Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[MXD]

I'm a boomer-at-heart and I don't understand that meme.

 

[K Fleur]

Ovechkin was suspended twice in the 09-10 season. Totaling 4 games missed.

Knee on knee hit on Tim Gleason.

Boarding on Brian Campbell.

If I remember right Ovi injured himself kneeing Gleason and was not able to return immediately after that suspension expired.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm a boomer-at-heart and I don't understand that meme.

"I'll handle this" -Office space (my lengthy post above yours was sort of along the lines of "I've got this" in relation to MJ's post trying to equate Ovi missing 13 games vs Crosby missing half of a season and a month)

 

[ImporterExporter]

Ovechkin was suspended twice in the 09-10 season. Totaling 4 games missed.

Knee on knee hit on Tim Gleason.

Boarding on Brian Campbell.

If I remember right Ovi injured himself kneeing Gleason and was not able to return immediately after that suspension expired.

Well there you go. Can't really argue for a guy that missed time for getting suspended. Twice.

Thanks, I thought it was one of those years.

 

[MXD]

That's the thing : there's a difference between missing 10 games in a full season and missing 10 games in a half-season

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think any half-sensible person would argue that Crosby wasn't "good enough" to win a few more significant awards (Ross, Hart, Lindsay, etc) at his peak without injuries. I expect even Midnight Judge acknowledges that. That's not really relevant here though. What he could have done has 0 relevance in the project. What I *did* consider for Crosby is his level of play in the games he did play (even partial seasons) - and i think this has a lot of value (so 2011 - very valuable for Crosby, if not nearly as valuable as full season would have been).

Ovechkin has more Harts than Hull - yes.

I'm still not sure I understand how the Crosby being injured analogy impacts the Hull/Ovechkin debate in anyway. There are so many ifs and buts in any given season. What if Howe's 63 season happened in 65 and he wins the Hart and Hull is down to 1 hart? Ovechkin has 3 harts, and Hull has 2. I don't think it's fair to try and discredit those 3 harts. Sometimes you get lucky and win a hart in a season that isn't your very top one (2013), and sometimes you get unlucky and lose out on a hart in a very strong season where you think you should have won (2010). Often it evens out, and it did for Ovi. It's still 3 harts to 2, and he is certainly worthy of 3 harts.

If you want to argue there's a sizable gap between Hull and Ovechkin you need to dig deeper than Hart wins, or hart voting records.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

To be fair, @Midnight Judges initial point was that Crosby wouldn't have taken away any of Ovechkin's Hart's if they had both played full seasons throughout their careers.

Ovechkin would still have 3 Hart trophies as he would have won in 2010 which would replace the one Crosby would have won in 2013. Either way, he would still have more than Bobby Hull if we were only counting trophies. He would also have lead the league in points just as many times. The difference is that he just wasn't consistently top 5-10 in scoring like Hull was throughout his prime.

I'm not quite sure how exactly that warrants them being 15 placements apart but... if anyone would like to explain, feel free.

 

[bobholly39]

To be fair, @Midnight Judges initial point was that Crosby wouldn't have taken away any of Ovechkin's Hart's if they had both played full seasons throughout their careers.

Ovechkin would still have 3 Hart trophies as he would have won in 2010 which would replace the one Crosby would have won in 2013. Either way, he would still have more than Bobby Hull if we were only counting trophies. He would also have lead the league in points just as many times. The difference is that he just wasn't consistently top 5-10 in scoring like Hull was throughout his prime.

Yeah, pretty much this.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Then you should probably edit your questions accordingly, because that's the answer right there.

Your point is that since Crosby missed 12/48 games, extrapolating for him is somehow more warranted than extrapolating 10/82 games for Ovechkin.

You think since Crosby established his pace for 36 games, extrapolating a greater part of the season is more warranted than extrapolating for Ovechkin based on a pace established for 72 games.

It's interesting, I would have come to the exact opposite conclusion: A 72 game sample size is a more reasonable and established basis than Crosby's 36 games from which to extrapolate.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not quite sure how exactly that warrants them being 15 placements apart but... if anyone would like to explain, feel free.

No offense to the participants, but it simply isn't a balanced group.

It would be a like a polling agency sampling 85% Democrats.

 

[MXD]

To be fair, @Midnight Judges initial point was that Crosby wouldn't have taken away any of Ovechkin's Hart's if they had both played full seasons throughout their careers.

Ovechkin would still have 3 Hart trophies as he would have won in 2010 which would replace the one Crosby would have won in 2013. Either way, he would still have more than Bobby Hull if we were only counting trophies. He would also have lead the league in points just as many times. The difference is that he just wasn't consistently top 5-10 in scoring like Hull was throughout his prime.

... AO just had to, you know, not to things that could reasonably lead to a suspension...

 

[MXD]

Your point is that since Crosby missed 12/48 games, extrapolating for him is somehow more warranted than extrapolating 10/82 games for Ovechkin.

You think since Crosby established his pace for 36 games, extrapolating a greater part of the season is more warranted than extrapolating for Ovechkin based on a pace established for 72 games.

It's interesting, I would have come to the exact opposite conclusion: A 72 game sample size is a more reasonable and established basis than Crosby's 36 games from which to extrapolate.

If that's a more reasonable sample size, then we also have to take for granted that the voters did the same, AND, decided (collectively) to not award Ovechkin the Hart.

 

[MXD]

No offense to the participants, but it simply isn't a balanced group.

It would be a like a polling agency sampling 85% Democrats.

It's not like you were prevented from participating.

Are you implying that Crosby would've crashed down to Earth and turn into Scott Gomez circa 2013?

