Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[Theokritos]

Even still,

That argument is ludicrous.

And take it from somebody who used to think that way. That's a young man/kids way of thinking about winning SC's.

Even if the argument happened or happens to be wrong, it deserves to be represented accurately. Saying some specific cup wins in history were "relatively cheap and easy" compared to others is not the same as saying they were straight up "cheap and easy", without any qualifier.

Besides, labelling the former opinion as "a young man/kids way of thinking" is undeservingly condescending. If you have personally moved from that view to another you consider superior now, then good for you. But to suggest the other position is not befitting an adult? Uncalled for.

 

[sr edler]

Based on what? Having to be better than 29 teams rather than 5?

And I thought you were the eading advocate for "winning means everything"?

Interested to hear what nuances that one can apply to players winning or not winning the Cup.

Quality beats quantity. Those 5 teams held better overall quality than the lower half/chunks of those 29 teams and would have run them over no business. Mario Kempe was an NHL player last season, let that sink in, he was hardly even an above average SEL player. It's not that hard being better than the Coyotes, Oilers, Panthers, et cetera in todays league, if you're a Cup contending team. What's hard in todays league (and regarding every recent window) if you want to win a Cup is being better than the next best 5 teams. That's why you have Chicago 3 Cups, Pittsburgh 3 Cups, LA Kings 2 Cups, Boston 3 recent finals. DPE had Detroit 3 Cups, New Jersey 3 Cups, Colorado 2 Cups, Dallas 1 Cup/2 straight Presidents Trophies/finals. Top teams are top teams. What you're really talking about is the chance of an individual player winning a Cup being harder (specifically if he plays on a weaker team), which of course have truth to it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Previously you introduced a HHOF metric that now you conveniently ignore or deny.

Specifically.

O6 era any year at least 1/2 the playoff goalies were future HHOFers, 2019 maybe 1 out of 16 teams.

How many future, HHOF members in the 2019 playoffs? At most 1-2 per team. O6 era 4-12 per team.

O6 era, Vezina winners, Regular season TGA leaders, won 6 consecutive SC 1955-60. All future HHOFERs.

Methinks you lack a solid base for your position.

If the hall fame doesn't increase the number of annual inductees relative to the quantity of teams, then obviously there will be more hall of famers per team from pre-expansion teams.

It's all relative though, as teams beating teams with more hall of famers will also likely have more hall of famers themselves.

I do not know how this is remotely inconsistent with anything else I've said.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don't think you understand the meaning of both those words and if you did you wouldn't place them back to back or suggest that Cup wins are "cheap and easy".

It's objective because 6 is less than 31.

It's relative because championships from today's 31 team league are being compared to championships from the 6 team league from 1960.

 

[daver]

Quality beats quantity. Those 5 teams held better overall quality than the lower half/chunks of those 29 teams and would have run them over no business. Mario Kempe was an NHL player last season, let that sink in, he was hardly even an above average SEL player. It's not that hard being better than the Coyotes, Oilers, Panthers, et cetera in todays league, if you're a Cup contending team. What's hard in todays league (and regarding every recent window) if you want to win a Cup is being better than the next best 5 teams. That's why you have Chicago 3 Cups, Pittsburgh 3 Cups, LA Kings 2 Cups, Boston 3 recent finals. DPE had Detroit 3 Cups, New Jersey 3 Cups, Colorado 2 Cups, Dallas 1 Cup/2 straight Presidents Trophies/finals. Top teams are top teams. What you're really talking about is the chance of an individual player winning a Cup being harder (specifically if he plays on a weaker team), which of course have truth to it.

There have been 12 different teams in the CFs the last three years, arguably the equivalent of making the SCF in the O6, which should add some element of it being harder to win the Cup in today's league. But even it your point is taken at face value, this doesn't change my questioning why C1958 would not take Crosby's Cups at full face value while seemingly always taking that stance when defending his all-time rankings.

Crosby's three Cups > Hull's one should be a no-brainer.

 

[Midnight Judges]

To simply judge a stand a lone stat (goals) as conclusive indicator as to who is "best" of said stat is the real ridiculous thing happening here.

If the difference was marginal, you'd have a point, but Ovechkin has a whopping 47.5% more goals than anyone else over the past 14 seasons. Ovie's goal scoring takes a gargantuan dinosaur dump on everyone else. This is a freakish Gretzky-like margin. And yes, that margin alone says a lot.

Regardless, there is no need to isolate goals only where Ovechkin is concerned because he is a great passer. Despite being told to shoot first by every coach, he is top 11 in assists post lockout, creates tons of space for anyone playing on his line, and also crushes people all over the ice. Ovechkin is the only player in the NHL who garners so much attention that he turns power plays into virtual 4 on 3s.

