Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[DannyGallivan]

Eddie Shore in the NHL Playoffs, from the pages of the Montreal Gazette archives (unfortunately I don't have access to any Boston papers). Quotes in italics.

(...)

Next time, do your research.

 

[seventieslord]

You're being unjustly harsh against Ovechkin. There's no way a Rocket winning season shouldn't be considered elite.

That's not necessarily true. If you're 1st in goals and 12th in points it's because you have one elite skill and are not a balanced offensive creation machine. Leading the league in goals does not in and of itself make a season elite.

 

[DannyGallivan]

That's not necessarily true. If you're 1st in goals and 12th in points it's because you have one elite skill and are not a balanced offensive creation machine. Leading the league in goals does not in and of itself make a season elite.

I'd say the vast majority of time it does. And as much as I value the importance of the playmaker, I give extra credit to finishers.

 

[MXD]

I'd say the vast majority of time it does. And as much as I value the importance of the playmaker, I give extra credit to finishers.

With regards, that's kinda like giving extra credit to physical players and suggesting Igor Oulanov was, consequently, an elite player.

... Actually, not quite, but you get the point.

 

[DannyGallivan]

With regards, that's kinda like giving extra credit to physical players and suggesting Igor Oulanov was, consequently, an elite player.

... Actually, not quite, but you get the point.

There are exceptions - for example, Blake Wheeler is a much better hockey player than Patrick Laine - I've seen Ovechkin play and when he's leading the league in goals he's showing why he's so dangerous.

 

[daver]

I'd say the vast majority of time it does. And as much as I value the importance of the playmaker, I give extra credit to finishers.

FWIW, Hart and Lindsay voting over the years has shown that points are viewed as being the strongest indicator of elite followed by goals then assists. (i.e Top 3 Art Ross finishers get the most attention awards-wise vs. the Top 3 Goalscorers or the Top 3 Assists).

Strictly looking at points, Jagr has even a bigger edge over OV but that gap is reasonably closed when one considers OV dominant goalscoring. Jagr himself was a very good goalscorer who, IMO, should be viewed as an all around offensive force who doesn't lose too much ground to a generational goalscorer, if at all.

 

[Sentinel]

That's not necessarily true. If you're 1st in goals and 12th in points it's because you have one elite skill and are not a balanced offensive creation machine. Leading the league in goals does not in and of itself make a season elite.

I think it does. By definition. Being the best in the league in scoring goals is elite. Good luck with not being invited to an ASG.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think it does. By definition. Being the best in the league in scoring goals is elite. Good luck with not being invited to an ASG.

All Star Games literally do not matter

 

[DannyGallivan]

FWIW, Hart and Lindsay voting over the years has shown that points are viewed as being the clear best indicator of elite followed by goals then assists. (i.e Top 3 Art Ross finishers get the most attention awards-wise vs. the Top 3 Goalscorers or the Top 3 Assists).

Strictly looking at points, Jagr has even a bigger edge over OV but that gap is reasonably closed when one considers OV dominant goalscoring. Jagr himself was a very good goalscorer who, IMO, should be viewed as an all around offensive force who doesn't lose too much ground to a generational goalscorer, if at all.

I'll go back to the fact that it's close for me between the two. However, I feel that Ovechkin has checked enough of the boxes to finish ever so slightly ahead of Jagr. And the thing about the Maurice Richard Trophy when compared to the Hart or Lindsay is that is that there is no subjectivity required - the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[MXD]

And Peter Bondra wasn't an elite player. At least, wasn't elite the way we'd use this word to refer to players ranging from 10th to 21st of all-time.

 

[VanIslander]

All Star Games literally do not matter

Unless you believe in star dust, er..., "star power".

There's one guy a few years ago who was adamant that Roenick was HHOF worthy BECAUSE he played in nine all-star games.

 

[sr edler]

A what if: would Gagne (47 goals) have caught Cheechoo (56) if Forsberg didn't miss 22 games? (and if he didn't miss 10 games himself)

Interesting that season with such a "bank puck off of ass" duel between Thornton/Cheechoo & Forsberg/Gagne.

