Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[sr edler]

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

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.

I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. I think the thought is that players with a higher shooting percentages partly have that high shooting percentage because they're deliberately not firing the bullet in unnecessary moments, but instead look for other/better options (like advancing the puck or passing it). Another part is obviously general shooting skill (not everyone has the same shot/accuracy). Charlie Simmer and Sergei Makarov were two other players with high shooting percentages in the NHL, and I think we can say that at least Makarov was a player with a pretty balanced skillset regarding goalscoring/playmaking.

Another thought, with "unnecessary" (or low percentage) shooting, is that it creates pressure and rebounds, outside of the possibility to get a weak goal. I've played similar sports myself and one aspect of volume shooting is that it creates general chaos, and could leave the goalie (and his defense) off balance or out of position. A possible downside to volume shooting could be if someone else (an opponent) catches the majority of those rebounds. As for your NBA analogy, the NHL also doesn't count (catching) rebounds.

I think peak Ovi was a justified volume shooter, even at that crazy level. Post peak Ovi is a more doubtful case. Now post peak Ovi won a Cup, while peak Ovi didn't, but that's because post peak Ovi had better/deeper teams.

 

[daver]

I think peak Ovi was a justified volume shooter, even at that crazy level. Post peak Ovi is a more doubtful case. Now post peak Ovi won a Cup, while peak Ovi didn't, but that's because post peak Ovi had better/deeper teams.

Peak OV was shooting more, had a similar shooting %, while creating his own opportunities to shoot more rather than being set up.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I do not know how you justify Ovechkin's 09 season being 2 tiers below his 08 season. They're not far apart at all. Ovechkin was clearly the best player in the world in 2009 - curb stomping everyone for the MVP (including Malkin during Malkin's second best season).

Conversely, Bobby Hull was quite obviously NOT the best player in the world in '67 (3rd in Hart votes) or '69 (5th). So you think the 5th best season in 1969 was superior to the best season in 2009. That does not pass the smell test - especially given the doubling or tripling of the size of the talent pool since then.

I also do not know what it is you think is so special about Bobby Hull's playoff resume.

Hull had 1 cup in a 6 team league (zero after the league went to 12 teams, and then 14). Ovechkin has 1 in a 31 team league. Advantage Ovechkin.

During his prime Hull was 5th in PPG in a league that was almost exclusively Canadian. (min 40 games)

During his prime Ovechkin was 5th in PPG in a league that is less than half Canadian and has a way larger talent pool. (min 40 games).

Advantage Ovechkin.

Hull is first in goals per game by .01 over a guy who played half as many games.

Ovechkin is tied for first in goals per game with a guy who has a little over 1/3 as many games.

Again, given the size of the talent pool, this is advantage Ovechkin.

Basically, you are just stating conclusions and not backing it up with any objective criteria.

 

[ImporterExporter]

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 have seen about 90-95% of every Pens game since Crosby and Malkin came into the league. That's in person as well as TV.

I'm telling you there is no bleeping way Malkin is in on that many of Sids points. They haven't played more than a shift here or there together at even strength in a decade.

Any production they have together is almost entirely on the PP. And I highly doubt it's 30% considering that would be almost all of Sids PP points in any given year based on the % of his PP points Vs even strength.

Crosby has never played a full season with anyone remotely close to the talent of Nick Backstrom. Hell, TJ Oshie and Kuznetsov are better than anything 87 has skated with. It's not even debatable.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I have seen about 90-95% of every Pens game since Crosby and Malkin came into the league. That's in person as well as TV.

I'm telling you there is no bleeping way Malkin is in on that many of Sids points. They haven't played more than a shift here or there together at even strength in a decade.

Any production they have together is almost entirely on the PP. And I highly doubt it's 30% considering that would be almost all of Sids PP points in any given year based on the % of his PP points Vs even strength.

Crosby has never played a full season with anyone remotely close to the talent of Nick Backstrom. Hell, TJ Oshie and Kuznetsov are better than anything 87 has skated with. It's not even debatable.