In the 18-19 season, Ovechkin's average shot length was 36.6 feet whereas Draisaitl's was 24.6 feet. This indicates that whatever playmakers are helping Ovie are getting results from lower danger area passes and lesser efforts. This is primarily due to Ovechkin's shot being among the greatest ever - something you have demonstrated you are in utter denial about. Could it be that Draisaitl playing with the undisputed best player in the world boosted his stats? Could it be that Draisaitl is significantly benefitting from the attention McDavid gets and the space McDavid creates?

 

[Midnight Judges]

At least Bobby Hull can say he faced tighter comp among skaters, game to game, the netminders he faced were also of higher quality, game to game.

Seeing as how the hockey playing population is far greater and international today whereas in the 60s virtually all the players came from 1 little country, I do not see how this is a supportable claim.

Goalies of today are also larger, better equipped, have better training, and vastly better techniques.

Oh, and players chasing him were also of deeper quality. No offense to Steven Stamkos, John Tavares and Ilya Kovalchuk, but Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich and Stan Mikita, they are not.

Couldn't bring yourself to disparage Crosby, eh?

It's also worth mentioning that Bobby Hull's first goal scoring title (of 7) came in Gordie Howe's 14th season. So it's not as if Hull went head to head with Howe's peak - as Ovechkin has done with Crosby, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Kane, Tavares, and Stamkos.

And why are we supposed to be in awe of Frank Mahovlich - a guy who was never a Hart finalist and never lead the NHL in goal scoring? Or Stan Mikita - who has precisely one 40 goal season?

Your entire premise is built on the assumption that today's players - coming from a vastly larger talent pool - are somehow vastly inferior. You think athletes in virtually every sport have improved and evolved, and in hockey alone there has been a regression. This strikes me as unlikely.

 

[DannyGallivan]

It's also worth mentioning that Bobby Hull's first goal scoring title (of 7) came in Gordie Howe's 14th season. So it's not as if Hull went head to head with Howe's peak - as Ovechkin has done with Crosby, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Kane, Tavares, and Stamkos.

Irrelevant. It's like saying that Ovechkin never went up against Gretzky or Lemieux at their peak. Hull was the best goal scorer during his era... an era with six all-star teams (albeit some more stacked than others) going against each other game in and game out. Ovechkin never had to face the checking of Montreal, Toronto or Detroit 1960's teams 14 times a season.

Or Stan Mikita - who has precisely one 40 goal season?

Again, whether he scored 40 goals are not is irrelevant. The era really didn't allow that kind of scoring from anybody not named Robert Marvin Hull. I see what you're saying... that an old Gordie Howe and a prime Mahovlich and Mikita weren't better by comparison than today's superstars. Yet Mikita was a multiple Hart and Art Ross winner, and Howe still had plenty in the tank. As far as one-dimensional snipers go, The Big M was also elite.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Irrelevant.

Nope. Go back and read the discussion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Learn something everyday. Applied math and logic.

Latest gem that Ovechkin's average SOG measures 36.6 feet. Other top scorers measure only 24.4 feet.

Perhaps this explains why Ovi has a habit of leaving the defensive zone early in OT, contributing to a game 7 loss and returning late to the defensive zone throughout his career.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Again, whether he scored 40 goals are not is irrelevant. The era really didn't allow that kind of scoring from anybody not named Robert Marvin Hull.

17 different players had 4o goal seasons during Hull's NHL career. (7 pre-expansion, and Howe is not one of them).

10 different players had 45.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Latest gem that Ovechkin's average SOG measures 36.6 feet. Other top scorers measure only 24.4 feet.

Perhaps this explains why Ovi has a habit of leaving the defensive zone early in OT, contributing to a game 7 loss and returning late to the defensive zone throughout his career.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with your first paragraph.

It's pretty obvious you simply don't like Ovechkin, for whatever reason.

 

[Vilica]

Irrelevant. It's like saying that Ovechkin never went up against Gretzky or Lemieux at their peak. Hull was the best goal scorer during his era... an era with six all-star teams (albeit some more stacked than others) going against each other game in and game out. Ovechkin never had to face the checking of Montreal, Toronto or Detroit 1960's teams 14 times a season.

Again, whether he scored 40 goals are not is irrelevant. The era really didn't allow that kind of scoring from anybody not named Robert Marvin Hull. I see what you're saying... that an old Gordie Howe and a prime Mahovlich and Mikita weren't better by comparison than today's superstars. Yet Mikita was a multiple Hart and Art Ross winner, and Howe still had plenty in the tank. As far as one-dimensional snipers go, The Big M was also elite.