 

[daver]

I'll go back to the fact that it's close for me between the two. However, I feel that Ovechkin has checked enough of the boxes to finish ever so slightly ahead of Jagr. And the thing about the Maurice Richard Trophy when compared to the Hart or Lindsay is that is that there is no subjectivity required - the numbers speak for themselves.

Can't you say the same thing about the Art Ross? I think both players, at their peak, were offensive machines but Jagr was at that level, or close to it, for more seasons than OV was. There was a significant difference between OV circa 07 to 10 than OV circa 13/14 to 17/18.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

The Powerplay
I imagine powerplay scoring will be brought up as a strike against Ovechkin, saying that he relies on the powerplay more than others in this vote. This would be valid criticism if he wasn't such an integral part of the powerplay. He makes Washington's powerplay work simply by being on the ice. His shot is the most dangerous weapon he possesses, and is the source of most of his goals, so I won't look deeply into that. Instead, I'll look at some instances of him contributing to the powerplay without even touching the puck. Here's one recent example from this season in a game against the Canucks. It's not an Ovechkin goal; instead, it's a Kuznetsov goal. Look at how the PK is set up here right before Carlson passes to Kuznetsov for the one-timer:

Ovechkin's contributions to the league's best powerplay in both the regular season and playoffs should be a credit to him, not a strike against. From 2013 onwards, when they switched to their current structure, their powerplay is 1st in the league at 23.9%. In the playoffs, this number rises to 24.4%, good for tops among teams with over 20 playoff games played during this time span. They won a Cup and two President's Trophies with this powerplay as their most dangerous weapon, and Ovechkin is the driving force that makes the powerplay tick; this shouldn't be discredited. Genuine question: has there ever been a PP player whose abilities command as much respect as Ovechkin?

Outstanding post. But let me present the counterargument to the claim that Ovechkin is supremely valuable on the power play, because I think there is evidence to suggest that his usage rate is extremely beneficial relative to other players around the league (particularly as a goal scorer) and there is a legitimate argument that Ovechkin is not even the most valuable player on his own team's power play unit. I'm not doing this to criticize Ovechkin either, but to perhaps shed some further light on his value, as I'm guessing the truth might well be somewhere in the middle between what you wrote and what I'm about to argue based on the statistics.

Generally at even strength, players have to take whatever chances or shots are available to them, or often the chance will quickly disappear. On the power play, however, teams can maintain puck possession and thereby choose what patterns to run with the goal of setting up specific players to take shots from particular spots on the ice. The result is that special teams stats will be disproportionately affected by a player's role on the unit, and I think that matters when evaluating them.

I ran the numbers for 17 top NHL forwards on the power play between 2012-13 and 2017-18, the period of peak Washington power play dominance (source: Natural Stat Trick):

Power Play Points per 60 Minutes, Top NHL Forwards (2013-18):

Rank	Player	TOI	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPP/60
1	Backstrom	1493.4	30	156	186	7.47
2	Malkin	1397.9	56	106	162	6.95
3	Giroux	1646.0	47	142	189	6.89
4	Kucherov	1019.6	39	73	112	6.59
5	Crosby	1647.6	57	116	173	6.30
6	Kane	1407.2	53	93	146	6.23
7	Voracek	1556.2	38	116	154	5.94
8	Stamkos	1203.4	64	55	119	5.93
9	Kopitar	1307.8	33	94	127	5.83
10	Kessel	1608.1	46	109	155	5.78
11	Seguin	1438.0	60	78	138	5.76
12	Tavares	1454.9	56	83	139	5.73
13	Pavelski	1534.4	66	80	146	5.71
14	Ovechkin	1912.4	118	63	181	5.68
15	Thornton	1436.2	24	104	128	5.35
16	Benn	1476.3	56	74	130	5.28
17	Simmonds	1505.3	75	52	127	5.06

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nicklas Backstrom was clearly the best power play scorer in the league on a per-minute basis. Backstrom also outscored Ovechkin in overall power play points by 186-181, despite playing significantly less time on the power play unit. Now, a per-minute comparison is not entirely fair to Ovechkin since he spends a lot more time with the second unit than anyone else. But since he's not even the #1 point scorer on his team, you have to really be banking on Ovechkin's gravity effects on the rest of the unit or assuming that Ovechkin's goals are more valuable than the playmaking efforts of Backstrom.