That's probably what would've been required for him to NOT win the Hart during the shortened season (had he played). If that's your supposition, please, say so right away, so we would know right away there's absolutely in point in losing whatever time adressing your point.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If that's a more reasonable sample size, then we also have to take for granted that the voters did the same, AND, decided (collectively) to not award Ovechkin the Hart.

If that's the case for Ovechkin in 2010, it was likely also the case for Crosby in 2013.

 

[MXD]

If that's the case for Ovechkin in 2010, it was likely also the case for Crosby in 2013.

Then you're saying that 12% is the same as 25%

 

[Midnight Judges]

Then you're saying that 12% is the same as 25%

Absolutely not. I think the sample size post I made pretty well establishes that.

I'm just saying that if Ovechkin sweeps the Art Ross, Richard, and Pearson again in 2010, the Hart likely goes along with it.

The chances of 2010 Ovechkin scoring less than 1 goal and 3 points in 10 games is basically zero.

How is any of this controversial?

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think any half-sensible person would argue that Crosby wasn't "good enough" to win a few more significant awards (Ross, Hart, Lindsay, etc) at his peak without injuries. I expect even Midnight Judge acknowledges that. That's not really relevant here though. What he could have done has 0 relevance in the project. What I *did* consider for Crosby is his level of play in the games he did play (even partial seasons) - and i think this has a lot of value (so 2011 - very valuable for Crosby, if not nearly as valuable as full season would have been).

Ovechkin has more Harts than Hull - yes.

I'm still not sure I understand how the Crosby being injured analogy impacts the Hull/Ovechkin debate in anyway. There are so many ifs and buts in any given season. What if Howe's 63 season happened in 65 and he wins the Hart and Hull is down to 1 hart? Ovechkin has 3 harts, and Hull has 2. I don't think it's fair to try and discredit those 3 harts. Sometimes you get lucky and win a hart in a season that isn't your very top one (2013), and sometimes you get unlucky and lose out on a hart in a very strong season where you think you should have won (2010). Often it evens out, and it did for Ovi. It's still 3 harts to 2, and he is certainly worthy of 3 harts.

If you want to argue there's a sizable gap between Hull and Ovechkin you need to dig deeper than Hart wins, or hart voting records.

I think all this is saying is all that IE is saying, which is we should focus on how good a player is in absolute terms, and not on whether their performance was worthy of an award, because the latter is often out of a player's control.

 

[MXD]

I think all this is saying is all that IE is saying, which is we should focus on how good a player is in absolute terms, and not on whether their performance was worthy of an award, because the latter is often out of a player's control.

... Except when it is.
Like, in 2010.

(I totally agree with you on substance)

 

[BackToTheBasics]

... AO just had to, you know, not to things that could reasonably lead to a suspension...

4 games were due to suspension. What about the other 6? Were those circumstances under his control?

 

[MXD]

4 games were due to suspension. What about the other 6? Were those circumstances under his control?

From what I gathered, AO injured himself on one of those hits leading to the suspension, so...

Also, why is AO so important? He's a player amongst the 114 players we'll assess in this project. Nothing more, nothing less.

Final word on this subject.

 

[daver]

To be fair, @Midnight Judges initial point was that Crosby wouldn't have taken away any of Ovechkin's Hart's if they had both played full seasons throughout their careers.

Ovechkin would still have 3 Hart trophies as he would have won in 2010 which would replace the one Crosby would have won in 2013. Either way, he would still have more than Bobby Hull if we were only counting trophies. He would also have lead the league in points just as many times. The difference is that he just wasn't consistently top 5-10 in scoring like Hull was throughout his prime.

I'm not quite sure how exactly that warrants them being 15 placements apart but... if anyone would like to explain, feel free.

Better playoff resume. Maybe longevity.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

From what I gathered, AO injured himself on one of those hits leading to the suspension, so...

Also, why is AO so important? He's a player amongst the 114 players we'll assess in this project. Nothing more, nothing less.

Final word on this subject.

Seeing that he was just one of 5 players recently added to the list, I think it's within reason to discuss him in this thread.

Better playoff resume. Maybe longevity.

There's maybe one decent playoff run separating their resumes if even that. Ovechkin's latest playoff run was as good as anything Hull has done in the playoffs. Hull's performance in his cup win wasn't really anything to write about. He performed much better in the '71 finals loss when the playoffs were more than just 2 rounds.

As far as longevity goes, I'll give you that. Ovechkin hasn't managed to stay relevant in the top 5 scoring race as long as Hull did. I don't know if that's really saying much about Hull when he was significantly behind Esposito and others on several occasions.

Either way, just looking at their body of work, I don't see much to justify them being placed 15 spots apart.

 

[The Macho King]

Ovi's peak was short (basically three years). Hull's wasn't.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

Ovi's peak was short (basically three years). Hull's wasn't.

What would you describe as Hull's peak? He had a good 10 year run from 1960 to the end of the 1969 season but had a few disappointing seasons in between. He had one great peak season where he was easily above every other player ('65-'66) but he didn't reach that level of dominance again.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Seeing that he was just one of 5 players recently added to the list, I think it's within reason to discuss him in this thread.


There's maybe one decent playoff run separating their resumes if even that. Ovechkin's latest playoff run was as good as anything Hull has done in the playoffs. Hull's performance in his cup win wasn't really anything to write about. He performed much better in the '71 finals loss when the playoffs were more than just 2 rounds.

As far as longevity goes, I'll give you that. Ovechkin hasn't managed to stay relevant in the top 5 scoring race as long as Hull did. I don't know if that's really saying much about Hull when he was significantly behind Esposito and others on several occasions.

Either way, just looking at their body of work, I don't see much to justify them being placed 15 spots apart.

If you had actually seen Bobby Hull play perhaps you would understand.