HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[smokingwriter]

one of the problems with evaluating crosby is that his trophies and his top scoring finishes don't actually line up with his real peak. of all the what-ifs, i'm not sure there's only like crosby, who was, in his injury-plagued years, not just at the same high level he was always at (like lemieux, lindros, etc.) but much higher. i think people's inclination—or at least mine—to rate crosby really high comes from his dominance in 10-11 and 12-13 (and 11-12 to a lesser extent), not from his hart years, which were somewhat weaker. similarly for the smythes, his playoffs from 08 to 10 were incredible, his smythe years less so. i don't know what point i'm trying to make. mostly hoping that he does enough in the next few years to settle his legacy, which to this point is a little strange to evaluate.

I believe Crosby is a top-10 player of all-time, and I also believe that Crosby (were he 22 or 23 again) would be the clear best player in the game. However, with the exception of maybe Orr, I can't think of another great player who has been so diminished historically because of his injuries. If he was able to stay healthy - which was guaranteed not to happen after the Steckel and Hedman cheapshots of 2011 - I think it's credible to argue that he'd have about 5 Art Rosses in his trophy case at this point in time, and might even have another cup somewhere along the way. Outsiders will probably never know to what extent the concussions have robbed him of the player he could have been.

He's still the best player of this generation, for me, but the fact he's Canadian is obviously a problem for some people. Ovechkin is non-Canadian and plays for a team and organization that very deliberately strives to be like the United Nations (with talented Eastern Europeans and a few mediocre Muricans filling out the roster). That's important to some people, and part of why they so much want to insist that Ovechkin is better. But putting the limited Ovechkin ahead of Crosby is a lot like putting Bobby Hull ahead of Jean Beliveau: one guy is flashier, and one guy is more solid, brings more tools to the table, and is simply a better leader and human being.

Whoever whispered in Steckel's ear to throw that cheapshot in 2011 really changed the course of recent hockey history in a bad way.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In the last portion he writes glowingly about how we've turned into a society that is amazing at creating elite athletes and he lists why and how this happened. Even stating the rest of society has to catch up to sports in his regard. He quite clearly talks about how we are still great at it as of 2010.



So you think his believes we are amazing at developing a crushing number of top athletes but the product is weak? Again, please show me where you interpret this, or anything that agrees with your opinions, in that article.

The we used by Bill James is the "American we". To get the comparison,compare Canadian summer and winter Olympic results from the last 20 years with the American results. Do the same for a 20 year period spanning the 1950s and 1960s. Repeat comparing with Russia /Soviet Union.

The quote you are using from Bill James.

"Which, I agree, is a real problem. I would never encourage my children to be athletes—first, because my children are not athletes, and second, because there are so many people pushing to get to the top in sports that a hundred people are crushed for every one who breaks through."

Rather interesting from the foremost sabremetrician since he relieson a non-supported number. Regardless he clearly recognizes athletes and nonathletes and the fact that people should do what they are best at.

Point is that you equate creating athletes with better athletes and stronger competition. A point that Bill James does not makes and avoids.

My point. Random clusters that Bill James clearly recognizes:

"So is it a random cluster, or is it a rational response to need?
It’s a random cluster. . .or, at least, I think it is.
You can’t make rules for the Almighty. Suppose that you create 100 great young pitchers, and you sprinkle them randomly across history. Will you get one coming along every year or two, or will you get clusters?
Obviously, you’ll get clusters. After Seaver and Palmer and Catfish Hunter and Carlton there were no outstanding young pitchers for ten years, then there was another wave of them, Clemens and Saberhagen and Dwight Gooden and David Cone and others. We’re at the crest now of another wave—the biggest wave of my lifetime, I believe."

Historically random clusters manifest themselves in all the team sports. Team success clusters or individual success clusters.

Team success clusters

CFL - mainly a 8 or 9 team league from 1954:

List of Grey Cup champions - Wikipedia

NBA -relatively young post WWII league,international:

List of NBA champions - Wikipedia

NFL Super Bowl era -North American players:

Super Bowl Winners and Results - Super Bowl History - National Football League - ESPN

MLB -North American segregated then integrated,now international:

List of World Series champions - Wikipedia

Never a direct correlation to league size or provenance in the CFL,MLB, NBA or NFL. What makes the NHL different?

Ted Williams and Stan Musial won batting championships in segregated and integrated versions of MLB.

Honus Wagner(segregated era) and Rod Carew(integrated era) won batting championships in six of seven seasons.