Some people will write off Backstrom's production as a product of Ovi, but I don't think that's correct at all. Definitely if Ovechkin is the guy driving the bus, then it would make sense that would impact Backstrom's numbers (particularly his assists), but there is a very curious pattern with Ovechkin's power play goal scoring in his time spent with Nicklas Backstrom. It appears that the best predictor of Ovechkin's power play goals is Backstrom's secondary assists on the power play. Not primary assists (which have roughly zero correlation), secondaries only. There is actually a stronger correlation with Backstrom's A2s than the number of power play shots taken by Ovechkin:

Year	Ovi PPG	Ovi S	Nick PPA1	Nick PPA2
2008	22	125	8	14
2009	19	178	17	11
2010	13	102	26	17
2011	7	98	12	6
2012	13	81	10	6
2013	16	78	2	13
2014	24	137	15	23
2015	25	134	14	16
2016	19	142	11	16
2017	17	99	12	15
2018	17	117	9	10
Correl	1.00	0.59	-0.05	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That might seem random, but it actually makes a lot of sense if you are familiar with the primary pattern of the Washington power play. The puck goes to Backstrom on the opposite side of the ice as Ovechkin, he draws the coverage towards him, then passes to whichever teammate is best set up to immediately throw the puck over to Ovechkin for the one-timer (often the guy at the point). If you watch the entire sequence of the Kuznetsov goal that Dr John Carlson linked in his post, I don't think that it is necessarily the best example of Ovechkin's gravity effects, but I do think it is a great example of how Backstrom's puck movement can unbalance the entire PK unit. At the start of the sequence when Kuznetsov has the puck at the half boards, Ovechkin is just as open as Kuznetsov would be later in the play, the defence just isn't worred about him because they don't think Washington can get the puck to him yet. But Backstrom's one-time pass from down low across to Ovechkin nearly creates a point-blank scoring chance, and it still ends up leaving the PK unit vulnerable for the play (and don't underestimate the threat of John Carlson faking a shot from the point either in helping further free up Kuznetsov). Moving the puck through the seam on the power play is crucial for creating high danger chances, and Backstrom is a passing virtuoso. If your analysis is that Ovechkin created that play, then I think you're significantly underselling the other four guys on the ice wearing white.

I think the main reason that defending teams can't take away Ovechkin from the Washington power play is that the rest of the power play unit won't let them get away with it because they create too many shots and chances on the other side of the ice. Not every power play unit can do that with the same success, even ones that also have great shooters who are fully capable of occupying the defence's attention. It isn't a secret what Washington does on the power play, plenty of other teams have tried 1-3-1 setups designed to feed pucks to the left side for their best right-handed shooter, but if the defence doesn't respect the 4-on-3 possibilities on the other side of the ice then that shooter will not be able to get off a high volume of shots no matter how good he is.

In the above group of forwards, the two other guys who most closely fit the Ovechkin mould of high-volume shooters who take most of their shots from distance are Stamkos and Seguin. Here are their individual power play shooting percentages, as well as the percentage of their team's shots they take while they are on the ice with the man advantage, and the number of power play shots their teams take overall per 60 minutes with each of them on the ice:

2013-2018:

Ovechkin: 16.7 Sh%, 36.5% of on-ice SF, 60.8 on-ice SF/60
Stamkos: 19.0 Sh%, 33.6% of on-ice SF, 49.8 on-ice SF/60
Seguin: 12.4 Sh%, 33.0% of on-ice SFs, 61.0 on-ice SF/60

(Note: I didn't include Patrik Laine here because he didn't have enough overall games to qualify, but he's been 22.9%, 30.7% and 61.9 for his career so far).