Actually, scoring levels in the Hull/Mikita era prior to expansion were mostly in line with what we'd agree with as normal NHL scoring in a modern sense. If you took the 560 games from 59-60 through 66-67, and look at the goals for and against numbers, here's what you'd have:

Team	Goals For	Goals Against	GF/G	GA/G
Montreal	1854	1428	3.31	2.55
Toronto	1694	1474	3.02	2.63
Chicago	1746	1426	3.12	2.55
Detroit	1613	1639	2.88	2.93
New York	1545	1873	2.76	3.34
Boston	1463	2075	2.61	3.71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You alluded to stacked teams above, but what it really ends up being is 40% of Chicago's games against "stingy" teams (Montreal and Toronto), 20% games against "average" teams (Detroit), and 40% games against "permissive" teams (New York and Boston). Also, if you're wondering why the New York and Boston numbers are so high, here are the two reasons: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com and Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com.

Here's what the head to head matrix for Chicago Goals For during that time period looks like:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto
59-60	46	30	27	50	38
60-61	46	38	40	44	30
61-62	65	43	38	38	33
62-63	56	31	29	53	25
63-64	49	48	39	53	29
64-65	57	41	44	48	34
65-66	59	51	39	51	40
66-67	59	60	47	43	55
112	437	342	303	380	284
	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Perhaps some bigger gaps than expected, but no real outliers in terms of what you'd expect these numbers to be given the GA/G numbers above. Now here's how Hull and Mikita fared against each team during this time period:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto	Total
Goals For	437	342	303	380	284	1746
560	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536
Hull Points	151	121	92	129	125	618
534 GP	1.398	1.152	0.868	1.217	1.147	1.157
% Hull	34.55%	35.38%	30.36%	33.95%	44.01%
Mikita Points	132	120	112	123	96	583
551 GP	1.211	1.081	1.018	1.118	0.873	1.060
% Mikita	30.21%	35.09%	36.96%	32.37%	33.80%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that Hull struggled against Montreal, compared to his PPG average, and Mikita struggled against Toronto, compared to his average. The % Hull and % Mikita rows are the percentage of goals for against each team that they recorded a point on.

Now look at the reality of the modern post-lockout NHL. In basically double the sample size, 1114 games from 05-06 through 18-19, you have 2 teams above 3 Goals per game - Pittsburgh and Washington at 3.09 and 3.02 (Vegas at 3.13 in 2 seasons as well), New Jersey and Arizona bringing up the rear at 2.5 and 2.53 Goals per game. In terms of Goals Against, Toronto Edmonton and New York Islanders are the only teams above 3 per game (3.07, 3.06 and 3.0), while Boston, San Jose and New York Rangers are at the top of the lists at 2.57 Goals Against per game. [This is the place where I'm getting all my numbers from: http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggre...er=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goalsAgainstPerGame - if you average Atlanta with Winnipeg and Phoenix with Arizona, both their per game averages drop below 3)

Now bear with me, because there's a bit of math, but if you go to that link, you can see that Anaheim, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, Boston, San Jose and the New York Rangers all average 2.62 goals against or less - they are the stingiest teams in the NHL. Here are Ovechkin and Crosby's career splits versus those teams:

	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-
Ovechkin	1084	658	553	1211	94
		0.607	0.510	1.117
Anaheim	18	11	14	25	-4
Boston	48	24	25	49	9
Minnesota	16	15	11	26	10
Nashville	19	10	5	15	-9
New Jersey	53	25	33	58	27
New York R	56	33	19	52	-8
San Jose	20	12	8	20	-9
	230	130	115	245	16
	21.22%	0.565	0.500	1.065
Sidney Crosby	943	446	770	1216	183
		0.473	0.817	1.290
Anaheim	16	8	14	22	4
Boston	39	13	40	53	12
Minnesota	17	6	15	21	6
Nashville	17	4	17	21	10
New Jersey	65	33	39	72	11
New York R	67	33	56	89	17
San Jose	15	3	8	11	-4
	236	100	189	289	56
	25.03%	0.424	0.801	1.225

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's a drop in their per game stats, but it's only about a 5% drop, compared to Hull's 33% drop against Montreal or Mikita's 21% drop against Toronto. Also, by aggregating multiple teams, I get a sample size near 20% of their games, which is essentially what Hull and Mikita had to deal with in the O6 era. Now I know I'm conflating those teams aggregate performance against the NHL with their actual performance against Pittsburgh and Washington - it could be that these teams average much more than 2.62 Goals per game against Pittsburgh/Washington, I'd have to look at the head to head results. The point I'm trying to make is that these teams all gave up a similar amount of goals against per game as Montreal and Toronto did, and yet Ovechkin and Crosby suffer a lesser hit to their per game averages than Hull and Mikita.