Dickie Moore won two consecutive Ross Trophies in the O6 era,Conor McDavid did likewise the last two seasons.

Never a direct correlation to league size in the CFL,MLB, NBA or NFL. What makes the NHL different?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wish I could see that matchup with my own eyes.

Not the issue. From nowhere(junior) be it O6 or recent 30-31 team NHL.

Number of players transitioning quickly to stardom just as often. Contrary to your view today should be harder but demonstratably it is not. Why?













=

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Example from this season. If NHL was 6 teams, Nathan MacKinnon doesn't have a 1C or 2C spot and doesn't end up having a top 3 season in the league. Players with inferior talent will always have career years which increases the level of competition.

This is why people need to stop treating AST selections/awards as iron clad indicators of who's better than who. Just because Nathan MacKinnon gets the 1st or 2nd team all-star spot (via subjective vote by media members that may have watched him play once all season) doesn't mean he's necessarily better than players who didn't win the vote.

 

[solidmotion]

Why should the trophies and top scoring finishes line up with his peak?

feel like that is self-explanatory. look at any player's trophy cabinet and scoring finishes. they're almost always in peak years. so it makes it easy to define the player using those metrics.

 

[Canadiens1958]

feel like that is self-explanatory. look at any player's trophy cabinet and scoring finishes. they're almost always in peak years. so it makes it easy to define the player using those metrics.

The use of "almost" makes my point.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I averaged the % of points the #5 scorer was behind the leading scorer in Mikita's and Crosby's primes:

In Mikita's prime, the #5 scorer was an average of 23% behind the leader, in Crosby's career, it's 16%.

I think a straight up comparison of Top 3 to 5 finishes needs context. It was easier to reach that level in Mikita's era.

i think i'd need more context to know whether that 7% difference means what you're suggesting it means. how much of it is swayed by out of this world scorers (espo, orr) skewing the sample in '69 and '70? that kind of scorer simply didn't exist in crosby's career, except for the brief period when that player was crosby himself, and 2013 was the only year during crosby's four season peak that he played enough games to lap the field.

but this is a moot point maybe, because neither crosby nor mikita ever finished #5 in scoring so it doesn't matter for our purposes how "easy" it was to be #5.

 

[bathdog]

I believe Crosby is a top-10 player of all-time, and I also believe that Crosby (were he 22 or 23 again) would be the clear best player in the game. However, with the exception of maybe Orr, I can't think of another great player who has been so diminished historically because of his injuries. If he was able to stay healthy - which was guaranteed not to happen after the Steckel and Hedman cheapshots of 2011 - I think it's credible to argue that he'd have about 5 Art Rosses in his trophy case at this point in time, and might even have another cup somewhere along the way. Outsiders will probably never know to what extent the concussions have robbed him of the player he could have been.

He's still the best player of this generation, for me, but the fact he's Canadian is obviously a problem for some people. Ovechkin is non-Canadian and plays for a team and organization that very deliberately strives to be like the United Nations (with talented Eastern Europeans and a few mediocre Muricans filling out the roster). That's important to some people, and part of why they so much want to insist that Ovechkin is better. But putting the limited Ovechkin ahead of Crosby is a lot like putting Bobby Hull ahead of Jean Beliveau: one guy is flashier, and one guy is more solid, brings more tools to the table, and is simply a better leader and human being.

Whoever whispered in Steckel's ear to throw that cheapshot in 2011 really changed the course of recent hockey history in a bad way.

You don't have to go back that far. Injuries had a larger impact on the careers of both Lindros and Forsberg, and maybe Yzerman? Of course people only include Ovechkin in the debate due to flashiness and nationality.

I also think Crosby has been the best player of this generation, but I don't think it's credible to award him with imaginary trophies and statistics.

 

[daver]

i think i'd need more context to know whether that 7% difference means what you're suggesting it means. how much of it is swayed by out of this world scorers (espo, orr) skewing the sample in '69 and '70? that kind of scorer simply didn't exist in crosby's career, except for the brief period when that player was crosby himself, and 2013 was the only year during crosby's four season peak that he played enough games to lap the field.

but this is a moot point maybe, because neither crosby nor mikita ever finished #5 in scoring so it doesn't matter for our purposes how "easy" it was to be #5.

When I have time, I will do an average of how far back the #3, #5 and the #10 scorers were from #1 over a larger sample size, say from 1947 to 1967 and 1997 to 2018.