Clearly Seguin is just not as good of a finisher as the others, which is the main reason he can't match their power play goal production. You can't just plug anybody into the Ovechkin role and assume they will score a ton of goals, he's definitely providing a lot of finishing value even relative to other elite forwards and I would never argue otherwise. But it certainly appears that the most significant difference between Stamkos and Ovechkin is that Washington was much better at creating shots overall on the power play. The bottom line is that Ovechkin's slice of the shot pie ends up being much bigger overall (Ovechkin's PP ice time advantage over everyone else also plays in here). That was true compared to a lot of other teams as well, and the effect of this has actually been pretty significant:

Power Play Shots on Goal, NHL Forwards (2013-18):

Rank	Player	GP	PP Shots
1	Ovechkin	450	707
2	Seguin	435	483
3	Voracek	449	429
4	Malkin	357	389
5	Tavares	426	375

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It's a pretty massive advantage to be taking 46% more shots than anybody else. Some of that is absolutely deserved, because any team with Ovechkin on it would certainly be trying to get him the puck on the power play. And I do agree that great players have gravity effects on defensive coverage, and help free things up to an extent for their teammates. We also know from basketball analytics (which have some very useful analogies to power play analysis in hockey) that the higher a player's usage rate, the more impressive it is to maintain a high percentage because there are less selection effects in play (i.e. Ovechkin is hammering everything whereas other shooters might only be taking more open shots or only shooting when the pass is perfect, for example). But I still think it's fair to say that without Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Green, Carlson, et al, that puck wouldn't get onto Ovechkin's stick nearly as often as it has, and that means he wouldn't have hit the stat sheet as often and his goal scoring numbers would not have been as historic as they have been from 2013-2018.

The value you put on Ovechkin's power play scoring ends up being pretty crucial to his case, because as an even strength scorer Ovechkin is not that impressive at all outside of his absolute peak (he's 13th in the league in even strength points since 2013, for example). I'm open to being convinced that Ovechkin's power play impact is more valuable than I'm giving him credit for, but I still struggle to rate him that far above Backstrom on the power play. And you have to keep in mind that an individual player's power play point numbers really overstate the actual value they delivered in terms of marginal goals for a team's power play results, because every team is putting out their best players on the power play (in technical terms, the hurdle rate is very high).

For example, Washington scored 339 power play goals from 2013 to 2018, while a team that scored the league average PPG every year would have 269. That's 70 extra goals over six seasons, 12.5 goals per 82 games, and you have to somehow divvy that up between Backstrom, Ovechkin, Mike Green, John Carlson, Evgeni Kuznetsov, and everyone else. Does that end up being more valuable to a team in terms of net goals than, say, an elite two-way defenceman who has a defensive impact at 5-on-5, is maybe not as good on the power play but still contributes, plus also kills penalties at a high level? I think it's not actually super easy to make the case for the scoring winger in that comparison, even if they are very good on the power play.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Can't you say the same thing about the Art Ross?

Yeah, I like the Art Ross. I also like goals more than secondary assists.
People are trying to make this black and white, and it's not. People are trying to make these lists objective and they're not. They'll always be subjective to a point. There are so many factors.

The bottom line is that I think Ovechkin has been a tiny bit better than Jagr throughout his career. I also think that he's not as good as Crosby. Perhaps we should look at Jagr vs Crosby?

 

[seventieslord]

Bourque vs. Lidstrom vs. Potvin defensively - a numbers-based assessment (reposting to include Potvin)

- Used the TOI estimates (1967-2006) sheet to get a "total ESTOI" number for Bourque, Potvin and Lidstrom each season (using known numbers post-98, of course)
- Used historical PPO data to estimate to the best of my ability, total special teams time played by teams in each season, meaning the rest was ES time (used known post-2000 data as a guide)
- This number averaged 7.1 per special team from 1974-2011, with a high of 8.2 and a low of 6.2
- Using this information, was able to estimate the total ES minutes played by their teams in each season without them on the ice (including games they missed)
- Calculated the team's GA/60 and the player's GA/60.
- These numbers are just like R-on and R-off except they completely ignore goals for
- Divided player's GA-on by the team's GA-off... these are the yearly results. A lower ratio is better.

