Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[talitintti]

What's wrong with pointing out the obvious?

If player A, needs 70 more shots to get to the same goal scoring total as player B, who is the superior goal scorer?

People do realize that Ovechkin has taken about 3000 more total shots (shots on and off target) since 2007 than any other player in the league. Maybe not?

The one who scores the more goals?

But hey, be my guest and make an argument that Alex Tanguay is the best goalscorer of modern era.

 

[MXD]

The one who scores the more goals?

But hey, be my guest and make an argument that Alex Tanguay is the best goalscorer of modern era.

That's probably the closest thing to a Godwin Point someone can probably come up with on HOH.

 

[Fantomas]

What's wrong with pointing out the obvious?

If player A, needs 70 more shots to get to the same goal scoring total as player B, who is the superior goal scorer?

People do realize that Ovechkin has taken about 3000 more total shots (shots on and off target) since 2007 than any other player in the league. Maybe not?

Weird that I have to address this, but this is not the NBA. It doesn't matter what the shooting percentage is. What matters is how many goals you score.

You know who had the most outrageous shooting percentages? Craig Simpson. I guess he should have tried shooting more and then he would have been the best ever.

Craig Simpson Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[bobholly39]

Why?

In another thread I provided stats that support the view that Ovechkin has outproduced Hull at least in the regular season. There is certainly food for thought here.



Also, by offensive point shares Ovechkin blows Hull out of the water in virtually the same amount of regular season games (1040 to 1036): 133.6 to Ovechkin, 116 to Hull.



I don't think so. My point is that Ovechkin receives the kinds of criticisms about his game that Hull doesn't - even though Hull is almost an identical player. And is - for some reason - ranked #5 behind the big 4!

If Ovechkin is "shoot only" and "one-dimensional", why not say the same things about Hull? What makes Hull so teflon?

Again I think the case for Hull > Ov is pretty clear. Playoff edge to Hull - Regular season I think edge to Hull but even if you disagree, let's call it a wash. WHA years is a differentiator for Hull vs Ov. With resumes so comparable it's pretty easy to see imo that overall Hull > Ov thanks to WHA.

Adjusted goals/points and goals created/point shares are all flawed methods, or at least methods that need a ton of extra context/adjustment than what's provided by Hockey-reference. I wouldn't just take them at face value.

My counter to you still stands though. Hull > Ov is pretty easy to see overall. You don't even seem to disagree with it - your issue is they're far apart. If you want to truly take issue why not ignore the Hull vs Ov and ask about specific players below Hull you feel should be above him, or players above Ov you feel should be below him. It'd make for much more interesting discussions.

Really. You don't think it is a negative connotation to say a player cannot or does not pass the puck.

Sure but i certainly didn't say that and if some have said that it's a bit of an extremist view and shouldn't be given too much importance - clearly he *can* make passes. I think you're being overly sensitive about it. Ovechkin is a big-time shoot-first player though - that's not a bad thing.

 

[Fantomas]

Again I think the case for Hull > Ov is pretty clear. Playoff edge to Hull - Regular season I think edge to Hull but even if you disagree, let's call it a wash. WHA years is a differentiator for Hull vs Ov. With resumes so comparable it's pretty easy to see imo that overall Hull > Ov thanks to WHA.

I didn't ask you to restate what you already said (that you believe Hull has the edge on Ovechkin). I asked you "why."

I explained to you why I believe Ovechkin's statistics are at least as good as Hull's and perhaps better. What is your reasoning?

Does anyone here really believe that Hull's WHA years are the difference maker and the reason to parachute him to 5th overall? I doubt this.

Adjusted goals/points and goals created/point shares are all flawed methods, or at least methods that need a ton of extra context/adjustment than what's provided by Hockey-reference. I wouldn't just take them at face value.

All stats are flawed. Raw stats are even more flawed. That's why we contextualize them the best we can. What is specifically wrong about the way I used stats?

The reason why adjusted stats are so useful is that they precisely do what you ask: they contextualize production by giving us a sense of what the player did relative to his peers.

If you don't want to use stats at all then make an argument without stats.

My counter to you still stands though. Hull > Ov is pretty easy to see overall.

You keep saying this. But try supporting your argument with reasoning or evidence.

 

[bobholly39]

Is this kind of argumentation taken seriously here?

I think there's definitely merit to the argument that Crosby is a better goal-scorer than his results show.

