10 Art Ross vs. 10 Rockets?

More impressive to accomplish?


  • Total voters
    129
Status
Not open for further replies.

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,491
10,046
It depends.

If someone is on a dynasty and racking up secondary assists, that's not particularly impressive.

If it's Gretzky and the Art Ross winner also has 5 Rockets in that time frame, then the Art Rosses are more impressive by a huge margin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 780il

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Art Ross AINEC.

No disrespect to Ovechkin, but in more than one of his Art Ross seasons, he wasn’t one of the 5 or 10 very best players in the league. Same goes for a few other Rocket Richard winners.

Meanwhile, every single Art Ross winner that I can remember had a strong argument for being the best player in the NHL that season.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
I have to agree with the Art Ross selections above. Especially in Gretzky's case, where he was winning many of them by 70+ points (once by 79 pts). I mean... that's basically 1 full PPG above the 2nd highest scorer in the league. Even if it was the 80's, that's ridiculous.

I don't really mind secondary assists, but I get why others do. Still, a thread here a few years back in the HOH section had a breakdown of the best playmakers and Gretzky had the highest % of primary assists of anyone on the list, and was a full 1% above #2 (which may not sound like much, but the gap between 2 and like #30 or so was only 1%).

That being said, both are insane achievements, and if OV reaches 10 that is a staggering accomplishment. Heck, even what he's done so far is incredible.
 
Last edited:

ijuka

Registered User
May 14, 2016
22,157
14,648
Art ross for this, but I wish there was some weighing for the points. A system where a secondary assist is worth the same as a goal is broken. But still you got to take the 35+80 guy over the 50+30 guy.
 

KoozNetsOff 92

Hala Madrid
Apr 6, 2016
8,567
8,229
Art Ross AINEC.

No disrespect to Ovechkin, but in more than one of his Art Ross seasons, he wasn’t one of the 5 or 10 very best players in the league. Same goes for a few other Rocket Richard winners.

Meanwhile, every single Art Ross winner that I can remember had a strong argument for being the best player in the NHL that season.

I assume you meant in OV's rocket seasons? Which rocket season was he not at least a top 10 player?

07/08: #1 (hart, Lindsay, Ross)

08/09: #1 (hart, Lindsay)

12/13: #1 or #2 (hart)

13/14: hard to say because of his -35

14/15: #1 skater (2nd in hart voting, Lindsay finalist)

15/16: debatable (6th in hart voting)

17/18: debatable (9th in hart voting)

So 4/7x he was the best skater. And for 15/16 and 17/18 the argument for him being top 10 is stronger than him not being top 10. It's basically only 13/14 that he wasn't.

I'm not arguing rocket > ross, I voted ross. Just asking about OV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngelDuck

Plural

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
33,703
4,853
13/14 is a year where he wasn't a top-10 player. Here are 10 players who were all ahead of him IMO.

Crosby
Getzlaf
Weber
Giroux
Keith
Chara
Rask
Varlamov
Seguin
Bergeron

You probably could make a good case for few others too like Kessel, Kopitar or Benn.
Other than that season, I'd say he's been a top-10 player every season he won the Richard.

Generally speaking though, there have been instances where league leading goal-scorer is not top-10 player few to several times. I'm not sure if that's ever happened with Art Ross winner.

Here are few names I think don't qualify as top-10 players in a year they led the league in goals:

OV 13-14
Nash 03-04 (JFC it's been 15 years since that happened!!)
Hedjuk 02-03 (arguable)
Bondra 94-95 (and arguably 97-98 too)
Tkachuk 96-97
Stoughton 79-80
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JoeThorntonsRooster

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I assume you meant in OV's rocket seasons? Which rocket season was he not at least a top 10 player?

07/08: #1 (hart, Lindsay, Ross)

08/09: #1 (hart, Lindsay)

12/13: #1 or #2 (hart)

13/14: hard to say because of his -35

14/15: #1 skater (2nd in hart voting, Lindsay finalist)

15/16: debatable (6th in hart voting)

17/18: debatable (9th in hart voting)

So 4/7x he was the best skater. And for 15/16 and 17/18 the argument for him being top 10 is stronger than him not being top 10. It's basically only 13/14 that he wasn't.

I'm not arguing rocket > ross, I voted ross. Just asking about OV.

Yeah, that -35 season definitely comes to mind. Plus minus isn’t perfect but anybody who had the league’s worst +/- at -35 was not a top-10 player.

15-16, I don’t remember him being one of the best players. Kane, Thornton, Karlsson, Doughty, Holtby, Benn, Kopitar, and Crosby all come to mind as guys who were pretty clearly better. He only finished with 71 points.

17-18, same case for the regular season, guys like McDavid, Kucherov, Giroux, MacKinnon, Hall, Malkin, Kopitar were all clearly better. The playoffs seriously bring his stock up and I wouldn’t be against calling him a top-5 player for the regular season and playoffs combined but I’m just talking regular season.

And this season, he’s clearly below Kucherov, Gaudreau, Kane, McDavid, Crosby, Burns, and Giordano.

The Hart Trophy is a narrative/reputation award like any other. For example, you mention 2016 where Ovechkin was 6th in Hart Trophy voting, but Jagr was 7th at the age of 43, with 66 points. Ovechkin is a living legend and he, just like Jagr, will always get some extra love in voting for those kinds of awards. So I don’t think you can just use Hart votes to say he was definitely top-10 in those seasons.