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28	3.16	0.72
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19	3.26	0.67
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.29	3.74	0.88
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02	3.07	0.66
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.49	3.71	0.67
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.85	3.97	0.72
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.12	3.02	1.03
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.41	4.48	0.54
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.84	2.99	0.95
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.63	3.47	0.76
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.39	3.34	0.71
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.59	3.63	0.71
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.57	3.70	0.70
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.55	3.44	0.74
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50	3.23	0.77
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27	3.02	0.75
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.68	3.44	0.78
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.86	3.72	1.04
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.07	2.54	0.81
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.17	2.27	0.95
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.48	2.15	0.75
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	1.95	1.97	0.99
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	3.20	0.73
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.17	3.04	1.04
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.98	3.04	0.98
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.27	0.98
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.08	2.00	1.04
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.07	2.39	0.87
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.10	2.24	0.94
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.60	2.29	1.13
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.61	2.53	1.03
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.69	1.97	1.36
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.37	1.99	1.19
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.43	0.91
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.05	2.48	0.83
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	2.01	1.17
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.70	2.10	0.81
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.72	1.93	0.89
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.19	2.81	0.78
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.71	0.82
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.86	2.64	1.08
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.75	2.33	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1974	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	3.08	2.55	1.21
1975	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.41	2.76	0.87
1976	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.36	1.93	1.22
1977	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.57	2.10	1.23
1978	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.36	2.75	0.86
1979	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.00	2.79	0.71
1980	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.96	2.70	1.09
1981	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.64	2.94	0.90
1982	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.78	2.97	0.94
1983	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.25	2.94	0.77
1984	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.56	3.54	0.72
1985	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	3.05	4.52	0.67
1986	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.43	3.75	0.65
1987	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.79	3.41	0.82
1988	0	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.09	3.25	0.64

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Based on this, it appears that Bourque always lowered his team's goals against while on the ice. The exceptions were 1986 and 1997, when he was just barely higher than the team average. His best marks were 54%, 66%, 67%, 67% and 70%.

Lidstrom had eight seasons where his personal GAA was higher than the team's, most notably 2001. His best marks are 73%, 75%, 78%, 81% and 82%. Interestingly, his best marks are in his first and last seasons, probably indicating that usage has something to do with it (i.e. less hard-matching against the opposition's best helps your GA stats).

Potvin had four times in 15 seasons when his personal GAA was higher than the team's: three of them moderately significant. Those three happened in his first four seasons. His best marks are 64%, 65%, 67%, 71%, and 72%. This is very similar to Bourque's best. Not only that, he was outperforming a defensively successful team, like Lidstrom was.

However, it is harder to beat Detroit's off-ice results than Boston's, typically.

(editor's note: it is NOT harder to beat Detroit's off-ice results. Bourque's teams were actually just as successful as Lidstrom's over the course of their respective careers. His teams averaged 9% better than average defensively. Lidstrom's averaged 10% better than average. It's actually Potvin's results that were more difficult to attain: The Isles averaged 16% better than the league defensively during his career)

So if we just go by era-adjusted numbers, this is what we get:

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.87
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.74
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.42
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.55
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.90
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.44
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.01
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.54
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.34
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.38
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.30
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.37
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.80
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.99
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.58
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.72
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.17
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.85
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.97
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.31
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.18
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.14
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.53
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.10
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.87
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.14
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.77
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.64
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.54
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.76
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.94
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.02
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.44
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.41
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.12
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.90

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1974	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.74
1975	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.11
1976	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.08
1977	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.20
1978	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.03
1979	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	1.66
1980	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.43
1981	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.10
1982	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.05
1983	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	1.73
1984	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	1.95
1985	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.34
1986	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	1.90
1987	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	2.32
1988	NYI	POTVIN, DENIS	1.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bourque's career average is roughly 2.35 (2.26 in peak 11 years). Lidstrom's is roughly 2.54 (2.59 in peak 11 years). Potvin's is about 2.10 (2.04 in peak 11 years).

