I can think of a dozen Russians I would take before Bure. From actually watching the games of course.
Where does Kucherov rank among Russians?
- Thread starter Professor What
- Start date
I can think of a dozen Russians I would take before Bure. From actually watching the games of course.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,841
- 29,414
Bure was a very fun player to watch.
Bure is not particularly great in an all-time sense.
Bure is not particularly great in an all-time sense.
If I recall, you placed more emphasis on the point totals rather than % gap vs. their peers as the reason why. Malkin's PPG domination (vs. #5,#10/#25/#50 etc..) in 11/12 was clearly superior to Kucherov's in 18/19.
Now that 128 points has been matched by Draisaitl and clearly surpassed by McDavid and MacKinnon, are you still arguing that?
Until this year, nobody was putting Kucherov or MacKinnon on OV/Crosby/Malkin level.
Whichever metric we use, is it your opinion that their dominance needs to be toned down, because it is not believable that they are having special seasons, which may indeed outdo the best we saw from the Crosby/OV/Malkin generation?
For example, whether we use adjusted totals or dominance over #2 #5 #10 #20 scorers, Matthews goalscoring season compares quite well to Ovechkins 2008. Do you think we should not accept this because of some eccentric reason (it MUST be easier to stand out, because this generation sucks) or should we indeed accept the accomplishments of the current generation at face value?
Few things.
1. There is no perfect method to "adjusting stats". There isn't even a good one. They're all very bad. Mostly because context changes so much across seasons, it's hard to find any type of perfect formula that'll work for a lot of years.
2. % over peers therefore fluctuates greatly based on peers, etc.
What I can say:
2012 was a very weak year for top forwards. Crosby/Ovechkin out (injury/off year). Spezza? Neal? Kessel? 35 year old Elias? Not exactly a strong crop of top 10 scorers...
Contrast this to 2024:
All top players are having fantastic seasons. McDavid, MacKinnon, Panarin, Pastrnak, Matthews. Outside of Malkin (and in some cases, including Malkin), all of those players I just listed will peak/prime higher than any of the top 10 scorers of 2012 (maybe Stamkos too).
Kucherov leading the league in points this year is definitely a better season to me than Malkin in 2012 was.
As for Kucherov in 2018-2019, similar idea, to a lesser extent. I think Draisaitl in 2020 is also one of the absolute best seasons post lockout, so I don't think that did anything to lower my value of 2019 by Kucherov.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 29,559
- 17,897
Kucherov has two regular seasons better than any of Malkin's. 2023-24 is the 23rd highest adjusted single season all time (16th in the last 90 years).
Between the two:
Rank-Name-Adjusted Point Total-Season
23. Kucherov: 140-2023-24
T-43. Kucherov: 128 2018-19
T-59. Malkin: 122 2011-12
T-85. Malkin: 117 2008-09
T-101. Malkin: 115 2007-08
T-156. Kucherov: 108 2022-23
T-250. Kucherov: 102 2017-18
Malkin's only edge comes in the form of having a better "third" season. 100 skaters had 50 or more points in 2011-12, 3.333 per team. 136 skaters have 50 or more points in 2023-24, 4.25 per team.
Of course scoring is higher, we take that into account! If we didn't, we'd just say Kucherov had 32 more points this season than Malkin did in 2011-12 and call it a day. We see Malkin closes the gap a good amount with Adjusted Scoring but not enough to make up for the gap. 2011-12 especially you really need to look at total league scoring and not some vs the guy who finished 5th or whatever. Crosby had concussions, Ovechkin was playing a trap, P. Kane had a wrist injury and played out of position... These were the top 3 scorers of the decade, in the third season of the decade and all nowhere near the scoring title.
