Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Michael Farkas]

In a vacuum, on a macro level, maybe you could make that claim...given that there are 1.7 assists per goal awarded these days. Back further, there's less, but that's another discussion...

The notion that goal-scoring outweighs everything, allegedly, combined -- that's a long way to go. I would never put such a great and disproportionate weight on goal scoring, for instance, to put Ovechkin over Crosby...there's a clear step difference between the two for me...Ovechkin offers one (albeit very important, don't get me wrong) piece over Crosby and it's not like Forsberg or Thornton where Crosby can't do it too...he just offers so much more to the table...

Ovechkin's a great baker...he can bake cookies, brownies, pies, you name it...and that's all fine and good...Crosby can make most desserts and he can make a bangin' Thanksgiving dinner too...Ovechkin has a time and place and he gets bonus bucks for confection...but I'll sacrifice a little bit of dessert so that I can eat well 24/7...

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

I'm listening, but this is too cryptic for me to decipher...

 

[sr edler]

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 use to add (and did here too) with better skating, because I realize it's not the exact same player. The only major award Ovi has won outside of his peak though is the 13 Hart and that was a pretty weak one not only because Crosby got injured but because he didn't even distinguish himself much from Patrick Kane and he also got outscored by St. Louis/Stamkos. A bunch of other guys were close in scoring too.

Regarding all his old man Richard's that's partly because he neglected the passing game a bit too much for a few years (50/21 is a pretty telling ratio, almost Bondra-esque), and partly because the competition hasn't been the best for many years. He wouldn't have won all of those old man Richard's (or even a majority of them) against Bure for instance, no chance.

 

[Fantomas]

In a vacuum, on a macro level, maybe you could make that claim...given that there are 1.7 assists per goal awarded these days. Back further, there's less, but that's another discussion...

The notion that goal-scoring outweighs everything, allegedly, combined -- that's a long way to go. I would never put such a great and disproportionate weight on goal scoring, for instance, to put Ovechkin over Crosby...there's a clear step difference between the two for me...Ovechkin offers one (albeit very important, don't get me wrong) piece over Crosby and it's not like Forsberg or Thornton where Crosby can't do it too...he just offers so much more to the table...

Ovechkin's a great baker...he can bake cookies, brownies, pies, you name it...and that's all fine and good...Crosby can make most desserts and he can make a bangin' Thanksgiving dinner too...Ovechkin has a time and place and he gets bonus bucks for confection...but I'll sacrifice a little bit of dessert so that I can eat well 24/7...

You don't have to rank Crosby below Ovechkin, and I never argued that you should. But it's a little tiring seeing "points" used everywhere as some objective metric of production.

Hockey is probably the only sport in the world where the establishment view is to give the same weight to assists as to goals. Maybe it is time to reevaluate this and to look at Ovechkin's contributions a bit differently.

 

[Fantomas]

The only major award Ovi has won outside of his peak though is the 13 Hart

Also finished second in voting a couple years later.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

That's the point about them and using something like goals created which is another limited metric.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Gee thanks for admitting being outscored by 21 goals and 16 points per season for three straight seasons is arguably "slightly" better.

How big of you.

What were the per game averages?

And hockey includes the postseason. Between 2007-2010 Crosby went to back to back Cups, posting Smythe worthy numbers both years, a win and loss.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Troubadour]

@Fantomas Another thing Jagr has on Ovi is a finished career. It's pretty normal people sometimes soften up on the players they weren't big fans of in their heyday, as once the career's over and rivalries are over, it's easier to pay some respect where it's due.

(Although for every three fans admitting they were wrong, there will forever remain one stubbornly kicking and screaming "no, no, no, never!")

Ovi will have that happening to him too.

 

[Fantomas]

That's the point about them and using something like goals created which is another limited metric.

All metrics are limited, but some are better than others. Also these two things are not at all alike and I still don't understand why you brought up shooting percentages.

 

[Fantomas]

@Fantomas Another thing Jagr has on Ovi is a finished career. It's pretty normal people sometimes soften up on the players they weren't big fans of in their heyday, as once the career's over and rivalries are over, it's easier to pay some respect where it's due.

(Although for every three fans admitting they were wrong, there will forever remain one stubbornly kicking and screaming "no, no, no, never!")

Ovi will have that happening to him too.

Agreed.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

It's not obvious unless one has all of the information.

Scoring more goals and having less points doesn't preclude Richard from having been the better player but it doesn't make it automatic either.

I haven't looked at all of the information for that season, nor do I think that we have as much as we do on say Jagr, Ovy and Crosby.

 

[wetcoast]

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).

But that's entirely subjective and one would have to believe that goals are superior to points in all cases, which we know isn't shared by most serious hockey observers.

There can be a difference of opinion but saying that we know that richard was the better player isn't true.

It's simply an opinion and not one shared by Hart voters that year.

 

[Fantomas]

It's not obvious unless one has all of the information.

Scoring more goals and having less points doesn't preclude Richard from having been the better player but it doesn't make it automatic either.

I haven't looked at all of the information for that season, nor do I think that we have as much as we do on say Jagr, Ovy and Crosby.

I will say that the guy with almost twice the amount of goals is the better player without hesitation.

 

[Fantomas]

Bbut that's entirely subjective and one would have to believe that goals are superior to points in all cases, which we know isn't shared by most serious hockey observers.

There can be a difference of opinion but saying that we know that richard was the better player isn't true.

It's simply an opinion and not one shared by Hart voters that year.

What serious hockey observers are those? When is the last time you've read an article about this topic? There aren't many.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Well at least the primary/secondary assist crowd has no foundation to stand on in this example as there were 1.18 assists/goal on that Habs team that year.

I'm guessing that's why it hasn't been brought up in this example.

So unless you really really value goals more than assists and think that other parts of the 2 players game had no distinguishable difference then yes you could take richard.

But it would be set on the above parameters and it would be a really weak argument IMO, without having looked at in depth.

 

[wetcoast]

All metrics are limited, but some are better than others. Also these two things are not at all alike and I still don't understand why you brought up shooting percentages.

I brought it up because it's about as useful as comparing 2 players with goals and goals created as if they have equal value, ie twice as important as points for instance.

Ovy is a high value shooter and his major strength is scoring goals so yes one would expect him to do well in his strength areas.

Crosby and Jagr are not shoot first players and while their shooting % shows that they are very good at it, it's not very use full in isolation.

That's why I brought it up, in isolation bringing up goals and goals created is kind of double dipping.

 

[Fantomas]

Well at least the primary/secondary assist crowd has no foundation to stand on in this example as there were 1.18 assists/goal on that Habs team that year.

I'm guessing that's why it hasn't been brought up in this example.

So unless you really really value goals more than assists and think that other parts of the 2 players game had no distinguishable difference then yes you could take richard.

But it would be set on the above parameters and it would be a really weak argument IMO, without having looked at in depth.

What intangible differences would make up ground for Lach? Richard was not a one-dimensional player.

I think you're missing the point of why I brought up this example. It is an analogy. I am not really looking to debate Richard v. Lach in depth.

 

[Fantomas]

I brought it up because it's about as useful as comparing 2 players with goals and goals created as if they have equal value, ie twice as important as points for instance.

You're gonna have to unscramble this because you're losing me.

 

[wetcoast]

What were the per game averages?

Wait, you're not doing this right, we can only bring it up when it helps one player, if it hurts him like in career PPG 1.16 to .97 then one must proceed with a different argument.

And hockey includes the postseason. Between 2007-2010 Crosby went to back to back Cups, posting Smythe worthy numbers both years, a win and loss.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

Pretty obvious as one of the guys driving the bus.

 

[wetcoast]

What intangible differences would make up ground for Lach? Richard was not a one-dimensional player.

I think you're missing the point of why I brought up this example. It is an analogy. I am not really looking to debate Richard v. Laich in depth.

Outsider brought up another example upthread between Hejduk/Forsberg as well.

 

[Fantomas]

Outsider brought up another example upthread between Hejduk/Forsberg as well.

Hejduk/Forsberg come out about even per goals created if adjusted by games played -- and that's only if we look at offensive production.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hockey is probably the only sport in the world where the establishment view is to give the same weight to assists as to goals. Maybe it is time to reevaluate this and to look at Ovechkin's contributions a bit differently.

Philosophically, I think this is worthy of discussion. But baseball and football don't have assists meaningfully...basketball, by default, has its own point values worth more than assists (no basket that can be assisted and count as one), plus it's the smallest game and most star-dominated and has no offside rules of any regard going forward...so the need to pass is much less. So I don't agree with the notion that "only sport in the world" because there's only five real ones and only two of them have assists as a factor...

Philosophically, your point is interesting. Compared to other sports, it's not. I think it's worthy of discussion in another thread...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Richard was not a one-dimensional player.

Richard was pretty one-dimensional...he skated around like a chicken with his head cut off, shot from everywhere and showed limited hockey sense...he worked hard in the backcheck when it mattered I guess, but he didn't work smartly...for all intents and purposes, he was one-dimensional...

 

[Fantomas]

Philosophically, I think this is worthy of discussion. But baseball and football don't have assists meaningfully...basketball, by default, has its own point values worth more than assists (no basket that can be assisted and count as one), plus it's the smallest game and most star-dominated and has no offside rules of any regard going forward...so the need to pass is much less. So I don't agree with the notion that "only sport in the world" because there's only five real ones and only two of them have assists as a factor...

Philosophically, your point is interesting. Compared to other sports, it's not. I think it's worthy of discussion in another thread...

Football (soccer) is the most obvious comparable here. They do not do points and I don't believe it has ever occurred to them to do it.

 

[wetcoast]

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 agree with this, those references aren't very use full.