Bourque's best are 1.55, 1.74, 1.87, 1.90 and 2.01. Lidstrom's best are 1.90, 1.94, 2.02, 2.14 and 2.17. Potvin's best are 1.66, 1.73, 1.87, 1.90 and 1.95.

If there are any glaring issues with these calculations as described, please bring them to my attention. I will do my best to account for them.

One thing that does bother me a little, is that overpass' adjusted numbers apparently inflate post-93 numbers (relative to 80-92) a little more than anyone is completely comfortable with. This would mean that Lidstrom's goals against figures are inflated more than they need to be. While overpass' adjustments are mathematically sound, IIRC there has been some talk in the past about why they come out looking the way they do and what kind of mental adjustments may need to be made to these kinds of numbers. I estimate it to be as much as 10%, which could put Lidstrom ever-so-slightly ahead of Bourque by this metric, though they'd be within the margin of error. Note that this concern does not apply to the first table (which uses raw numbers in each individual season), only the second table (which uses era-adjusted numbers).

 

[bobholly39]

That's not necessarily true. If you're 1st in goals and 12th in points it's because you have one elite skill and are not a balanced offensive creation machine. Leading the league in goals does not in and of itself make a season elite.

Yes - I think it absolutely does.

Read back though and understand the context of which we were discussing things. It's not like i'm saying a random weak Rocket win is the equivalent of Jagr's 96 season of 149 points. Daver posted a pretty solid breakdown earlier splitting all of their relevant elite seasons into tiers, and for the most part his breakdown seemed solid.

The point is - i think it's fine to discount some of the extra/mostly useless seasons that compromise longevity when comparing those 2. In Jagr's case I don't think his first 2 seasons were all that great - and his return after KHL - while impressive for age - doesn't necessarily add a ton of worth to his already stellar regular season resume. I'd rather pit each player's elite seasons against each other to determine which regular season resume i like most.

"Elite" seasons are relevant seasons throughout each player's prime that is worthy of adding to their resume. All of Ovechkin's Rocket seasons should qualify as such.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Unless you believe in star dust, er..., "star power".

There's one guy a few years ago who was adamant that Roenick was HHOF worthy BECAUSE he played in nine all-star games.

They are especially useless now since every team gets at least one player and it's a fan vote.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That's not necessarily true. If you're 1st in goals and 12th in points it's because you have one elite skill and are not a balanced offensive creation machine. Leading the league in goals does not in and of itself make a season elite.

Agreed. Rick Nash in 2003-04 is a good example (an extreme example, granted, but it illustrates the point).

 

[seventieslord]

Yes - I think it absolutely does.

Read back though and understand the context of which we were discussing things. It's not like i'm saying a random weak Rocket win is the equivalent of Jagr's 96 season of 149 points. Daver posted a pretty solid breakdown earlier splitting all of their relevant elite seasons into tiers, and for the most part his breakdown seemed solid.

The point is - i think it's fine to discount some of the extra/mostly useless seasons that compromise longevity when comparing those 2. In Jagr's case I don't think his first 2 seasons were all that great - and his return after KHL - while impressive for age - doesn't necessarily add a ton of worth to his already stellar regular season resume. I'd rather pit each player's elite seasons against each other to determine which regular season resume i like most.

"Elite" seasons are relevant seasons throughout each player's prime that is worthy of adding to their resume. All of Ovechkin's Rocket seasons should qualify as such.

You are putting seasons of 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th in total points, on the same level as five seasons leading the NHL in points (while often 2nd in goals) and one time beating everyone by a wide margin except Mario Lemieux, finishing 1st or 2nd in points per game every time. That is simply delusional. You can call leading the league in goals while finishing 8th or 11th in points "elite" if you like, but then you need another name entirely for the tier containing Ovechkin's three best seasons and Jagr's six best.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That's it! Thanks so much for digging that up, Hockey Outsider. And for doing the original math, for that matter.