I know none of this matters now, after the voting is complete, but I'm putting this down to set up future scenarios. Feel free to quibble with my numbers, or my assumptions, but I believe this is an accurate representation of my thesis at this point in time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actually, scoring levels in the Hull/Mikita era prior to expansion were mostly in line with what we'd agree with as normal NHL scoring in a modern sense. If you took the 560 games from 59-60 through 66-67, and look at the goals for and against numbers, here's what you'd have:

Team	Goals For	Goals Against	GF/G	GA/G
Montreal	1854	1428	3.31	2.55
Toronto	1694	1474	3.02	2.63
Chicago	1746	1426	3.12	2.55
Detroit	1613	1639	2.88	2.93
New York	1545	1873	2.76	3.34
Boston	1463	2075	2.61	3.71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You alluded to stacked teams above, but what it really ends up being is 40% of Chicago's games against "stingy" teams (Montreal and Toronto), 20% games against "average" teams (Detroit), and 40% games against "permissive" teams (New York and Boston). Also, if you're wondering why the New York and Boston numbers are so high, here are the two reasons: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com and Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com.

Here's what the head to head matrix for Chicago Goals For during that time period looks like:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto
59-60	46	30	27	50	38
60-61	46	38	40	44	30
61-62	65	43	38	38	33
62-63	56	31	29	53	25
63-64	49	48	39	53	29
64-65	57	41	44	48	34
65-66	59	51	39	51	40
66-67	59	60	47	43	55
112	437	342	303	380	284
	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Perhaps some bigger gaps than expected, but no real outliers in terms of what you'd expect these numbers to be given the GA/G numbers above. Now here's how Hull and Mikita fared against each team during this time period:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto	Total
Goals For	437	342	303	380	284	1746
560	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536
Hull Points	151	121	92	129	125	618
534 GP	1.398	1.152	0.868	1.217	1.147	1.157
% Hull	34.55%	35.38%	30.36%	33.95%	44.01%
Mikita Points	132	120	112	123	96	583
551 GP	1.211	1.081	1.018	1.118	0.873	1.060
% Mikita	30.21%	35.09%	36.96%	32.37%	33.80%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that Hull struggled against Montreal, compared to his PPG average, and Mikita struggled against Toronto, compared to his average. The % Hull and % Mikita rows are the percentage of goals for against each team that they recorded a point on.

Now look at the reality of the modern post-lockout NHL. In basically double the sample size, 1114 games from 05-06 through 18-19, you have 2 teams above 3 Goals per game - Pittsburgh and Washington at 3.09 and 3.02 (Vegas at 3.13 in 2 seasons as well), New Jersey and Arizona bringing up the rear at 2.5 and 2.53 Goals per game. In terms of Goals Against, Toronto Edmonton and New York Islanders are the only teams above 3 per game (3.07, 3.06 and 3.0), while Boston, San Jose and New York Rangers are at the top of the lists at 2.57 Goals Against per game. [This is the place where I'm getting all my numbers from: http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggre...er=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goalsAgainstPerGame - if you average Atlanta with Winnipeg and Phoenix with Arizona, both their per game averages drop below 3)

Now bear with me, because there's a bit of math, but if you go to that link, you can see that Anaheim, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, Boston, San Jose and the New York Rangers all average 2.62 goals against or less - they are the stingiest teams in the NHL. Here are Ovechkin and Crosby's career splits versus those teams:

	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-
Ovechkin	1084	658	553	1211	94
		0.607	0.510	1.117
Anaheim	18	11	14	25	-4
Boston	48	24	25	49	9
Minnesota	16	15	11	26	10
Nashville	19	10	5	15	-9
New Jersey	53	25	33	58	27
New York R	56	33	19	52	-8
San Jose	20	12	8	20	-9
	230	130	115	245	16
	21.22%	0.565	0.500	1.065
Sidney Crosby	943	446	770	1216	183
		0.473	0.817	1.290
Anaheim	16	8	14	22	4
Boston	39	13	40	53	12
Minnesota	17	6	15	21	6
Nashville	17	4	17	21	10
New Jersey	65	33	39	72	11
New York R	67	33	56	89	17
San Jose	15	3	8	11	-4
	236	100	189	289	56
	25.03%	0.424	0.801	1.225