2nd is scoring was Stamkos in a career year, 3rd was Giroux a Team Canada Olympic cut a year and a half later, Jason Spezza, Ilya Kovalchuk, Phil Kessel, James Neal (Malkin's linemate)... it was a fairly ho hum scoring race that season. You can't straight face tell me that compares to MacKinnon in a career year and McDavid in his prime and posting a prime season. I was rather shocked to see that Marian Hossa was the 2nd highest scoring Western Conference player that season. That's well regarded as passed his scoring prime and when he was ultra-dialed in as a 2-way player. The East-West skew of scorers that year is also something that probably bears a deeper dive if someone were to put in the effort. All the top scorers were in the East, yet we can't say the East was just better as the west was pretty dominant head to head.
In present day, Stamkos season probably looks Matthews-ish (but Matthews is likely better, maybe knock off 5 Matthews goals and add 5 more assists). Do you really think Giroux looks McDavid-esque or Spezza Panarin-esque? That's... awfully ambitious.
Between the two:
Rank-Name-Adjusted Point Total-Season
23. Kucherov: 140-2023-24
T-43. Kucherov: 128 2018-19
T-59. Malkin: 122 2011-12
T-85. Malkin: 117 2008-09
T-101. Malkin: 115 2007-08
T-156. Kucherov: 108 2022-23
T-250. Kucherov: 102 2017-18
Malkin's only edge comes in the form of having a better "third" season. 100 skaters had 50 or more points in 2011-12, 3.333 per team. 136 skaters have 50 or more points in 2023-24, 4.25 per team.
Of course scoring is higher, we take that into account! If we didn't, we'd just say Kucherov had 32 more points this season than Malkin did in 2011-12 and call it a day. We see Malkin closes the gap a good amount with Adjusted Scoring but not enough to make up for the gap. 2011-12 especially you really need to look at total league scoring and not some vs the guy who finished 5th or whatever. Crosby had concussions, Ovechkin was playing a trap, P. Kane had a wrist injury and played out of position... These were the top 3 scorers of the decade, in the third season of the decade and all nowhere near the scoring title.
2nd is scoring was Stamkos in a career year, 3rd was Giroux a Team Canada Olympic cut a year and a half later, Jason Spezza, Ilya Kovalchuk, Phil Kessel, James Neal (Malkin's linemate)... it was a fairly ho hum scoring race that season. You can't straight face tell me that compares to MacKinnon in a career year and McDavid in his prime and posting a prime season. I was rather shocked to see that Marian Hossa was the 2nd highest scoring Western Conference player that season. That's well regarded as passed his scoring prime and when he was ultra-dialed in as a 2-way player. The East-West skew of scorers that year is also something that probably bears a deeper dive if someone were to put in the effort. All the top scorers were in the East, yet we can't say the East was just better as the west was pretty dominant head to head.
In present day, Stamkos season probably looks Matthews-ish (but Matthews is likely better, maybe knock off 5 Matthews goals and add 5 more assists). Do you really think Giroux looks McDavid-esque or Spezza Panarin-esque? That's... awfully ambitious.
Last edited:
Professor What
Registered User
Since when is Malkin on the same level as Ovechkin and Crosby anyway? I mean, he's a fine player, but he's not the generational talent the other two are. It's absolutely fair to compare Kucherov to Malkin. I'm with the others who'd take Kucherov's top seasons over Malkin's. Honestly, the only reason I can see to take Malkin over Kucherov for career is that Malkin's been at it a lot longer and is still performing at a decent level. That said, has Malkin really been at a truly elite level since 2011-12?
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Again, the HockeyReference adjusted numbers are just plain bad. I don't know why you are so insistent on using a widely mocked product. You're (hopefully) smarter than that.
I would definitely put Malkin 2012 over Kucherov 2019. But I would put Kucherov 2024 over Malkin 2012.
Kucherov 2019 got far more help than Malkin 2012. With Crosby out, Malkin 2012 basically did it with two B players (Kunitz and Neal). Not to take away from Kucherov 2019, but that team was one of the most stacked clubs of the last 20 years.