It's the Gretzky/Lemieux effect - but to a lesser extent. More well-rounded talent playmakers vs scorers. So I have no doubt in my mind that if Crosby shot more/went for goals more than creating plays (or for example played as a winger to a play making center) he'd be able to improve his goal-totals.

I don't really understand why any of this is relevant though. You're judged on what you do - not what you think a player should be able to do. Ov >> Crosby as a goal-scorer and that's where it should end.

Also - the idea of more shots being bad is ridiculous. If you can get more shots off than the other guy - more power to you. You're more likely to score more often.

Finally - seriously, Crosby vs OV again? Lol...

 

[Fantomas]

I think there's definitely merit to the argument that Crosby is a better goal-scorer than his results show.

It's the Gretzky/Lemieux effect - but to a lesser extent. More well-rounded talent playmakers vs scorers. So I have no doubt in my mind that if Crosby shot more/went for goals more than creating plays (or for example played as a winger to a play making center) he'd be able to improve his goal-totals.

That's a different argument than what he is saying (and a much better one). If Gretzky shot the puck more his shooting percentages would have also dipped.

 

[bobholly39]

I didn't ask you to restate what you already said (that you believe Hull has the edge on Ovechkin). I asked you "why."

I explained to you why I believe Ovechkin's statistics are at least as good as Hull's and perhaps better. What is your reasoning?



All stats are flawed. Raw stats are even more flawed. That's why we contextualize them the best we can. What is specifically wrong about the way I used stats?

The reason why adjusted stats are so useful is that they precisely do what you ask: they contextualize production by giving us a sense of what the player did relative to his peers.

If you don't want to use stats at all then make an argument without stats.



You keep saying this. But try supporting your argument with reasoning or evidence.

I answered the why in both my posts.

I think Hull > OV for NHL. But even if I agree with you that Hull ~ OV at NHL, or even slight edge to Ov > Hull - the WHA is the differentiator. There's a LOT there. To me it's that simple. It's a very easy case to see.

Sorry if i'm not engaging with you in an in-depth analysis/response on NHL regular season Hull vs OV but i don't have the time atm and i think it's a moot point because of the WHA. That is my reason.

 

[Fantomas]

I answered the why in both my posts.

I think Hull > OV for NHL. But even if I agree with you that Hull ~ OV at NHL, or even slight edge to Ov > Hull - the WHA is the differentiator. There's a LOT there. To me it's that simple. It's a very easy case to see.

Sorry if i'm not engaging with you in an in-depth analysis/response on NHL regular season Hull vs OV but i don't have the time atm and i think it's a moot point because of the WHA. That is my reason.

You don't have to give me in-depth analysis, but if I ask you the question "why do you think Hull was better in the NHL than Ovechkin" and your answer is "Hull > OV for NHL" then you're not really saying anything of substance.

Whether Hull's WHA years are a real difference maker is an interesting question. Maybe the voters can tell us if these years affected their thinking when they elevated Hull to 5th all time. (but I would be surprised)

 

[bobholly39]

You don't have to give me in-depth analysis, but if I ask you the question "why do you think Hull was better in the NHL than Ovechkin" and your answer is "Hull > OV for NHL" then you're not really saying anything of substance.

Whether Hull's WHA years are a real difference maker is an interesting question. Maybe the voters can tell us if these years affected their thinking when they elevated Hull to 5th all time. (but I would be surprised)

Hull wasn't ever up for voting against Ov. So it wasn't a differentiator vs Ov. But since that's what you're asking (why Hull > Ov) that's my answer to you. Let's agree NHL is close one way or another - WHA in itself is a differentiator. Easy to see, without even having to go in-depth on breaking down the NHL resume. Unless you think Ov > Hull in the NHL is by some really big gap, big enough to completely nullify the WHA advantage. I simply don't see that.

I was actually lower on Hull than many. I'm surprised he made it to #5. I expected him to fall, instead of rise in this project. I voted him 4th (8th overall) in the 2nd vote when he finished 5th overall. I know WHA was definitely a positive for me - but i didn't have him 5th.

 

[Fantomas]

Hull wasn't ever up for voting against Ov. So it wasn't a differentiator vs Ov. But since that's what you're asking (why Hull > Ov) that's my answer to you. Let's agree NHL is close one way or another - WHA in itself is a differentiator. Easy to see, without even having to go in-depth on breaking down the NHL resume. Unless you think Ov > Hull in the NHL is by some really big gap, big enough to completely nullify the WHA advantage. I simply don't see that.

I was actually lower on Hull than many. I'm surprised he made it to #5. I expected him to fall, instead of rise in this project. I voted him 4th (8th overall) in the 2nd vote when he finished 5th overall. I know WHA was definitely a positive for me - but i didn't have him 5th.

I'm actually surprised anyone would look at Hull's years in the WHA as an advantage. I think leaving the NHL actually hurt his legacy. The WHA was a watered down league.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm actually surprised anyone would look at Hull's years in the WHA as an advantage. I think leaving the NHL actually hurt his legacy. The WHA was a watered down league.

Advantage vs what tho? Vs Ovis yet to be played seasons that are worth 0? Yes.

A wha season for hull isnt better than an equivalent nhl season. Im just saying combining his NHL resume and wha adds up to a lot overall.

 

[Fantomas]

Advantage vs what tho? Vs Ovis yet to be played seasons that are worth 0? Yes.

It just seems banal to say that "player x" must play until they're 40, otherwise they're not as good. But I get what you mean.

Not to say that Hull did badly in the WHA (he didn't), but in his entire time there Hull led the league in goals only once and often trailed guys like Marc Tardif and Andre Lacroix in scoring categories.

I'm sure he would have done well in the NHL, but his best years were likely behind him.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Sure but i certainly didn't say that and if some have said that it's a bit of an extremist view and shouldn't be given too much importance - clearly he *can* make passes. I think you're being overly sensitive about it. Ovechkin is a big-time shoot-first player though - that's not a bad thing.

and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.

So "shoot only" = shoots and does nothing more besides.

I'm not being sensitive, I'm being accurate.

 

[Fantomas]

Okay now that we're posting definitions, it's definitely a sign that this conversation has gone on too long!

 

[ted2019]

The differences seem... negligible?

Hull averaged .57 GPG and .53 APG in the NHL
Hull averaged .74 GPG and .82 APG in the WHA

Ovechkin currently is averaging .61 GPG and .51 APG in his career.

To me, that is a nice sized difference between Ovechkin & Hull.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Forget the numbers, if you saw both players you know that the gap is justified...I don't have Hull at 5 personally, but he's not far from it at all...

 

[Fantomas]

Hull averaged .57 GPG and .53 APG in the NHL
Hull averaged .74 GPG and .82 APG in the WHA

Ovechkin currently is averaging .61 GPG and .51 APG in his career.

To me, that is a nice sized difference between Ovechkin & Hull.

A difference in what? You're not being clear at all.

Hull's and Ovechkin's NHL stats are very similar. But Hull's WHA stats are not remotely comparable to Ovechkin's context, because he is not playing in a second-rate professional league.

 

[Fantomas]

Forget the numbers, if you saw both players you know that the gap is justified...

I saw them and I don't know what it is you could possibly articulate to justify this position. If anything, I believe one could make a very strong argument for why Ovechkin is better than Hull considering that he has dominated a much more global, much more competitive and much more fast-paced National Hockey League while putting up stats that are as good, if not better, than Hull's.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hull brings more to the table as a player...Ovechkin has an all-time shot and he hits d-men after they have already moved the puck...I don't want to downplay an all-time great, but let's get down to brass tacks - that's "all" he brings. Well, he's a one or one and a half line puck carrier too.

Hull is a better puck carrier, he could carry across three lines, he was a better puck distributor and he had a more dynamic skill set because he could play a power game or a finesse game to a little higher degree in my opinion...

If I'm buying a blender, and I only ever really plan to use it to do one thing, but I see one with two settings and one with eight...I'm buying the one with eight just in case I need it one day...Hull and Ovechkin both put the puck away like nobody's business, I think when you start peeling away the layers and look at the rest of their respective toolkits, Hull has more pluses in more spots than Ovechkin does...

 

[Fantomas]

Hull brings more to the table as a player...Ovechkin has an all-time shot and he hits d-men after they have already moved the puck...I don't want to downplay an all-time great, but let's get down to brass tacks - that's "all" he brings. Well, he's a one or one and a half line puck carrier too.

Hull is a better puck carrier, he could carry across three lines, he was a better puck distributor and he had a more dynamic skill set because he could play a power game or a finesse game to a little higher degree in my opinion...

If I'm buying a blender, and I only ever really plan to use it to do one thing, but I see one with two settings and one with eight...I'm buying the one with eight just in case I need it one day...Hull and Ovechkin both put the puck away like nobody's business, I think when you start peeling away the layers and look at the rest of their respective toolkits, Hull has more pluses in more spots than Ovechkin does...