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's a drop in their per game stats, but it's only about a 5% drop, compared to Hull's 33% drop against Montreal or Mikita's 21% drop against Toronto. Also, by aggregating multiple teams, I get a sample size near 20% of their games, which is essentially what Hull and Mikita had to deal with in the O6 era. Now I know I'm conflating those teams aggregate performance against the NHL with their actual performance against Pittsburgh and Washington - it could be that these teams average much more than 2.62 Goals per game against Pittsburgh/Washington, I'd have to look at the head to head results. The point I'm trying to make is that these teams all gave up a similar amount of goals against per game as Montreal and Toronto did, and yet Ovechkin and Crosby suffer a lesser hit to their per game averages than Hull and Mikita.

I know none of this matters now, after the voting is complete, but I'm putting this down to set up future scenarios. Feel free to quibble with my numbers, or my assumptions, but I believe this is an accurate representation of my thesis at this point in time.

Reduced to a 70 game NHL RS season facing the Top 5 defensive teams, Ovechkin and Crosby produce one 50 goal season and one season with point point totals that approach 96 points maybe once.

Comparable to Bernie Geoffrion and Dickie Moore from the O6 era.

 

[daver]

Reduced to a 70 game NHL RS season facing the Top 5 defensive teams, Ovechkin and Crosby produce one 50 goal season and one season with point point totals that approach 96 points maybe once.

Comparable to Bernie Geoffrion and Dickie Moore from the O6 era.

Or Howe's or Hull's peak seasons:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...ameType=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goals

Of course this presumes that your premise that O6 teams were the pinnacle of hockey is a reasonable position to take.

 

[daver]

Actually, scoring levels in the Hull/Mikita era prior to expansion were mostly in line with what we'd agree with as normal NHL scoring in a modern sense. If you took the 560 games from 59-60 through 66-67, and look at the goals for and against numbers, here's what you'd have:

Team	Goals For	Goals Against	GF/G	GA/G
Montreal	1854	1428	3.31	2.55
Toronto	1694	1474	3.02	2.63
Chicago	1746	1426	3.12	2.55
Detroit	1613	1639	2.88	2.93
New York	1545	1873	2.76	3.34
Boston	1463	2075	2.61	3.71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You alluded to stacked teams above, but what it really ends up being is 40% of Chicago's games against "stingy" teams (Montreal and Toronto), 20% games against "average" teams (Detroit), and 40% games against "permissive" teams (New York and Boston). Also, if you're wondering why the New York and Boston numbers are so high, here are the two reasons: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com and Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com.

Here's what the head to head matrix for Chicago Goals For during that time period looks like:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto
59-60	46	30	27	50	38
60-61	46	38	40	44	30
61-62	65	43	38	38	33
62-63	56	31	29	53	25
63-64	49	48	39	53	29
64-65	57	41	44	48	34
65-66	59	51	39	51	40
66-67	59	60	47	43	55
112	437	342	303	380	284
	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Perhaps some bigger gaps than expected, but no real outliers in terms of what you'd expect these numbers to be given the GA/G numbers above. Now here's how Hull and Mikita fared against each team during this time period:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto	Total
Goals For	437	342	303	380	284	1746
560	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536
Hull Points	151	121	92	129	125	618
534 GP	1.398	1.152	0.868	1.217	1.147	1.157
% Hull	34.55%	35.38%	30.36%	33.95%	44.01%
Mikita Points	132	120	112	123	96	583
551 GP	1.211	1.081	1.018	1.118	0.873	1.060
% Mikita	30.21%	35.09%	36.96%	32.37%	33.80%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that Hull struggled against Montreal, compared to his PPG average, and Mikita struggled against Toronto, compared to his average. The % Hull and % Mikita rows are the percentage of goals for against each team that they recorded a point on.

Now look at the reality of the modern post-lockout NHL. In basically double the sample size, 1114 games from 05-06 through 18-19, you have 2 teams above 3 Goals per game - Pittsburgh and Washington at 3.09 and 3.02 (Vegas at 3.13 in 2 seasons as well), New Jersey and Arizona bringing up the rear at 2.5 and 2.53 Goals per game. In terms of Goals Against, Toronto Edmonton and New York Islanders are the only teams above 3 per game (3.07, 3.06 and 3.0), while Boston, San Jose and New York Rangers are at the top of the lists at 2.57 Goals Against per game. [This is the place where I'm getting all my numbers from: http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggre...er=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goalsAgainstPerGame - if you average Atlanta with Winnipeg and Phoenix with Arizona, both their per game averages drop below 3)