If you want to get into their peer domination (which is the most fair method)
| Season | Vs2 | Vs5 | Vs10 | Vs25 |
| Malkin 2009 | 1.03 | 1.20 | 1.28 | 1.51 |
| Malkin 2012 | 1.12 | 1.31 | 1.40 | 1.58 |
| Kucherov 2019 | 1.10 | 1.28 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
| Kucherov 2024 | 1.02 | 1.29 | 1.45 | 1.77 |
Overall, it fits fairly neatly into Kucherov 2024>Malkin 2012>Kucherov 2019>Malkin 2009.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kucherov does overtake Malkin overall. The gap at the end of the 23-24 season is small, but I don't think he's jumped him yet.
The only Russians to approach a consistent level of dominance like Ovechkin were Makarov and Fetisov. They are quite comfortably the top 3 Russians.
I have Kharlamov and Tretiak neck and neck for 4/5 and then a decent gap until Malkin. Then Kucherov is close and then another sizable gap until Mikhailov.
I don't "adjust stats. I compare their relative dominance over their peers; the other elite offensive forwards (e.g. Top 10/25/50).
This seems to be very accepted in the HOH section as the primary, perhaps the exclusive metric. It gets even more reasonable when we are discussing players whose peaks/prime are close in time or even overlapped.
I am presuming you are arguing the Malkin's peers in 11/12 were weaker than Kucherov's. Let's hear that argument.
Here are their PPG numbers BTW:
Malkin's 11/12 PPG - 1.45 vs. the field (min. 40 games)
#5 (Spezza) - 38%
#10 (Tavares - 46%
#25 - 63%
#50 - 81%
Kucherov's 18/19 PPG - 1.56 vs. the field (min. 40 games)
#5 (Marchand) - 22%
#10 (Gaudreau)- 29%
#25 - 51%
#50 - 74%
This is seriously beneath you. You are usually a very objective poster but you are arguing like they do on the main board.
EVERYONE's scoring went starting in 17/18 including many players on the back end or out of their primes like Crosby, Kane, Giroux and Malkin.
Peak Malkin was on their level. He wasn't able to sustain his peak/ or close to it like Crosby did in multiple seasons. If anyone was going to described as injury-prone among the post lockout stars, he would have been at the top of the list.
Thank you. I thought the HOH was turning into the "recent HOH".
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 29,559
- 17,897
I don't think saying HR is widely mocked as an appeal to authority will get me to change my mind. Silly to just say HF Adjusted scoring doesn't capture everything but then think that "VsX" does.
2011-12 Malin vs. 2018-19 Kucherov is close, but I still lean Kucherov. Pointing out the "help" ignores that Kucherov outscored his closest teammate by 30 points. Once you get passed Stamkos and Point, you're down to sub-60 point players. That just feels like a Center bias more than anything else. Both teams were 1st in the League in goals, of course Tampa scored 43 more goals as a team and there's nothing wrong with era-adjusting. Someone in the Main Forum poll tried to explain that "Kucherov was lucky to ride a great team, Malkin MADE his team great". That sort of childish double standard is the thing people should get away from.
2011-12 Malkin vs. 2023-24 Kucherov is not particularly close in my eyes.
Malkin at his best was better than Crosby, or Oveckin. In my opinion of course. that being said Crosby has been far more consistent year in year out.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,663
- 10,300
Perfection isn't the standard, nor is it obtainable.
"More indicative than raw stats" ought to be the standard for adjusted stats, and then try to improve from there.
Last edited:
Namba 17
Registered User
- May 9, 2011
- 1,688
- 562
If you're talking about HF it's one story. HF is great source of NA hockey knowledges. You can find here really great experts and discussions. I know 1000 times more about NA hockey because my time here. But their knowledge of European hockey is close to none. ,
But if you want to start Mikhailov - Kharlamov discussion, I suppose, you need to start a new topic, cause this one is for Kucherov.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 29,559
- 17,897
Yes, context is very important. Such as noting that Western Conference players in 2011-12 were having their scoring suppressed by how low scoring games in that conference were and by also noting that top level scoring is probably at its most deepest competitive field ever. Overall scoring rates matter a lot but one should look at the massive gap that Kucherov, MacKinnon, McDavid, Panarin and Pastrnak all have within their own teams. Globalization (not just in making the League but playing at the highest level) has to play a role when you widen the historical scope.