I get what you mean, in that Hull was a smoother puckhandler while Ovechkin is quite herky-jerky, not always the most beautiful with the puck and these days prefers to let others take the puck up the ice.

But I don't think there was anything particularly special about Hull's puck distribution skills. He would often lazily wait for the pass and let it rip, just like Ovechkin. His ability to gracefully drive up and down the ice was also partly the reflection of his era: when players had more time and space to operate.

But thank you for sharing your view.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I like both goals and assists. But, when I step back and analyze which players are the best, and why they are the best, I come to the conclusion that the best assist guys are better than the best goal guys. No specific names need to be mentioned, but it should be obvious from looking at lists of all time great players. Great assist guys tend to also be great goal guys when they want to be, but they realize that being a force multiplier that makes their lesser teammates/linemates more dangerous is more conducive to winning. It makes teammates more effective by raising morale (4th liners love it when star players feed them easy goals). Everyone plays harder at defense and checking when they're given offensive opportunities. It's a team sport after all.

Or maybe great assist guys find it hard to sustain high levels of goal scoring?

Also, don't 4th liners also have their morale raised when superstars feed them easy assists? I know Jonas Siegenthaler recently did when he got his first NHL point off an Ovie one-timer.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Your math is suspect, one, and two, even if it were to check out, we're talking about production stemming from the PP. Something that Sid has needed less of to score points over his career vs Ovechkin. Fact.

You suspect Malkin has never assisted or scored the goal on more than 30% of Crosby's points in a given season? Perhaps by not knowing this, you are unintentionally misrepresenting the team factor in their points.

 

[Vilica]

Your math is suspect, one, and two, even if it were to check out, we're talking about production stemming from the PP. Something that Sid has needed less of to score points over his career vs Ovechkin. Fact.

You suspect Malkin has never assisted or scored the goal on more than 30% of Crosby's points in a given season? Perhaps by not knowing this, you are unintentionally misrepresenting the team factor in their points.

I was curious about this, so I went stat-hunting. However before I post a huge wall of text, I'm curious what percentages people might ascribe to those numbers. For what it is worth, Crosby has 730 even strength points, 424 power play points and 8 short-handed points. Malkin has 591 even strength, 374 power play and 5 short-handed points. They have connected on 1 goal short-handed, Crosby from Malkin. So of Sid's 730 EV points, how many does Malkin have a point on? This includes Crosby goals assisted by Malkin, Malkin goals assisted by Crosby, and other player goals assisted by both Crosby and Malkin. Similarly, what is the percentage on power play points?

For the sake of comparison, I compiled Ovechkin and Backstrom as well, and people are welcome to guess at their percentages too. For a baseline, Ovechkin has 395+318=713 even strength points, 237+212=449 power play points, and 4+1 short-handed points. Backstrom has 148+345=493 even strength points, 69+278=347 power play points, and 2+0 short-handed points. Ovechkin and Backstrom have never connected for any short-handed points.

There's no point in asking for Malkin or Backstrom percentages separately, by the way, because the numerator would remain the same while the denominator would just get smaller. I'm also not trying to use this as a proxy to argue that Crosby and Malkin play together more than people think, because most of their EV point sharing is from earlier in their careers.

 

[daver]

Hull and OV's seasons head to head (* with reasonable consideration for missed time and respective league sizes):

TIER 1 (all-time great season among the non Big Four)

Hull 65/66 (IMO, the clear best between the two)
OV 07/08

TIER 2 (among the best of their eras)

Hull 61/62
Hull 66/67
Hull 68/69
OV 09/10*

TIER 3 (elite season, arguably the best that season)

Hull 59/60
Hull 63/64
OV 08/09
OV 12/13

TIER 4 (very good season)

Hull 62/63
Hull 63/64
Hull 67/68
Hull 69/70
Hull 70/71
Hull 71/72
OV 05/06
OV 06/07
OV 10/11
OV 13/14
OV 14/15
OV 15/16
OV 17/18
OV 18/19


TIER 5

Hull 57/58
Hull 58/59
Hull 60/61
OV 11/12
OV 16/17

I think the Top Tiers are pretty clear while a few Tier 4 seasons could be argued as Tier 3 but, IMO, it is clear that Hull had more top end seasons than OV.

Add in a similarly clear advantage in their respective playoff resumes and you can see why there is a clear gap between them when the discussion moves beyond goalscoring.