Now bear with me, because there's a bit of math, but if you go to that link, you can see that Anaheim, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, Boston, San Jose and the New York Rangers all average 2.62 goals against or less - they are the stingiest teams in the NHL. Here are Ovechkin and Crosby's career splits versus those teams:

	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-
Ovechkin	1084	658	553	1211	94
		0.607	0.510	1.117
Anaheim	18	11	14	25	-4
Boston	48	24	25	49	9
Minnesota	16	15	11	26	10
Nashville	19	10	5	15	-9
New Jersey	53	25	33	58	27
New York R	56	33	19	52	-8
San Jose	20	12	8	20	-9
	230	130	115	245	16
	21.22%	0.565	0.500	1.065
Sidney Crosby	943	446	770	1216	183
		0.473	0.817	1.290
Anaheim	16	8	14	22	4
Boston	39	13	40	53	12
Minnesota	17	6	15	21	6
Nashville	17	4	17	21	10
New Jersey	65	33	39	72	11
New York R	67	33	56	89	17
San Jose	15	3	8	11	-4
	236	100	189	289	56
	25.03%	0.424	0.801	1.225

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's a drop in their per game stats, but it's only about a 5% drop, compared to Hull's 33% drop against Montreal or Mikita's 21% drop against Toronto. Also, by aggregating multiple teams, I get a sample size near 20% of their games, which is essentially what Hull and Mikita had to deal with in the O6 era. Now I know I'm conflating those teams aggregate performance against the NHL with their actual performance against Pittsburgh and Washington - it could be that these teams average much more than 2.62 Goals per game against Pittsburgh/Washington, I'd have to look at the head to head results. The point I'm trying to make is that these teams all gave up a similar amount of goals against per game as Montreal and Toronto did, and yet Ovechkin and Crosby suffer a lesser hit to their per game averages than Hull and Mikita.

I know none of this matters now, after the voting is complete, but I'm putting this down to set up future scenarios. Feel free to quibble with my numbers, or my assumptions, but I believe this is an accurate representation of my thesis at this point in time.

If this isn't a complete debunking of denying the obvious statistical differences of comparing teams and players from a six team league to a 30 team league, I don't know what other evidence you need.

I am all for giving the best players of any era their due and presuming they would be as dominant in any other era vs. their respective peers but arguing against the league size dynamics is like the flat earth argument.

 

[daver]

Actually, scoring levels in the Hull/Mikita era prior to expansion were mostly in line with what we'd agree with as normal NHL scoring in a modern sense. If you took the 560 games from 59-60 through 66-67, and look at the goals for and against numbers, here's what you'd have:

Team	Goals For	Goals Against	GF/G	GA/G
Montreal	1854	1428	3.31	2.55
Toronto	1694	1474	3.02	2.63
Chicago	1746	1426	3.12	2.55
Detroit	1613	1639	2.88	2.93
New York	1545	1873	2.76	3.34
Boston	1463	2075	2.61	3.71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You alluded to stacked teams above, but what it really ends up being is 40% of Chicago's games against "stingy" teams (Montreal and Toronto), 20% games against "average" teams (Detroit), and 40% games against "permissive" teams (New York and Boston). Also, if you're wondering why the New York and Boston numbers are so high, here are the two reasons: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com and Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com.

Here's what the head to head matrix for Chicago Goals For during that time period looks like:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto
59-60	46	30	27	50	38
60-61	46	38	40	44	30
61-62	65	43	38	38	33
62-63	56	31	29	53	25
63-64	49	48	39	53	29
64-65	57	41	44	48	34
65-66	59	51	39	51	40
66-67	59	60	47	43	55
112	437	342	303	380	284
	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Perhaps some bigger gaps than expected, but no real outliers in terms of what you'd expect these numbers to be given the GA/G numbers above. Now here's how Hull and Mikita fared against each team during this time period:

	Boston	Detroit	Montreal	New York	Toronto	Total
Goals For	437	342	303	380	284	1746
560	3.902	3.054	2.705	3.393	2.536
Hull Points	151	121	92	129	125	618
534 GP	1.398	1.152	0.868	1.217	1.147	1.157
% Hull	34.55%	35.38%	30.36%	33.95%	44.01%
Mikita Points	132	120	112	123	96	583
551 GP	1.211	1.081	1.018	1.118	0.873	1.060
% Mikita	30.21%	35.09%	36.96%	32.37%	33.80%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can see that Hull struggled against Montreal, compared to his PPG average, and Mikita struggled against Toronto, compared to his average. The % Hull and % Mikita rows are the percentage of goals for against each team that they recorded a point on.

