevity Ovechkin has:

Total Career Goals:
Ovechkin: 868
Hull: 644

Total Career Points:
Ovechkin: 1575
Hull: 1239

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I looked at OV 23/24 link shows 3.11 not 2.83

It says 2.91 (in both places).

Part of this is on the poster for not labeling consistently, but the data appear to match.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I looked at OV 23/24 link shows 3.11 not 2.83

You can use GAA or goals per game. Either way, Hull's era was higher in per game scoring although there is a significant difference in the two outcomes - perhaps due to OT scoring.

GAA comes out like I showed (7% higher). Goals per game shows Hull's era about 1% higher.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It says 2.91 (in both places).

Part of this is on the poster for not labeling consistently, but the data appear to match.

Ahhh That’s the problem
I was using goals per game, since we’re talking about scoring.

Poster is using goals against per game.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ahhh That’s the problem
I was using goals per game, since were talking about scoring.

Poster is using goals against per game.

It's still higher in Hull's era.

Hull	3.07​	Ovie	3.06​
	3.12​		3.11​
	2.9​		3.18​
	2.98​		3.14​
	2.79​		2.94​
	2.98​		3.02​
	2.88​		2.97​
	2.78​		2.77​
	2.97​		2.71​
	3.01​		2.73​
	3​		2.74​
	2.95​		2.72​
	2.9​		2.73​
	2.8​		2.79​
			2.84​
			2.91​
			2.78​
			2.95​
			3.08​
	2.945​		2.909​

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Ahhh That’s the problem
I was using goals per game, since were talking about scoring.

Poster is using goals against per game.

The labeling isn't the best - it took me a couple of tries.

 

[The Panther]

Note to bear in mind: Playing in a lower-scoring era doesn't make you a better player.

 

[Daximus]

You can say it, but the record doesn't support it.

Ovie has more accomplishments against a far larger talent pool. Ovie was likely competing against 3x as many people as Bobby Hull was:

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

This makes it way more difficult to come out on top, and yet Ovie still did.

Harts
Ovechkin 3
Hull 2

Led NHL in Goals
Ovechkin: 9
Hull: 7

Led NHL in GPG
Ovechkin: 9
Hull: 8

Playoff MVPs
Ovechkin 1
Hull (probably would have had 1)

Career PPG through 1000 games (Hull played in a higher per game scoring league)
Ovechkin 1.12 (1084 games)
Hull 1.11 (1036 games)

Times led NHL in points
Ovechkin 1
Hull 3

Time led NHL in PPG
Ovechkin 3
Hull 2

Sure, you can pretend Hull's competition was equivalent in the 1960s to what Ovie's was in the 2000s and 2010s, in which case Hull ranks ahead in some limited ways relative to his peers, but that is more than overwhelmed by the enormous talent pool discrepancy by applying any reasonable adjustment.

And that's not getting into the advantage in longevity Ovechkin has:

Total Career Goals:
Ovechkin: 868
Hull: 644

Total Career Points:
Ovechkin: 1575
Hull: 1239

It's hard to knock Hulls longevity given he played until 41. Granted he spent a sizable chunk of time in the WHA but he still had decent longevity considering. Had he never left the league I feel he likely plays to at least 39-40.

 

[Vilica]

How are doing adjusted points, seems flawed.

Is this taking into consideration the seasons were 12 games shorter,

and the goals per game per season are similar in both eras, maybe slightly higher for OV, but not much.

You’re also comparing Hull at 18 vs OV at 20 ….

Adjusted points are done the same way I've always done them, by G%/P%.

These are 6 seasons apiece from Hull and Ovechkin, expressed in how many goals their team scored as a percentage of league average, what percentage of their team's goals they scored, and what percentage of their team goals they accrued a point on:

% LA	G%	P%		% LA	G%	P%
0.927	0.204	0.424		0.927	0.226	0.461
1.028	0.230	0.387		0.992	0.197	0.393
1.124	0.197	0.399		1.145	0.209	0.410
1.127	0.225	0.404		1.150	0.219	0.384
1.029	0.208	0.354		1.027	0.227	0.351
1.233	0.207	0.382		1.087	0.224	0.342

One side of this is Ovechkin, the other side Hull, and unless I told you which is which, you wouldn't know unless you worked it out. Their G% is between 20-23%, and their P% is between 35-40%. I could also throw in Maurice Richard, Charlie Conacher, and Brett Hull and you would not be able to distinguish their seasons off the cuff. Scoring does not change, the only difference is games played and whatever league average is. If league average is 210 in a 70 game season, it's 246 in an 82 game season.

To expand on adjusted points, here's some seasons to serve as examples.