Top 12 Scorers 2023-24:
Kucherov - Russian, behind iron curtain until about 30 years ago, even more recently growing up playing a similar style on similar ice surface
MacKinnnon - trad Canadian
McDavid - trad Canadian
Panarin - Russian, see Kucherov
Pastrnak - Czech, similar to Kucherov/Panarin factors
Matthews - American Southwest, very recent hockey infrastructure
Draisaitl - German, very few NHL players historically no great players until super recently
Rantanen - Finnish, good flow of talent for about 30 years, prior to that one notable player ever (ten years prior)
Miller - Non-trad American (grew up in Ohio, then Pittsburgh before USNDTP)
Nylander - 2nd gen Swede
Forsberg - Swede
Kaprizov - Russian, see Kucherov/Panarin
Here is what that looked like in 1981-82:
Gretzky - trad Canadian
Bossy - trad Canadian
Stastny - defecting Czechoslovakian
Maruk - trad Candian
Trottier - trad Canadian
Savard - trad Canadian
Dionne - trad Canadian
Smith - trad Canadian
Ciccarelli - trad Canadian
Taylor - trad Canadian
Anderson - trad Canadian
Hawerchuk - trad Canadian
Not sure how "vsX le master race" captures the different landscape there. Unless you just pretend Canadians stopped being good at Hockey, which is nonsense.
Top 12 Scorers 2023-24:
Kucherov - Russian, behind iron curtain until about 30 years ago, even more recently growing up playing a similar style on similar ice surface
MacKinnnon - trad Canadian
McDavid - trad Canadian
Panarin - Russian, see Kucherov
Pastrnak - Czech, similar to Kucherov/Panarin factors
Matthews - American Southwest, very recent hockey infrastructure
Draisaitl - German, very few NHL players historically no great players until super recently
Rantanen - Finnish, good flow of talent for about 30 years, prior to that one notable player ever (ten years prior)
Miller - Non-trad American (grew up in Ohio, then Pittsburgh before USNDTP)
Nylander - 2nd gen Swede
Forsberg - Swede
Kaprizov - Russian, see Kucherov/Panarin
Here is what that looked like in 1981-82:
Gretzky - trad Canadian
Bossy - trad Canadian
Stastny - defecting Czechoslovakian
Maruk - trad Candian
Trottier - trad Canadian
Savard - trad Canadian
Dionne - trad Canadian
Smith - trad Canadian
Ciccarelli - trad Canadian
Taylor - trad Canadian
Anderson - trad Canadian
Hawerchuk - trad Canadian
Not sure how "vsX le master race" captures the different landscape there. Unless you just pretend Canadians stopped being good at Hockey, which is nonsense.
Voight
#winning
I don't think it's fair to call 2022 a meh regular season. He missed almost half the season due to injury, paced for 120 points which would've landed him 2nd in scoring, behind McDavids 123.
By all accounts he was again one of the best players in the league.
Well it's about his rank on the Russian list so it's not really off topic. I don't know how is he viewed in Russia (though the fact they made a movie about him and not Mikhailov is quite telling) but here in Czechia Kharlamov too is viewed as the bigger star.
DitchMarner
It's time.
I'm about to make a longer post on this subject on the Numbers board, but I'll say this about adjusted scoring:
I like HR's adjusted formula for valuing goals and points. Points and goals are worth more (ie more valuable) when scoring across the League is lower. This is simply a basic mathematical fact. There is really no subjectivity involved.
A 50 goal season in a league where 8.02 goals are scored on average per game is not equal in value to a 50 goal season in a League where 5.67 goals are scored per game. The latter season is unquestionably more valuable to a team.
However, when we get into making comparisons and asking which player played better, there will always be a degree of subjectivity involved. You cannot simply look at or consider one thing and say, "This says Player A was better; therefore, he was better; case closed."
I like HR's adjusted formula for valuing goals and points. Points and goals are worth more (ie more valuable) when scoring across the League is lower. This is simply a basic mathematical fact. There is really no subjectivity involved.