The early indicators show that, not surprisingly from a mathematical perspective, a Top 3, a Top 5 or a Top 10 placing in a league five times bigger is more difficult to accomplish. I.e on average, you have to be within 10% of the top scorer in the current league to finish in the Top 3 vs. on average, you had to be within 15% of the top scorer in the O6 to finish in the Top 3. This is not a critique of the quality of the respective eras nor anything to do with changes in population or the introduction of europeans to the league, it is simply a statistical reality. It represents a superior performance, relative to ones peers,

As I said, IMO, this can reasonably taken as a tiebreaker if we are comparing seasons for a current player vs. an O6 player. Mikita vs. Crosby is a comparison where they both have significant amount of Top 3 -5 finishes.

 

[daver]

Here is how I would rank seasons in a Mikita vs. Crosby comparison:

Tier 1
Mikita - 66/67

Tier 2
Mikita - 67-68 Art Ross
Mikita 63/64 - Art Ross
Mikita 64/65 - Art Ross
Crosby - 06/07 Art Ross
Crosby - 13/14 Art Ross
Crosby 12/13 T3rd in scoring*

Tier 3
Mikita 64/65 2nd in scoring
Crosby 09/10 - 2nd in scoring
Crosby 16/17 - 2nd in scoring

Tier 4
Miktia 61/62 T3rd in scoring
Mikita 62/63 3rd in scoring
Mikita 68/69 4th in scoring
Mikita 69/70 3rd in scoring
Crosby 05/06 6th in scoring
Crosby 08/09 3rd in scoring
Crosby 10/11 1st in PPG*
Crosby 14/15 3rd in scoring
Crosby 15/16 3rd in scoring

Tier 5
Mikita 72/73 3rd in PPG
Crosby 07/08 2nd in PPG
Crsoby 17/18 10th in scoring


* potential Tier 1 seasons

I think Crosby has shown to be just above Mikita in both the regular season and the playoffs. I am talking about Crosby being in the 2nd tier with Hull, Richard and Belliveau and Mikita being on the high end of the 3rd tier or in between the 2nd and 3rd tiers with Jagr, and Morenz, and maybe OV.

 

[McCoy]

Here is how I would rank seasons in a Mikita vs. Crosby comparison:

Tier 1
Mikita - 66/67

Tier 2
Mikita - 67-68 Art Ross
Mikita 63/64 - Art Ross
Mikita 64/65 - Art Ross
Crosby - 06/07 Art Ross
Crosby - 13/14 Art Ross
Crosby 12/13 T3rd in scoring*

Tier 3
Mikita 64/65 2nd in scoring
Crosby 09/10 - 2nd in scoring
Crosby 16/17 - 2nd in scoring

Tier 4
Miktia 61/62 T3rd in scoring
Mikita 62/63 3rd in scoring
Mikita 68/69 4th in scoring
Mikita 69/70 3rd in scoring
Crosby 05/06 6th in scoring
Crosby 08/09 3rd in scoring
Crosby 10/11 1st in PPG*
Crosby 14/15 3rd in scoring
Crosby 15/16 3rd in scoring

Tier 5
Mikita 72/73 3rd in PPG
Crosby 07/08 2nd in PPG


* potential Tier 1 seasons

Adam Oates thoughs,

 

[Canadiens1958]

When I have time, I will do an average of how far back the #3, #5 and the #10 scorers were from #1 over a larger sample size, say from 1947 to 1967 and 1997 to 2018.

The early indicators show that, not surprisingly from a mathematical perspective, a Top 3, a Top 5 or a Top 10 placing in a league five times bigger is more difficult to accomplish. I.e on average, you have to be within 10% of the top scorer in the current league to finish in the Top 3 vs. on average, you had to be within 15% of the top scorer in the O6 to finish in the Top 3. This is not a critique of the quality of the respective eras nor anything to do with changes in population or the introduction of europeans to the league, it is simply a statistical reality. It represents a superior performance, relative to ones peers,

As I said, IMO, this can reasonably taken as a tiebreaker if we are comparing seasons for a current player vs. an O6 player. Mikita vs. Crosby is a comparison where they both have significant amount of Top 3 -5 finishes.

No,it simply represents the difference in the length of the respective seasons.O6 teams played a balanced 50 then 60 finally 70 game seasons without OT while in Crosby's era its an 82 game,unbalanced schedule with OT.

 

[solidmotion]

The use of "almost" makes my point.

still not really getting your point, but i mean if you look at art ross winners, it lines up with players' peaks in every single recent case except crosby's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

still not really getting your point, but i mean if you look at art ross winners, it lines up with players' peaks in every single recent case except crosby's.

Not getting better.

Almost is a range that starts at 50%+1.

Recent case. So no longer applicable across generations going back to 1917-18. Then Crosby is the exception.

No defining criteria or foundation.

 

[solidmotion]

Not getting better.

Almost is a range that starts at 50%+1.

Recent case. So no longer applicable across generations going back to 1917-18. Then Crosby is the exception.

No defining criteria or foundation.

i don't know why this is such a sticking point for you but ok, again at a glance, it looks like every art ross except maybe howe's in 62-63 and hull's in 59-60 aligns with the player's statistical peak.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re: Mikita, I just can't get over how virtually nobody thought that the leading scorer of the 1960s was the best player of the 1960s.

It's not like there was a decent sized minority in favor of Mikita, either, it was basically nobody.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Re: Mikita, I just can't get over how virtually nobody thought that the leading scorer of the 1960s was the best player of the 1960s.

It's not like there was a decent sized minority in favor of Mikita, either, it was basically nobody.

Mikita gives me the same feeling I have about Pierre Turgeon.A gross comparison given how superior Mikita was, perhaps, but the essence of the feeling is the same.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The early indicators show that, not surprisingly from a mathematical perspective, a Top 3, a Top 5 or a Top 10 placing in a league five times bigger is more difficult to accomplish. I.e on average, you have to be within 10% of the top scorer in the current league to finish in the Top 3 vs. on average, you had to be within 15% of the top scorer in the O6 to finish in the Top 3. This is not a critique of the quality of the respective eras nor anything to do with changes in population or the introduction of europeans to the league, it is simply a statistical reality. It represents a superior performance, relative to ones peers,

here is the margin of art ross over #3 for 2007-2017, then 1962-1970. asterisks for their own art ross wins. i'm not mathematician, but i see no rhyme or reason to this other than random variance and, in 1969 and 1970, what was at the time the greatest offensive duo known to hockey history.

12/82*
14/82
10/82
3/82
6/82
16/82
4/48
18/82*
3/82
21/82
11/82

7/70
10/70
11/70*
11/70*
19/70
27/70*
5/74 (expansion)*
23/76 (esposito)
34/76 (orr)

 

[danincanada]

The we used by Bill James is the "American we". To get the comparison,compare Canadian summer and winter Olympic results from the last 20 years with the American results. Do the same for a 20 year period spanning the 1950s and 1960s. Repeat comparing with Russia /Soviet Union.

The quote you are using from Bill James.

"Which, I agree, is a real problem. I would never encourage my children to be athletes—first, because my children are not athletes, and second, because there are so many people pushing to get to the top in sports that a hundred people are crushed for every one who breaks through."

Rather interesting from the foremost sabremetrician since he relieson a non-supported number. Regardless he clearly recognizes athletes and nonathletes and the fact that people should do what they are best at.

Point is that you equate creating athletes with better athletes and stronger competition. A point that Bill James does not makes and avoids.

My point. Random clusters that Bill James clearly recognizes:

"So is it a random cluster, or is it a rational response to need?
It’s a random cluster. . .or, at least, I think it is.
You can’t make rules for the Almighty. Suppose that you create 100 great young pitchers, and you sprinkle them randomly across history. Will you get one coming along every year or two, or will you get clusters?
Obviously, you’ll get clusters. After Seaver and Palmer and Catfish Hunter and Carlton there were no outstanding young pitchers for ten years, then there was another wave of them, Clemens and Saberhagen and Dwight Gooden and David Cone and others. We’re at the crest now of another wave—the biggest wave of my lifetime, I believe."

Historically random clusters manifest themselves in all the team sports. Team success clusters or individual success clusters.

Team success clusters

CFL - mainly a 8 or 9 team league from 1954:

List of Grey Cup champions - Wikipedia

NBA -relatively young post WWII league,international:

List of NBA champions - Wikipedia

NFL Super Bowl era -North American players:

Super Bowl Winners and Results - Super Bowl History - National Football League - ESPN

MLB -North American segregated then integrated,now international:

List of World Series champions - Wikipedia

Never a direct correlation to league size or provenance in the CFL,MLB, NBA or NFL. What makes the NHL different?

Ted Williams and Stan Musial won batting championships in segregated and integrated versions of MLB.

Honus Wagner(segregated era) and Rod Carew(integrated era) won batting championships in six of seven seasons.

Dickie Moore won two consecutive Ross Trophies in the O6 era,Conor McDavid did likewise the last two seasons.