One question about your calculations though. In adjusting for era, you used total goals scored per game. Wouldn't it be more accurate to adjust by the average goals per-game per team? After all, Lidstrom and Bourque weren't trying to prevent all goals scored, just goals against.

It's been a long while since I've had to do math, so maybe I'm off. But I suspect if this were to be recalculated in that manner, Lidstrom's defensive lead would grow a bit, and Bourque's offensive lead would grow a bit. I also suspect that it would still lead to the same result that Seventieslord's numbers and the eye test give . . . Bourque's offensive gap over Lidstrom trumps Lidstrom's defensive gap (to the extent one even exists) over Bourque.

No worries! There's been so much good research already done, we might as well leverage that. (New research is always welcome, of course, but we might as well use what's already been posted).

For the second point - maybe I misunderstood, but aren't those the same thing? By definition there's one goal for per one goal against leaguewide.

I think the difference is what I mentioned before - Lidstrom was better at containing the opponents when the puck was already in the defensive zone. So in that sense, he's better than Bourque defensively. But Bourque was a better rusher and puck-carrier, so his opponents spent less time in his team's defensive zone to begin with. (That's 100% subjective, not backed by any statistics, but I'm pretty confident in that assessment). So if you were to ask me who would I rather have in my defensive zone, given that my opponent is attacking, I'd pick Lidstrom. But if you're asking who was more effective over the course of a game/season at keeping the puck out of their own net, they're virtually even.

 

[seventieslord]

Did Mikita add ANYTHING to his top level all-time resume during HIS LAST TEN 10 YEARS?

I'm struck at how virtually everything significant in his career happened in the 1960's.

His last ten seasons...

ZERO top-10 goal seasons
One 8th in assists season
ZERO top-10 point seasons

Zero 1st or 2nd team all-star honors

He did help Chicago get to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1971, though five Blackhawks scored more goals, two of them more assists, he one of three behind Hull. Two years later he was 4th in playoff assists in another run.

A compiler until the 1979-80 season, through his last ten regular seasons and last half dozen playoffs.

near the top in a few categories in a few polls. Top-10 in points per game twice. Two stanley cup finals (one without Hull). I know it's not much. I imagine in ten years we'll be asking the same about Crosby 2018-2026.

 

[bobholly39]

You are putting seasons of 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th in total points, on the same level as five seasons leading the NHL in points (while often 2nd in goals) and one time beating everyone by a wide margin except Mario Lemieux, finishing 1st or 2nd in points per game every time. That is simply delusional. You can call leading the league in goals while finishing 8th or 11th in points "elite" if you like, but then you need another name entirely for the tier containing Ovechkin's three best seasons and Jagr's six best.

Go look at post #564 from Daver here

I'm not saying all elite seasons are equal. Separate them into tiers. But those are the seasons worthy of comparing. You're getting too caught up in the word "elite". It's just a word. If we're comparing regular season of Jagr and Ovechkin - you absolutely have to take into account all of Ovi's Rocket winning seasons in that comparison because they add considerable worth to his resume. There - I repeated my statement without using the word "elite".

I agree that finishing first in points and not first in goals is much better than finishing first in goals and 11th in points. No one disagrees with that.

 

[daver]

Yeah, I like the Art Ross. I also like goals more than secondary assists.
People are trying to make this black and white, and it's not. People are trying to make these lists objective and they're not. They'll always be subjective to a point. There are so many factors.

The bottom line is that I think Ovechkin has been a tiny bit better than Jagr throughout his career. I also think that he's not as good as Crosby. Perhaps we should look at Jagr vs Crosby?

I really don't think putting one over the other is indefensible, I do think putting OV's 13/14 season in the same tier as any of Jagr's Art Ross winning years is.

 

[The Macho King]

near the top in a few categories in a few polls. Top-10 in points per game twice. Two stanley cup finals (one without Hull). I know it's not much. I imagine in ten years we'll be asking the same about Crosby 2018-2026.

Yeah - not everyone can have a twenty-year prime. Him getting less effective as he ages is just kind of... what happens.

And he was still around PPG+ until his 36 year old season. That seems... fine?