Now look at the reality of the modern post-lockout NHL. In basically double the sample size, 1114 games from 05-06 through 18-19, you have 2 teams above 3 Goals per game - Pittsburgh and Washington at 3.09 and 3.02 (Vegas at 3.13 in 2 seasons as well), New Jersey and Arizona bringing up the rear at 2.5 and 2.53 Goals per game. In terms of Goals Against, Toronto Edmonton and New York Islanders are the only teams above 3 per game (3.07, 3.06 and 3.0), while Boston, San Jose and New York Rangers are at the top of the lists at 2.57 Goals Against per game. [This is the place where I'm getting all my numbers from: http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggre...er=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goalsAgainstPerGame - if you average Atlanta with Winnipeg and Phoenix with Arizona, both their per game averages drop below 3)

Now bear with me, because there's a bit of math, but if you go to that link, you can see that Anaheim, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, Boston, San Jose and the New York Rangers all average 2.62 goals against or less - they are the stingiest teams in the NHL. Here are Ovechkin and Crosby's career splits versus those teams:

	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-
Ovechkin	1084	658	553	1211	94
		0.607	0.510	1.117
Anaheim	18	11	14	25	-4
Boston	48	24	25	49	9
Minnesota	16	15	11	26	10
Nashville	19	10	5	15	-9
New Jersey	53	25	33	58	27
New York R	56	33	19	52	-8
San Jose	20	12	8	20	-9
	230	130	115	245	16
	21.22%	0.565	0.500	1.065
Sidney Crosby	943	446	770	1216	183
		0.473	0.817	1.290
Anaheim	16	8	14	22	4
Boston	39	13	40	53	12
Minnesota	17	6	15	21	6
Nashville	17	4	17	21	10
New Jersey	65	33	39	72	11
New York R	67	33	56	89	17
San Jose	15	3	8	11	-4
	236	100	189	289	56
	25.03%	0.424	0.801	1.225

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's a drop in their per game stats, but it's only about a 5% drop, compared to Hull's 33% drop against Montreal or Mikita's 21% drop against Toronto. Also, by aggregating multiple teams, I get a sample size near 20% of their games, which is essentially what Hull and Mikita had to deal with in the O6 era. Now I know I'm conflating those teams aggregate performance against the NHL with their actual performance against Pittsburgh and Washington - it could be that these teams average much more than 2.62 Goals per game against Pittsburgh/Washington, I'd have to look at the head to head results. The point I'm trying to make is that these teams all gave up a similar amount of goals against per game as Montreal and Toronto did, and yet Ovechkin and Crosby suffer a lesser hit to their per game averages than Hull and Mikita.

I know none of this matters now, after the voting is complete, but I'm putting this down to set up future scenarios. Feel free to quibble with my numbers, or my assumptions, but I believe this is an accurate representation of my thesis at this point in time.

I wonder if this dynamic needs to be viewed closer.

The fact that some players in the O6 were playing most of their game against poor defensive teams could be meaningful.

The fact that in most years, the worst defensive teams were really poor defensively in relative terms to the worst defensive teams in today's league could also be meaningful.

At the very least, it should eliminate any talk of the O6 being six all-star teams when in some years the difference in GAs between the best and worst defensive teams was 60% to 70% or even 80%.

 

[DannyGallivan]

17 different players had 4o goal seasons during Hull's NHL career. (7 pre-expansion, and Howe is not one of them).

10 different players had 45.

So you're saying that there was considerable competition for Hull during his seven seasons as the league's top regular season goal scoring champion.

 

[seventieslord]

The fact that some players in the O6 were playing most of their game against poor defensive teams could be meaningful.

The teams that ended up with terrible results only ended up that way because of how relatively often they had to play powerhouses like Montreal. Also, talking about "poor" in the O6 era necessitates a redefinition of the term "poor", because all it really means is poor relative to the best 6 teams in the world.

Yes it's circular logic because it also implies that Montreal was such a powerhouse because they got to play the Rangers so often, but the point is that everything is relative and the smaller number of teams leads to an inescapable greater difference in splits for players. I don't know that this proves anything about the players themselves, as much as it does the dynamics of the leagues at different times.

 

[daver]

The teams that ended up with terrible results only ended up that way because of how relatively often they had to play powerhouses like Montreal. Also, talking about "poor" in the O6 era necessitates a redefinition of the term "poor", because all it really means is poor relative to the best 6 teams in the world.

Yes it's circular logic because it also implies that Montreal was such a powerhouse because they got to play the Rangers so often, but the point is that everything is relative and the smaller number of teams leads to an inescapable greater difference in splits for players. I don't know that this proves anything about the players themselves, as much as it does the dynamics of the leagues at different times.