A 50 goal season in a league where 8.02 goals are scored on average per game is not equal in value to a 50 goal season in a League where 5.67 goals are scored per game. The latter season is unquestionably more valuable to a team.
However, when we get into making comparisons and asking which player played better, there will always be a degree of subjectivity involved. You cannot simply look at or consider one thing and say, "This says Player A was better; therefore, he was better; case closed."
Namba 17
Registered User
- May 9, 2011
- 1,688
- 562
Its about Kucherov rank. Not who was better Mikhailov or Kharlamov.
That's a new word in hockey discussions
Who has more movies about him
Anyway, I'll explain my point about Mikhailov - Kharlamov here only if topic starter allow me to do it.
Except there is when the formula doesn't account for PP opportunities and TOI. Performance vs. peers is a much better, if not the only, starting point. There is no "adjusting" needed. It is raw stats.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Yeah, I've been trying to push this concept as well recently. Even if you "perfect" the formula for adjusted scoring...you don't win anything. The whole concept is just to take a shortcut towards player evaluation.
Even if I come up with the best formula for equating Minnesota High School hockey scoring with USHL scoring, I didn't actually do anything. I still have to watch all the players involved. Maybe you can say that I've helped my watchlist out a bit - and that's what the case is here. You'll be able to reasonably surmise that Mike Rogers wasn't near the same tier as Nikita Kucherov, but you still have to dig in and do the work. Just because one player ends up 1,250 adjusted points and another one ends up at 1,243...it doesn't adjudicate anything.
Even if I come up with the best formula for equating Minnesota High School hockey scoring with USHL scoring, I didn't actually do anything. I still have to watch all the players involved. Maybe you can say that I've helped my watchlist out a bit - and that's what the case is here. You'll be able to reasonably surmise that Mike Rogers wasn't near the same tier as Nikita Kucherov, but you still have to dig in and do the work. Just because one player ends up 1,250 adjusted points and another one ends up at 1,243...it doesn't adjudicate anything.
Professor What
Registered User
Fine by me. I'm curious as to the rationale anyway. I've always seen Kharlamov ranked higher, but I think you're knowledgeable about Soviet hockey, so I'd like to hear the argument the other way.Its about Kucherov rank. Not who was better Mikhailov or Kharlamov.
That's a new word in hockey discussions
Anyway, I'll explain my point about Mikhailov - Kharlamov here only if topic starter allow me to do it.
DitchMarner
It's time.
If a player scores 60 goals in a scoring environment of about eight goals per game and another scores 55 goals in a scoring environment of about six goals per game, the latter player's goal scoring is more valuable in the sense that he probably helped his team win more games and pick up more points with his scoring.
But did he play better? That's not necessarily the same thing. That's where things like efficiency of scoring, opportunities given, teammate and linemate quality, all-around play come into the question.
I don't think HR's adjusted totals are meant to try to determine if a player played better than another. They just give relative value to goals and points. Like currency, these things do not have a fixed value. 50 goals in one season isn't the same thing as 50 goals in another.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 29,559
- 17,897
Yes, what you are talking about is scouting, which is easy* enough for two contemporary players as they are playing at the same point in time in the world. Tougher for players across eras, even if those eras are only 12 years apart. One could say definitively that McDavid skates faster, has better edges, shoots harder, passes crisper, stickhandles better than all players 40+ years ago, but then it's discussion about better equipment, more time on ice, this guy would do just as well if he grew up in present environment, etc.
Player evaluation also requires us to remove cognitive biases, which is very hard. For one, nobody sees every shift of every player. And even if we did, the "wow" factor of a more physically dominant player can certainly lead to improper "talent evaluations" than players that thrive more off pace and iq. Kucherov himself only went 58th in the NHL Draft. As absurd as it is, you can sort of "see" it because certain traits do not overwhelm physically so he may be easy enough to pass up for a scout taking one view and moving to the next player.
* of course not easy, scouts miss all the time
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Black-Eyed Susan Stakes (Gr. 2) - PIMLICO RACE 13, Baltimore - PEACOCKWagers: 5Staked: $456.00Event closes- Updated: