Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[wetcoast]

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.

So strikers are automatically more important than midfielders?

 

[Midnight Judges]

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

Kuz played a decent amount with Ovie that year but it was a mix so less of a clear example.

I also left out this season where Kuznetsov's goal production is way down (not playing with Ovie) and Backstrom's points are up (playing with Ovie).

 

[wetcoast]

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

Then we are going to agree to disagree then.

Also I get that you value goal scorers more but why?

In the Avs example listed above was Frosberg the lesser player?

Is Bergeron lesser than Pastrank?

 

[Fantomas]

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...

Richard played a gritty, physical style. This was an important dimension to his game and was part of what made him so intimidating.

One can raise this and his leadership as examples of intangibles and then argue about it until one is blue in the face.

But intangibles is really not the important part to the analogy I made. I made the analogy to illustrate that measuring production solely on points can be misleading, whereby we could conclude that Richard's 50 in 50 season was not even the most productive on his own team. Which I believe is absurd.

 

[Fantomas]

So strikers are automatically more important than midfielders?

Uh. No.

 

[Fantomas]

Also I get that you value goal scorers more but why?

I don't value goal scorers more. I value measuring production in a way that is fair to all players. What we currently do is overrate playmakers.

 

[Midnight Judges]

What were the per game averages?

Ovechkin had a higher PPG (1.42 to 1.35)
a way higher GPG (.73 to .51).
and Ovechkin was +81 to Crosby's +35

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.

Apparently it is.

In the playoffs:

Ovechkin had a higher PPG (1.43 to 1.35)
a way higher GPG (.71 to .47)
and Ovechkin was + .5 per game to Crosby's .39

Hmmm some of these numbers look kinda familiar.

It's almost as if Ovechkin was just plain better regardless if it was game 82 or game 83. Could it be that playoff hockey...is still hockey?...and the best players remain the best players?....and that winning a playoff series requires far more than any one player can contribute?...and so crediting individuals with playoff success is largely arbitrary?

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

You are free to articulate a rational basis for why you think leaning a little more toward PPG in the postseason and raw totals in the regular season is unreasonable.

BTW the difference in career postseason PPG is almost entirely due to (arbitrary garbage stat) secondary assists.

Primary PPG:
Ovechkin: .76
Crosby: .79

GPG:
Ovechkin: .50
Crosby: .41

 

[Michael Farkas]

Richard played a gritty, physical style. This was an important dimension to his game and was part of what made him so intimidating.

One can raise this and his leadership as examples of intangibles and then argue about it until one is blue in the face.

But intangibles is really not the important part to the analogy I made. I made the analogy to illustrate that measuring production solely on points can be misleading, whereby we could conclude that Richard's 50 in 50 season was not even the most productive on his own team. Which I believe is absurd.

Physicality needs context, like anything else. Making a bunch of busybody hits after pucks are gone from a guy who isn't gonna fight one anyone or really rattle anyone's cage isn't overly useful...physical plays where a player can dislodge a puck from a puck carrier or cut off an attack, say on a cycle, for instance, where physicality is almost necessary to cut off one arm of it, that's the good stuff...that's getting towards a dimension for me...

But, traditionally, I don't find players like Ovechkin or Richard to fit under the umbrella of multi-dimensional unless there's like a dozen dimensions...for me, there's probably only like 2 to 4 dimensions (without thinking too hard about it)...Ovechkin and Richard don't offer a lot in anything outside of the one dimension that they really dominate...

I won't touch on the Richard/Lach thing further as I think it's a conversation that could be better served as a philosophical question of the sport itself and I think the names and faces and numbers of it will distract from it slightly, at least at first...like I said though, it's a worthwhile discussion point.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Physicality needs context, like anything else. Making a bunch of busybody hits after pucks are gone from a guy who isn't gonna fight one anyone or really rattle anyone's cage isn't overly useful...physical plays where a player can dislodge a puck from a puck carrier or cut off an attack, say on a cycle, for instance, where physicality is almost necessary to cut off one arm of it, that's the good stuff...that's getting towards a dimension for me...

But, traditionally, I don't find players like Ovechkin or Richard to fit under the umbrella of multi-dimensional unless there's like a dozen dimensions...for me, there's probably only like 2 to 4 dimensions (without thinking too hard about it)...Ovechkin and Richard don't offer a lot in anything outside of the one dimension that they really dominate...

I won't touch on the Richard/Lach thing further as I think it's a conversation that could be better served as a philosophical question of the sport itself and I think the names and faces and numbers of it will distract from it slightly, at least at first...like I said though, it's a worthwhile discussion point.

Where did you have Richard on your list? I get the feeling you think 9th was a bit high?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, it's way too high considering we had so many multi-dimensional players still available to us. I had him at 20.

 

[sr edler]

What we currently do is overrate playmakers.

Who are "we" and who are we overrating?

Wheeler and Giroux led the league in assists last season but I don’t remember a lot of people claiming either of them to be the best player or even a top 3 player in the league. It’s possible to apply context both to goal scoring and playmaking.

 

[Fantomas]

Who are "we" and who are we overrating?

Wheeler and Giroux led the league in assists last season but I don’t remember a lot of people claiming either of them to be the best player or even a top 3 player in the league. It’s possible to apply context both to goal scoring and playmaking.

Giroux was 4th in Hart voting.

But I am obviously referring to the ingrained status of "points", which skews our understanding of offensive production. The fact there is a trophy for points is particularly egregious.

"Points" is nonsense. Even moreso today with the liberal way the league counts assists.

The entire conversation started when someone argued that Crosby was as good as Ovechkin between 2007-2010 because he had a comparable PPG or something like that. It's silly.

 

[ted2019]

I wanted to, but it wasn't good timing. Life got in the way.

Life gets in the way for everyone who voted.

 

[ted2019]

Who are "we" and who are we overrating?

Wheeler and Giroux led the league in assists last season but I don’t remember a lot of people claiming either of them to be the best player or even a top 3 player in the league. It’s possible to apply context both to goal scoring and playmaking.

I personally think that Giroux should've been a Hart finalist.

 

[Killion]

Who are "we" and who are we overrating?

Wheeler and Giroux led the league in assists last season but I don’t remember a lot of people claiming either of them to be the best player or even a top 3 player in the league. It’s possible to apply context both to goal scoring and playmaking.

Interesting. Personally, Ive always rated Playmakers, he who has the vision to initiate, conceive of, imagine & execute, start the digit counters rising above those who finish with the actual goal itself. Anyone with a voluminous Assists total and frankly, wish the Keepers of the Records went further, 3rd & 4th Assists. Rebound "garbage goals", that to me a Goalie and or Defensive error. Some tandem, Dynamic Duo Goals (Gretzky & Kurri for eg) to me a separate category again. But a guy thinking 3-4-5 players & plays ahead with the knowledge & instantaneous visualization of what each opponent is likely to do in reaction? K?. Sheer genius. Were talking the full, total & complete weaponization of pre-cognition here ehhdler. Into the realms of CIA-KGB Remote Viewing capabilities. Ingo Swann territory. Dark Side of the Moon.... Blind you say?.... Dont think so.... Hooah....

 

[ted2019]

Is this the part where I suggest you're a liar. If you said second best, fine, I'd look the other way...he was the third best player on the Capitals. Holtby should have won the Smythe, Kuznetsov was 2.

After watching every second of every game this year, I came away with this as my Smythe ballot in 2018...

Final:
1. Braden Holtby
2. Evgeni Kuznetsov
3. Marc-Andre Fleury
4. Alexander Ovechkin
5. William Karlsson

HM: Lars Eller, Jonathan Marchessault, John Carlson, Colin Miller, T.J. Oshie

That said, Ovechkin's performance was still really strong...don't get me wrong. He adapted his game, fit into a structure that was bigger than him, and still led the playoffs in goals, pp goals and shots (IIRC)...that's a sign that he's a great player (as if we had any doubt)...but to sit here and try to pimp him as the best player in these playoffs, again, is either just pumpin the guys tires for effect or it has such a weight towards goal-scoring wingers, who cover the least amount of ice in the game, that it's just a funhouse mirror look at how the game is played...it's just EA Sports jibber jabber in my eyes...

I had my Conn Smythe top 5 as the following:
1. Evgeni Kuznetsov
2. Braden Holtby
3. Alex Ovechkin
4. Marc-Andre Fleury ( He was horrible during the finals)
5. Reilly Smith

 

[wetcoast]

You are free to articulate a rational basis for why you think leaning a little more toward PPG in the postseason and raw totals in the regular season is unreasonable.

BTW the difference in career postseason PPG is almost entirely due to (arbitrary garbage stat) secondary assists.

Primary PPG:
Ovechkin: .76
Crosby: .79

GPG:
Ovechkin: .50
Crosby: .41

Well the secondary assist thing finally comes out then.

The only thing arbitrary about them is some peoples fascination with goal scorers.

Personally I think it's arbitrary to focus so much on goals.

Hopefully you are taking out all of the garbage empty net goals, ones that just went off of him ect... and not look at every players complete game.

But if you want to make the (weak, like in non existent) argument that Crosby and Ovechkin are equals in the playoffs feel free.

Using your focus on goal scoring it's a wonder you haven't brought up the case for Brett Hull...like 4 rounds ago.

The bigger picture and more inclusive analysis is usually the stronger one.

The need to focus on only one point usually is trying to hide something.

For the record I think Ovechkin should be slightly higher on this list but some of these arguments are truly bewildering to say the least.

 

[ted2019]

Then we are going to agree to disagree then.

Also I get that you value goal scorers more but why?

In the Avs example listed above was Frosberg the lesser player?

Is Bergeron lesser than Pastrank?

I'd rather have the complete 2 way player then someone who can only score. It's like saying Mike Gartner is worth more the Peter Forsberg.

 

[wetcoast]

I'd rather have the complete 2 way player then someone who can only score. It's like saying Mike Gartner is worth more the Peter Forsberg.

Exactly, the fascination with the small but vocal crowd that Ovechkin's goal scoring makes him a better player than Crosby is getting really tiresome.

Ovechkin is a high volume shooter who excels at goal scoring and bring little else in the elite sense to his game.

I'm sure countless players could score at a similar rate if they focused solely on goal scoring and shot the puck at such a high rate.

Give me the 2 way player more interested in winning then getting a hatrick on the final night of the season to reach some arbitrary goal plateau.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin is a high volume shooter who excels at goal scoring and bring little else in the elite sense to his game.

I'm sure countless players could score at a similar rate if they focused solely on goal scoring and shot the puck at such a high rate.

Yikes.

I rest my case.

 

[wetcoast]

Yikes.

I rest my case.

Sid & Gino jump over the boards and just shoot the puck yes you can both play 6 MPG on the PP

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[seventieslord]

Well the secondary assist thing finally comes out then.

The only thing arbitrary about them is some peoples fascination with goal scorers.

Personally I think it's arbitrary to focus so much on goals.

Hopefully you are taking out all of the garbage empty net goals, ones that just went off of him ect... and not look at every players complete game.

But if you want to make the (weak, like in non existent) argument that Crosby and Ovechkin are equals in the playoffs feel free.

Using your focus on goal scoring it's a wonder you haven't brought up the case for Brett Hull...like 4 rounds ago.

The bigger picture and more inclusive analysis is usually the stronger one.

The need to focus on only one point usually is trying to hide something.

For the record I think Ovechkin should be slightly higher on this list but some of these arguments are truly bewildering to say the least.

Let's face it, the only way to truly gauge a player's offensive contribution would be to look at every single goal by itself, and assign a percentage credit to each player on the ice - keeping in mind that sometimes the player who scored might get 80% of the credit and sometimes they might only get 20% of it. Pretending that the player who gets credit for a goal must have made the most important contribution does not in any way accurately reflect how a lot of hockey plays actually play out.

Hejduk/Forsberg is low hanging fruit in that it's a really obvious example involving players who were linemates, but it's not like the same way of thinking can't be applied to very different players on different teams.

 

[seventieslord]

Exactly, the fascination with the small but vocal crowd that Ovechkin's goal scoring makes him a better player than Crosby is getting really tiresome.

Ovechkin is a high volume shooter who excels at goal scoring and bring little else in the elite sense to his game.

I'm sure countless players could score at a similar rate if they focused solely on goal scoring and shot the puck at such a high rate.

Give me the 2 way player more interested in winning then getting a hatrick on the final night of the season to reach some arbitrary goal plateau.

Countless? Maybe not. But there are definitely some. This kind of thing isn't considered often enough. How many goals would a "only shoot" Gretzky or Lemieux have scored in a season?

Getting shots to the net is a skill, though. that shouldn't be discounted.

 

[Killion]

Getting shots to the net is a skill, though. that shouldn't be discounted.

No of course not, and amongst those with whom you discuss such aspects of the game who have played it at an advanced, high level..... a given. Assists are more important than goals. That is simply Fact. Truth.