Name	Year	Team	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Team GF	LA GF	% LA	G%	P%
Bobby Smith	81-82	MNS	80	43	71	114	346	321	1.078	0.124	0.329
Mark Recchi	03-04	PHL	82	26	49	75	229	211	1.085	0.114	0.328

These are two modern seasons, one from the highest scoring year (81-82), the other from the lowest scoring year (03-04). Their P% are nearly identical, their %LA is quite close, the North Stars scored 117 more goals than the Flyers did. If we want to adjust Recchi's season to Smith's year, you take the league average of 321, multiply it by 1.085, and then multiply that result of 348.285 by 0.328 to get 114.24, or the same number of points as Smith.

If you want to think about it a different way, how many games would the Flyers need to play in the 03-04 season to get to a league average of 321? You can take the league average of 321 and divide by 211 to get ~1.52 and multiply that by 82 to get 124.74 games, or 125 rounded up. Recchi's PPG of 0.9146 (75 points in 82 games) in 125 games is 114.33.

Here's three more entries into 'scoring doesn't change':

Name	Year	Team	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Team GF	LA GF	% LA	G%	P%
Bill Cook	28-29	NYR	43	15	8	23	72	64	1.125	0.208	0.319
Larry Aurie	36-37	DET	45	23	19	42	128	118	1.085	0.180	0.328
Joe Pavelski	15-16	SJS	82	38	40	78	237	219	1.082	0.160	0.329

The Larry Aurie year is a replica of the Bobby Smith or Mark Recchi year, 0.328 P% for a team about 8% above league average. If we're using an 82 game season, whether we use a default league average of 246 (3.00 goals per game), 248 (the 05-06 league average that I tend to use by default because it's visible in my spreadsheet), or 250 (for round numbers), all of those seasons would end up being between 88-90 points, despite them varying between 0.53 and 1.425 points per game in their original seasons. The Bill Cook season occurred in the lowest scoring year in league history, and yet when you put it into my simple formula, it comes out the same as a 114 point season in the highest scoring year in modern league history. The Pavelski year should help in terms of a modern context - you can look at his time on ice, his power play time, and extrapolate that to the type of usage Cook and Aurie might've had, were their shifts tracked as accurately as Pavelski's shifts were.

I can paste a bunch more examples, covering every decade in NHL history, ranging from 19-20 Frank Nighbor, 27-28 Art Gagne, 34-35 Art Chapman/Herbie Lewis, 43-44 Elmer Lach/Clint Smith, 49-50 Gordie Howe, 52-53 Maurice Richard, 59-60 Gordie Howe/Henri Richard, 64-65 Bobby Hull, 72-73 Marcel Dionne, 77-78 Denis Potvin, 79-80 Blaine Stoughton, 80-81 Peter Stastny, 86-87 Doug Gilmour, 93-94 Brett Hull/Rod Brind'Amour/Eric Lindros, 02-03 Jaromir Jagr/Alex Kovalev, 06-07 Daniel Sedin/Thomas Vanek, 11-12 Marian Hossa, 14-15 Nicklas Backstrom, 18-19 Artemi Panarin/Mikko Rantanen, 21-22 Alexander Ovechkin, 23-24 Brayden Point/Cale Makar. All these seasons convert to basically between 88-90 points in the 248 league average of 05-06, and there's about 150 more seasons I could name in that general area. [There are more modern examples because there's more players in the league, thus more exact matches. With fewer games played in older seasons, a 1 point gap between players extrapolates out to a 3 point gap in a modern year, so the range for older players with similar seasons is more like 85-95 points instead of 88-90.]

Here's one final idea - right now in the season, league average is sitting at 63, with teams having played about 21 games. There are 2 seasons with a similar league average, 1923-24 and 1928-29 are both 64, playing 24 games in 23-24 and 44 games in 28-29. Cy Denneny led with 24 points in 23-24, and Ace Bailey led with 32 points in 28-29, while MacKinnon has 35 points this season, and 24 points is good for 20th in scoring. Similar level of scoring, same amount of points, just a lot more opportunity with 32 teams instead of 10 or 4 teams.

[[One caveat for pre-WW2 players, the limited rosters/massive TOI/limited assist counting renders goal/assist translations that are largely inaccurate, but player P% is in line with post-WW2 expectations. Presumably, those players would adjust to the modern game by scoring less goals as a percentage of their team's goals, but assist on more of them, providing about the same offensive impact.]]

 

[MadLuke]

You can use GAA or goals per game. Either way

really curious why would you care if there was a lot of overtime minutes of not ?

You cannot use GAA in the context of the conversation, goals are all one care about here and not hockey reference amount of goals, they will overestimate Ovechkin era scoring.

From 58 to 72 the 06 teams scored at a 2.86 goals per games.,

from 2006 to 2024 the teams that were there for all that time they scored at 2.85 goals per games.

I think we can call that an exact tie, team scoring wise, if I did not make an Excel mistake.

Scoring distribution among players, assits per goals, etc... can change among era.

And that's not getting into the advantage in longevity Ovechkin has:

Hull was quite elite until he was almost 40,....