That there were more "poor" teams and more "powerhouses" in the O6 relative to today is common sense evidence of the differences between a six team league and a 30 team league. There was more statistical volatility for there to be more "poor" or "powerhouse" teams.

My point is to add a grain of salt to claims of a teams' greatness when they had less teams to get thru to win the Cup using the reasonable assumption that pound for pound, the current NHL is just as competitive as the O6.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you're saying that there was considerable competition for Hull during his seven seasons as the league's top regular season goal scoring champion.

Considerable, sure, albeit far less than today's competition. And Bobby Hull had way less separation from that competition in terms of goal scoring:

Hull's best 14 consecutive seasons not counting his rookie year (this helps him a lot in this comparison):
33.4% more goals than 2nd place
47.7% more goals than 3rd place
51.1% more goals than 4th place

^^^These are super impressive numbers

Ovechkin's 14 seasons:
47.5% better than 2nd place
62% better than 3rd place
65% better than 4th place

^^^These numbers are far superior to Bobby Hull's.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Considerable, sure, albeit far less than today's competition. And Bobby Hull had way less separation from that competition in terms of goal scoring:

Hull's best 14 consecutive seasons not counting his rookie year (this helps him a lot in this comparison):
33.4% more goals than 2nd place
47.7% more goals than 3rd place
51.1% more goals than 4th place

^^^These are super impressive numbers

Ovechkin's 14 seasons:
47.5% better than 2nd place
62% better than 3rd place
65% better than 4th place

^^^These numbers are far superior to Bobby Hull's.

Of course, Bobby Hull tended to generate more of his goal scoring on his own, in an era that demanded that he carry one or two defensemen/checking forwards on his back at the same time. Ovechkin... well, he has a heavy shot alright.

I'll get right to the point. Bobby Hull was the better player. I'm not saying Ovechkin was/is a slouch. In my top 120 players of all time, I had Hull at number five and Ovechkin at number 13. Pretty good, I think.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Of course, Bobby Hull tended to generate more of his goal scoring on his own, in an era that demanded that he carry one or two defensemen/checking forwards on his back at the same time.

What is the evidence for this?

Ovechkin garners as much attention as any player in the league.

I'll get right to the point. Bobby Hull was the better player. I'm not saying Ovechkin was/is a slouch. In my top 120 players of all time, I had Hull at number five and Ovechkin at number 13. Pretty good, I think.

Among the lists I've seen, yes, yours was pretty good (although I am too much of a Gordie Howe fan to not complain about that!).

I think having 4 players (not counting Orr) from the 50's and 60's ranked higher than the best players from the 2000's and 2010's is going to become increasingly difficult to defend. Those types of conclusions seem to be based on nostalgia, and in defiance of the data.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Among the lists I've seen, yes, yours was pretty good (although I am too much of a Gordie Howe fan to not complain about that!).

I think having 4 players (not counting Orr) from the 50's and 60's ranked higher than the best players from the 2000's and 2010's is going to become increasingly difficult to defend. Those types of conclusions seem to be based on nostalgia, and in defiance of the data.

If I did this list again in five years, I think that Crosby could crack the top six and Ovechkin the top 10.

...and as much of a fan I am of the entire top four, I am still a little ticked that the overall vote did not have Bobby Orr at number one.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Considerable, sure, albeit far less than today's competition. And Bobby Hull had way less separation from that competition in terms of goal scoring:

Hull's best 14 consecutive seasons not counting his rookie year (this helps him a lot in this comparison):
33.4% more goals than 2nd place
47.7% more goals than 3rd place
51.1% more goals than 4th place

^^^These are super impressive numbers

Ovechkin's 14 seasons:
47.5% better than 2nd place
62% better than 3rd place
65% better than 4th place

^^^These numbers are far superior to Bobby Hull's.

Pretends like he doesn't know that Bobby Hull had a lot stiffer comp in the late 50's and 60's then Ovechkin has ever faced and passes off numbers without context. Lazy.

It's one of the reasons I just roll my eyes when the Ovi fanboys trot out the "hardware" drivel. Oh man how he had such stellar comp at LW the past 14 to push him for all those AS nods....

That and "Ovechkin is a great playmaker" always gives a good chuckle.

It's utterly comical that a player can get so much mileage off being elite at one thing, without even bothering to look at the context behind it, you know, like volume shooting, and only caring about playing energized hockey in 1 out of 3 zones....and acting like those things don't greatly enhance the odds of scoring goals vs the rest of the league.