Wow you're still doubting it. You are in for a surprise. Egg meet face.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Crosby has never played a full season with anyone remotely close to the talent of Nick Backstrom. Hell, TJ Oshie and Kuznetsov are better than anything 87 has skated with. It's not even debatable.

On the contrary, Sid has played his entire career with Malkin. It's a huge help.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I have seen about 90-95% of every Pens game since Crosby and Malkin came into the league. That's in person as well as TV.

I'm telling you there is no bleeping way Malkin is in on that many of Sids points. They haven't played more than a shift here or there together at even strength in a decade.

Here, just go back to last season, it was 29.2% (26 points out of 89):

Sidney Crosby 2017-18 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

Count for yourself.

38% in 2012:

Sidney Crosby 2011-12 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

33% in 2011 (22/66):

Sidney Crosby 2010-11 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

27.5% in 2010 (30/109):

Sidney Crosby 2009-10 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

51.4% in 2009 (53/103):

Sidney Crosby 2008-09 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[ImporterExporter]

On the contrary, Sid has played his entire career with Malkin. It's a huge help.

You really are dense. He's almost never played with him at even strength. Fact.

Considering PP chances make up roughly 6 minutes a game on average, out of 60, I'd say your idea of playing WITH someone is a wee bit off base.

Now they do play for the same team. But that's not the same thing. Obviously.

But by all means. Show me how many of those points together are at even strength.

I'll wait for a super low #.

 

[wetcoast]

The problem is that the descriptor is utterly false. Dishonestly so.

I don't have a problem with anyone calling Ovechkin a "shoot first" player.

Ironic choice of words there but I digress.

I think that even poster/voters in this project that call Ovechkin as a shoot only player really mean a shoot first player.

It just a distinction without a difference.

 

[wetcoast]

In 2010 Ovechkin missed 6 games after getting hit by Raffi Torres. He was later (questionably) suspended twice for a total of 4 games.

Ovie was scoring .69 GPG and 1.51 PPG and lost the Rocket by 1 goal and the Art Ross by 3 points.

So again, if you want to be consistent and have integrity, you MUST make the case that Ovechkin would have won the Art Ross and Rocket (and Hart) in 2010.

Do you really want to play the what if game for all players though?

It's only going to make crosby look even better than he already looks.

 

[daver]

You really are dense. He's almost never played with him at even strength. Fact.

Considering PP chances make up roughly 6 minutes a game on average, out of 60, I'd say your idea of playing WITH someone is a wee bit off base.

Now they do play for the same team. But that's not the same thing. Obviously.

But by all means. Show me how many of those points together are at even strength.

I'll wait for a super low #.

Considering Crosby has a higher ESP pts to PP pts than Malkin, it is a better argument that Malkin benefited more from Crosby than the other way around.

It is an extremely weak argument anyways. Crosby has proven beyond a doubt he would be as prodcuctive regardless of the quality of his linemates/teammmates. He may have the best argument of any Top 30 player or so of having this dynamic not even being brought to the table.

 

[Fantomas]

I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. I think the thought is that players with a higher shooting percentages partly have that high shooting percentage because they're deliberately not firing the bullet in unnecessary moments, but instead look for other/better options (like advancing the puck or passing it). Another part is obviously general shooting skill (not everyone has the same shot/accuracy). Charlie Simmer and Sergei Makarov were two other players with high shooting percentages in the NHL, and I think we can say that at least Makarov was a player with a pretty balanced skillset regarding goalscoring/playmaking.

There is really no correlation between a high shooting percentage and high-level goal scoring ability, so this conversation is completely fruitless.

Another thought, with "unnecessary" (or low percentage) shooting, is that it creates pressure and rebounds, outside of the possibility to get a weak goal. I've played similar sports myself and one aspect of volume shooting is that it creates general chaos, and could leave the goalie (and his defense) off balance or out of position. A possible downside to volume shooting could be if someone else (an opponent) catches the majority of those rebounds. As for your NBA analogy, the NHL also doesn't count (catching) rebounds.

Someone should have informed "unnecessary shooters" like Bobby Hull and Phil Esposito that they were doing this all wrong.