Never a direct correlation to league size in the CFL,MLB, NBA or NFL. What makes the NHL different?

Linking lists of league champions and random individual accomplishments that are common across eras doesn't explain away everything else.

We get "clusters" in Canada where we tend to be stronger at one position and weaker at another. That's only within Canada though. When other nations are added they have their own versions of those clusters. Look at the US in the 80's and early 90's and the defensemen they produced. Chelios, Leetch, Langway, the Hatchers, even little HOFer Phil Housley. Likewise, look at Sweden recently with Karlsson, Hedman, Klingberg, OEL, and Dahlin on his way. If it was still only a Canadian league we'd only be relying on the Canadian clusters but luckily we have far more than that now. It results in more streams and more talent overall.

Is anything really random? I'm in the camp that says Bobby Orr was born with some natural gifts and an aptitude for hockey. That you could say is "random" but that's not all that was required for him to excel. He also loved everything about hockey or he wouldn't have been that committed it for his whole life. He was also provided with lots of opportunities to skate and play so those talents could come out and he could make them grow. Is that really random? Seems like lots of things needed to actually happen for Bobby Orr to exist as we know him today. We're not getting any "clusters" in hockey if kids don't get an opportunity to play the sport.

 

[daver]

here is the margin of art ross over #3 for 2007-2017, then 1962-1970. asterisks for their own art ross wins. i'm not mathematician, but i see no rhyme or reason to this other than random variance and, in 1969 and 1970, what was at the time the greatest offensive duo known to hockey history.

12/82*
14/82
10/82
3/82
6/82
16/82
4/48
18/82*
3/82
21/82
11/82

7/70
10/70
11/70*
11/70*
19/70
27/70*
5/74 (expansion)*
23/76 (esposito)
34/76 (orr)

These should be in % form, not raw number form given the different lengths in seasons. 10 points behind after 70 games translates to 12 points behind in 82 games.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

These should be in % form, not raw number form given the different lengths in seasons. 10 points behind after 70 games translates to 12 points behind in 82 games.

like i said, i'm not a mathematician. but i would say before we convert the raw numbers into percentages, one would first need to think about whether shorter/longer seasons would make the ratio of art ross leads over #3 larger, shorter, or exactly the same.

Re: Mikita, I just can't get over how virtually nobody thought that the leading scorer of the 1960s was the best player of the 1960s.

It's not like there was a decent sized minority in favor of Mikita, either, it was basically nobody.

that's a good point. but man, those three guys ahead of him...

it's ironic, actually, because i think if you were to compare crosby to one player in history mikita is probably the most apt.

and now that i think about it, surely there must have been a lot of people who thought mikita was the best player of the second half of the '60s right?

 

[daver]

like i said, i'm not a mathematician. but i would say before we convert the raw numbers into percentages, one would first need to think about whether shorter/longer seasons would make the ratio of art ross leads over #3 larger, shorter, or exactly the same.

I can't see why the % would be bigger or smaller. It should be the same.

 

[daver]

like i said, i'm not a mathematician. but i would say before we convert the raw numbers into percentages, one would first need to think about whether shorter/longer seasons would make the ratio of art ross leads over #3 larger, shorter, or exactly the same.



that's a good point. but man, those three guys ahead of him...

it's ironic, actually, because i think if you were to compare crosby to one player in history mikita is probably the most apt.

and now that i think about it, surely there must have been a lot of people who thought mikita was the best player of the second half of the '60s right?

It seems Hull easily garners the more attention likely on for his goalscoring. Was he also seen as the straw that stirred the Hawk's drink moreso than Mikita? I.e. as Hull went, so did the Hawks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since I referenced the poll, I'll just post it again for those who haven't seen it before:

AP poll of the sports writers and sportscasters for "Best Player of the 1960s" (published Jan 29, 1970):

The full results were this:

hull: 436.5
howe: 145.5
orr: 19
mikita: 7
Beliveau, P Esposito, Plante: 2
Worsley, Geoffrion: 1

I guess a writer picked Hull and Howe as tied for them to each have half a point.

A very young Bobby Orr already showing up is similar to a young Maurice Richard already showing up in 1950.

In addition to Hull, also impressive that Howe finished clear #2 in what was the 2nd best decade of his own career.

The Anson Record - Google News Archive Search

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

and now that i think about it, surely there must have been a lot of people who thought mikita was the best player of the second half of the '60s right?

It's possible. Though the poll was taken very early in 1970, and recency bias would tend to favor players who were better more recently, wouldn't it?