Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[wetcoast]

I like how you include the 2006-2007 season in 7-10. That's neat.

I also like how you think Crosby's 1.35 PPG / .35 GPG blows Ovechkin's 1.43 PPG / .71 GPG "out of the water."

I don't know what you think you are proving.

Well the OP you were quoting used the years 07 to 10.

I think he meant 08 to 10 which is what you took it as.

You are the first to downplay Crosby's PPG adavatage careerwise and over empahize full seasons then have no problem doing the exact opposite for the playoffs for Ovi in this small sample.

At least show some consistency.

As it is you are choosing different methods depending on how it affects Ovi which really weakens your arguement.

 

[Fantomas]

By the way, the post-peak Brett Hull was never a first or second-team all-star and did not win a major award: Brett Hull Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Midnight Judges]

You don’t have to hit everything that moves to be an effective player. Ask Lidström about it. And while Ovechkin is stronger and better physically than Kuznetsov, it’s still the big item that fell off from his peak game post his Brian Campbell suspension in 09–10, transforming him into a tamer version of himself.

Ovechkin ramped up his hits per game in the playoffs last season:

139 in 82 regular season games - 1.7 HPG
81 in 24 playoffs games - 3.8 HPG

And they were good ones too. He's not just hitting guys after the puck leaves (which he did in the past), he's separating the puck, clogging up center ice defensively, and knocking guys like Victor Hedman out of the play.

Uh, yeah, right. One of the best skaters/puck carrying/zone entering centers in the league can’t create space/scoring chances on his own.

Kuznetsov's stats past two seasons:

82 games / 59 points (did not play with Ovechkin)
79 games / 83 points (played with Ovechkin)

Backstrom's stats past two seasons:

82 games / 86 points (played with Ovechkin)
81 games / 71 points (did not play with Ovechkin)

I didn’t watch every second of every game...

I did.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Well the OP you were quoting used the years 07 to 10.

I think he meant 08 to 10 which is what you took it as.

You are the first to downplay Crosby's PPG adavatage careerwise and over empahize full seasons then have no problem doing the exact opposite for the playoffs for Ovi in this small sample.

At least show some consistency.

As it is you are choosing different methods depending on how it affects Ovi which really weakens your arguement.

Raw stats are more apples to apples in the regular season because every player who doesn't get traded has the opportunity to play 82 games.

In the postseason that isn't the case. A player's team can advance through reasons outside a player's control - such as when Sid advanced in 2016 while getting a paltry two secondary assists (1 ES point) in the Capitals series as a minus player. Ovechkin had 7 points in that same series as a plus player. I lean more towards per game stats in the postseason for that reason.

 

[wetcoast]

This seems like a really heated debate and I'm too full of Christmas cheer to want to get in the middle of this, but c'mon mate. The disparity in goals is significant here.

Adjust your focus a little bit with different metrics - like goals created rather than points - and Ovechkin is clearly the better player. Not close at all.

goals created is really just another goal centric metric and everyone agrees that Ovi is the best goal scorer of his generation and has a very good case for all time.

If one wanted to play that (not looking at the whole picture) game one could bring up Ovi's shooting % being 12.6% compared to 14.5% for Crosby (Jage is 13.6) career wise.

But that would be just more noise and distraction which there is already plenty of in comparing those 2 guys and from some Ovechkin (compared to Jagr for instance) supporters in general terms.

 

[wetcoast]

Raw stats are more apples to apples in the regular season because every player who doesn't get traded has the opportunity to play 82 games.

In the postseason that isn't the case. A player's team can advance through reasons outside a player's control - such as when Sid advanced in 2016 while getting a paltry two secondary assists (1 ES point) in the Capitals series as a minus player. Ovechkin had 7 points in that same series as a plus player. I lean more towards per game stats in the postseason for that reason.

1.16 to .97 for Crosby in PPG in post season, even using your slightly faulty logic.

 

[Fantomas]

goals created is really just another goal centric metric and everyone agrees that Ovi is the best goal scorer of his generation and has a very good case for all time.

If one wanted to play that (not looking at the whole picture) game one could bring up Ovi's shooting % being 12.6% compared to 14.5% for Crosby (Jage is 13.6) career wise.

But that would be just more noise and distraction which there is already plenty of in comparing those 2 guys and from some Ovechkin (compared to Jagr for instance) supporters in general terms.

I had to read this three times and I still don't understand what shooting percentages have to do with this and why anyone would care about them.

 

[Fantomas]

Who had the better season in '44-45, Lach or Richard? 1944-45 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

The answer is obviously Richard. It doesn't matter that Lach had 7 more points.

 

[Michael Farkas]

We don't know that. And Lach won the Hart, pretty easily, for whatever that's worth...must have been a damn impressive season from Lach considering the meaningful nature of 50 in 50...