 

[Fantomas]

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.

So you've created "tiers" without offering any argumentation or evidence? That's useful.

 

[talitintti]

If a high IQ instinctual player like Crosby would start forcing high distance shots, not only would his total offense plummet but his goal totals would likely as well. Lacking the snipers ability to beat a goaltender from far, just shooting the puck would be surrendering the possibility of generating something meaningful. Concept which isn't the same for a sniper like Ovechkin.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I have seen about 90-95% of every Pens games

I'm telling you there is no bleeping way Malkin is in on that many of Sids points.

Do you still stand by this statement?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ironic choice of words there but I digress.

I think that even poster/voters in this project that call Ovechkin as a shoot only player really mean a shoot first player.

It just a distinction without a difference.

Ok you and others in the project want to be wrong and say things that are false.

Go for it. I can’t stop you. Taints the project though.

 

[sr edler]

Someone should have informed "unnecessary shooters" like Bobby Hull and Phil Esposito that they were doing this all wrong.

Since both Chicago and Boston are considered by some to have won an underwhelming amount of Cups, then perhaps they did do something wrong?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Here, just go back to last season, it was 29.2% (26 points out of 89):

Sidney Crosby 2017-18 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

Count for yourself.

38% in 2012:

Sidney Crosby 2011-12 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

33% in 2011 (22/66):

Sidney Crosby 2010-11 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

27.5% in 2010 (30/109):

Sidney Crosby 2009-10 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

51.4% in 2009 (53/103):

Sidney Crosby 2008-09 Scoring Log | Hockey-Reference.com

For someone so concerned about the "dishonesty" of things like shoot-only vs shoot-first and other frivolities that you're attempting to lawyer us on, you'd think you'd be on your best behavior when dealing with statistics...

Crosby has 1162 career points. Evgeni Malkin has been in on 212 of them. Which is 18.2%.

Malkin from Crosby is 113 points - 68 on the power play, 45 at even strength.
Crosby from Malkin is 99 points - 55 on the power play, 43 at even strength, 1 shorthanded.

58% of the Crosby-Malkin connection is from the power play. 12% of Crosby's career ES points does Malkin have a hand in and that's without removing empty net opportunities.

 

[bobholly39]

So you've created "tiers" without offering any argumentation or evidence? That's useful.

That's a pretty lame response. You brought up this whole Hull vs Ovi comparison and he compared their best seasons head to head. How is that not a useful exercise? If you disagree why don't you put them in your own tiers and give some arguments and show him where he's wrong.

If a high IQ instinctual player like Crosby would start forcing high distance shots, not only would his total offense plummet but his goal totals would likely as well. Lacking the snipers ability to beat a goaltender from far, just shooting the puck would be surrendering the possibility of generating something meaningful. Concept which isn't the same for a sniper like Ovechkin.

I don't think Crosby aimlessly shooting more is what's being discussed. But if Crosby played....on Malkin's wing for example. Malkin's role playmaking center, Crosby is the winger going to the net for goals/rebounds - i think in that role he could certainly score a lot more goals then he normally does most seasons.

 

[Vilica]

But by all means. Show me how many of those points together are at even strength.

I'll wait for a super low #.

I don't know what you mean by a super low number, but my research indicates the following:

At even strength, Malkin has 43 assists on Crosby goals and Crosby has 45 assists on Malkin goals. On the power play, Malkin has 55 assists on Crosby goals and Crosby has 68 assists on Malkin goals. I have to do the scoring plays where both Crosby+Malkin assisted on a goal manually however.