 

[Fantomas]

We don't know that.

Sure we do.

 

[MXD]

We don't know that. And Lach won the Hart, pretty easily, for whatever that's worth...must have been a damn impressive season from Lach considering the meaningful nature of 50 in 50...

In a normal season, I'd probably say Lach.

But 2-way play in 44-45 when the Canadiens roster is way better than any other roster and the league level is nearly at its lowest?

Its... really a good question.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sure we do.

If there's no video, we don't know for sure. And then considering what I've seen of Maurice Richard and Elmer Lach in other seasons, it's even further from a certainty.

 

[Fantomas]

If there's no video, we don't know for sure. And then considering what I've seen of Maurice Richard and Elmer Lach in other seasons, it's even further from a certainty.

Intangibles and defense aside - which are unknowable - Richard's production is better. The massive gap in goals far outweighs the small gap in points (which on Lach's side are mostly assists).

 

[sr edler]

82 games / 59 points (did not play with Ovechkin)
79 games / 83 points (played with Ovechkin)

Ah, you left out the season before these two where Kuznetsov outscored Ovechkin. Interesting.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Intangibles and defense aside - which are unknowable - Richard's production is better. The massive gap in goals far outweighs the small gap in points (which on Lach's side are mostly assists).

Who was better in 2003 - Forsberg or Hejduk?

Hejduk was by far the better goal-scorer (50 vs 29 - leading the lead vs falling outside of the top 30). Forsberg had a small gap in points (due to assists). Forsberg was much better defensively, but we're dismissing that as unknowable, right?

 

[sr edler]

[MOD: Quoted post deleted.]

I'm not a Jagr fan. I'm not an Ovi fan. I have nothing in particular against Jagr. I have nothing in particular against Ovi. I'm indifferent towards the teams they played on. I also had them ranked very close to each other on my preliminary list in this whole ongoing project (Jagr 19th, Ovi 21st), so it's not like I pretend there is some big gap between them.

Notice that Ovi ended up 22nd on the list, I had him 21st. Notice that Jagr ended up 16th, I had him 19th.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Intangibles and defense aside - which are unknowable - Richard's production is better. The massive gap in goals far outweighs the small gap in points (which on Lach's side are mostly assists).

They are knowable...we're choosing to ignore them here because it's inconvenient and/or difficult to ascertain.

Lach was obviously more productive, by the definitions set forth by the sport.

 

[Fantomas]

Who was better in 2003 - Forsberg or Hejduk?

Hejduk was by far the better goal-scorer (50 vs 29 - leading the lead vs falling outside of the top 30). Forsberg had a small gap in points (due to assists). Forsberg was much better defensively, but we're dismissing that as unknowable, right?

No, I can watch those games. It's not unknowable.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So we can't just to default to the goal-scorer being automatically better...?

 

[Fantomas]

Well, it's because I am. Or at least I try to be. I'm not a Jagr fan. I'm not an Ovi fan. I have nothing in particular against Jagr. I have nothing in particular against Ovi. I'm indifferent towards the teams they played on. I also had them ranked very close to each other on my preliminary list in this whole ongoing project (Jagr 19th, Ovi 21st), so it's not like I pretend there is some big gap between them.

Notice that Ovi ended up 22nd on the list, I had him 21st. Notice that Jagr ended up 16th, I had him 19th.

No objection to the ranking at all. But I'm getting a bit tired of the post-peak Hull references. Post-peak Ovechkin is not post-peak Hull.

 

[Fantomas]

Lach was obviously more productive, by the definitions set forth by the sport.

Which sacred definitions are those, Mike?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Which sacred definitions are those, Mike?

That the sport measures assists as contributions directly towards a goal. Production, as it were.

 

[Michael Farkas]

No objection to the ranking at all. But I'm getting a bit tired of the post-peak Hull references. Post-peak Ovechkin is not post-peak Hull.

I do agree with this though. Ovechkin is still a goal-scoring machine...post-peak Hull is too far down the ladder for Ovechkin...unless we're talking playing style, in which case, eh, maybe...but certainly not for impact...

 

[Fantomas]

So we can't just to default to the goal-scorer being automatically better...?

If you wish to rank Lach higher based on your understanding of his intangibles, that is fine by me (although that's a big gap to make up). But if you think his raw numbers are better than Richard's then I disagree.

Regardless, the Richard/Lach analogy is a nice way to look at Ovechkin/Crosby. People can decide where they stand on this. I think it's rather obvious that assists, on average, do not provide comparable value to goals.

 

[Fantomas]

That the sport measures assists as contributions directly towards a goal. Production, as it were.

Well unlike you Mike I don't much care what "the sport" measures. We should be beyond sporting dogma at this point. Baseball has done it, why can't we.