06-07 5 PP assists Crosby+Malkin, 5 PP assists+1EV Malkin+Crosby = 10 PP + 1 EV
07-08 6 PP assists+2 EV Crosby+Malkin, 2 PP assists Malkin+Crosby = 8 PP + 2 EV = 18 + 3
08-09 10 PP assists+2 EV Crosby+Malkin, 3 PP assists+2 EV Malkin+Crosby = 13 PP + 4 EV = 31 PP + 7 EV
09-10 1 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 1 PP assist+1 EV Malkin+Crosby = 2 PP + 1 EV = 33 PP + 8 EV
10-11 1 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 1 PP assist+3 EV Malkin+Crosby = 2 PP + 3 EV = 35 PP + 11 EV
11-12 1 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 3 PP assist+1 EV Malkin+Crosby = 4 PP + 1 EV = 39 PP + 12 EV
12-13 1 PP assist+2 EV Crosby+Malkin, 2 PP assist Malkin+Crosby = 3 EV + 2 EV = 42 PP + 14 EV
13-14 1 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 5 PP assist+2 EV Malkin+Crosby = 6 PP + 2 EV = 48 PP + 16 EV
14-15 3 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 0 Malkin+Crosby = 3 PP + 0 EV = 51 PP + 16 EV
15-16 1 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 0 Malkin+Crosby = 1 PP + 0 EV = 52 PP + 16 EV
16-17 1 PP assist+1 EV Crosby+Malkin, 1 PP assist+1 EV Malkin+Crosby = 2 PP + 2 EV = 54 PP + 18 EV
17-18 7 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 3 PP assist Malkin+Crosby = 10 PP + 0 EV = 64 PP + 18 EV
18-19 3 PP assist Crosby+Malkin, 1 PP assist Malkin+Crosby = 4 PP + 0 EV = 68 PP + 18 EV

So in total, Crosby has 730 EV points, of which Malkin also had a point on 43+45+18=106, or about 14.5%.
Crosby has 424 PP points, of which Malkin also had a point on 55+68+68=191, or about 45%
[Malkin has 591 EV points, and the same 106 matched for 18%, Malkin's 374 and 191 for 51%]

I also ran the same numbers for Ovechkin and Backstrom as well as Kane and Toews for comparison's sake, and here's just the summary:

In total, Ovechkin has 713 EV points, of which Backstrom had a point on 140+69+65=274, or about 38%.
Ovechkin has 449 PP points, of which Backstrom has a point on 103+25+33=161, or about 36%.
[Backstrom has 493 EV points and the same 274 matched for 55%, Backstrom's 347 and 161 for 46%]

In total, Kane has 589 points at even strength, Toews has a point on 137, or 23%
Kane has 288 points on the power play, Toews has a point on 102 of those, or 35%.
[Toews has 493 and 137, and 187 and 102 - percentages of 27.7% and 54.5%]

So yes, Crosby and Malkin combine for less even strength points than either Ovechkin/Backstrom or Kane/Toews, but more power play points (which speaks more to PP architecture than TOI together).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe we need an all-purpose Crosby vs Ovechkin thread on the history forum.

 

[wetcoast]

Ok you and others in the project want to be wrong and say things that are false.

Go for it. I can’t stop you. Taints the project though.

No idea on what you are actually talking about hear.

Ovechkin is a shooter, something about him taking 1565 more SOG than the next guy in his 14 years in the NHL verifies that.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...t=shots&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=shots

Next you are going to claim that the project is tainted because someone called Gretzky a playmaker?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Do you really want to play the what if game for all players though?

It's only going to make crosby look even better than he already looks.

The "what if" game is being deployed exclusively for Crosby. I'm just pointing that out.

 

[Midnight Judges]

For someone so concerned about the "dishonesty" of things like shoot-only vs shoot-first and other frivolities that you're attempting to lawyer us on, you'd think you'd be on your best behavior when dealing with statistics...

It doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the definition of the word "only."

None of the statistics I posted are incorrect or misleading. They did come as a surprise to some Pens fans though.

 

[wetcoast]

It doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the definition of the word "only."

None of the statistics I posted are incorrect or misleading.

Well it sure looks misleading when Farkas posted all of the points Crosby had with Malkin on his apple post compared to your banana one.

If someone called Ovechkin a shoot only player then that would be incorrect, your problem seems to be with him being called a shooter.

I'll respect your wishes though and will never refer to Ovechkin as the GOAT in goal scoring because that is prejudicial to your senses in some way of how he should be treated..