And maybe he was actually top-10 in those season, but he was definitely on the lower end of the top-10. There were at least 5 guys that were clearly better than him in 3 of the 7 seasons where he won the Richard. That’s why I said “top-5/10”, so that I could cover my tracks. :laugh:

Ovechkin isn’t the only one though, he’s just an example. You could also point to Stamkos in 2010, Cheechoo in 2006, Nash in 2004, and Hejduk in 2003 as Rocket Richard winners who definitely weren’t the best player in the NHL in the year they won. You can’t really do the same with any Art Ross winners.
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
A goal can be had without an assist. Assists require a goal to be scored.

That very simple concept has always had me on the goals train.

Art Ross AINEC.

No disrespect to Ovechkin, but in more than one of his Art Ross seasons, he wasn’t one of the 5 or 10 very best players in the league. Same goes for a few other Rocket Richard winners.

Meanwhile, every single Art Ross winner that I can remember had a strong argument for being the best player in the NHL that season.

As has been said Ovechkin was a Top 10 skater except for maybe the -35 year.

As for Art Ross, see there's less players who have won it so you get concentrated runs. Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr accounted for 21 seasons in a span of drum roll, 21 seasons. So that's not really fair.

Ovechkin has dominated like no other in over 40 years. Esposito won 6 straight but with Bobby Freaking Orr.

To answer Art Ross winners that weren't assumed to be I guess Top 3 well:

02 Iginla
Sedins
Both St. Louis years
Malkin 2nd
Benn

Hard to quantify McDavid and the Thornton year was good but I thought Jagr and Lidstrom were pretty clear ahead better players, maybe Redden too.

In goals leaders it's really just Cheechoo, Hejduk and the 41 season where I guess Nash is out of place but really the margins for everybody just sucks.

Going back more you got maybe Steve Shutt, the 1979-80 season 56 club and Bondra?
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,579
18,347
Las Vegas
A goal can be had without an assist. Assists require a goal to be scored.

That very simple concept has always had me on the goals train.

but on the flip side, it's much easier for a good player to rack up goals by being put with a great/elite player. Fluke Rockets are easier than fluke Ross

example: Cheechoo scoring 56 and winning the Rocket parked next to Thornton

To win the Ross you basically have to be the best offensive player for the entire year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: libertarian

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
An Art Ross is almost always better than a Rocket. Especially 10 of them.

There are exceptions. Brett Hull won a rocket with 86 goals. I'd take that Rocket win above most Art Rosses. But for the most part - it's Ross.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hippasus

Plural

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
33,703
4,853
An Art Ross is almost always better than a Rocket. Especially 10 of them.

There are exceptions. Brett Hull won a rocket with 86 goals. I'd take that Rocket win above most Art Rosses. But for the most part - it's Ross.

That's a good point. If you take 10 best goal-scoring seasons that didn't end up in Art Ross win and compare them to 10 "worst" Art Ross wins you'd probably take those goal-scoring seasons. But a general rule of thumb is, the Art Ross is more valuable.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Meanwhile, every single Art Ross winner that I can remember had a strong argument for being the best player in the NHL that season.

From 1968 (NHL expansion) to 2018, there have been 52 complete seasons. The Art Ross winner won the Hart 30 times. The Art Ross winner finished second 11 times, and finished third 5 times. In total, the Art Ross winner was at least a Hart trophy finalist in 46 of the past 52 seasons (88% of the time).

The only exceptions? Gretzky in 1990 (finished 4th), Lemieux in 1992 (finished 5th), McDavid in 2018 (finished 5th), St. Louis in 2013 (finished 9th), Benn in 2015 (finished 12th), and Gretzky in 1994 (zero votes). Note that four of these players were on teams that missed the playoffs (McDavid, St. Louis, Benn and Gretzky in 1994).

I haven't done the same analysis for the goal-scoring leader (or the assist leader, for that matter) but I have a hard time imagining the G or A leaders having a better track record than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeThorntonsRooster

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
Since 1944-45:

Ross
10- Gretzky
6- Lemieux, Howe
5- Jagr, Esposito

Rocket

7-Ovechkin, Hull
6-Esposito
5-Gretzky, Howe, Richard

You see some overlap there. Now what I seem to find is goal scoring leads require prime years. Players like Gretzky or Howe could slow down but still plop up a lot of points.

Ovechkin will be the oldest goal scoring leader this year and have the most titles after turning 30.
 

Brucelenok

Registered User
Aug 9, 2016
941
941
Honestly it depends. On paper 10 Rosses look more prestige. But let's say hypothetically speaking, if one player wins 10 Art Rosses averaging 30 goals and 80 assists each of of those seasons and another player 10 Rockets with 60+ goals most of those seasons or at least around 55ish when nobody in your era touches even 50 once or twice, with 40 assists, I would take 60 goals (100 points) guy over 110 points guy every time
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingsFan95

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
Well, this kind of isn't even really a fair question. The Art Ross goes to the guy who got the most points, meaning the most combined goals and assists, whereas the Rocket goes to the guy with the most goals, which is kind of like a partial Art Ross.

Theoretically, if you created a new award called the Gretzky, for the guy with most assists, how would that compare to the Art Ross? The answer is obvious.

And even the Art Ross pays homage to goal scoring prowess, as it is the first tiebreaker.

On an historical analysis, Art Ross winners are just plain better players than goal leaders/Rocket winners:
1970: Orr vs Esposito
1975: Orr vs Esposito
1976: Lafleur vs Leach
1977: Lafleur vs Shutt
1980: Dionne vs Gare/Simmer/Stoughton
1981: Gretzky vs Bossy
1986: Gretzky vs Kurri
1990: Gretzky vs Hull
1991: Gretzky vs Hull
1992: Lemieux vs Hull
1993: Lemieux vs Mogilny/Selanne
1994: Gretzky vs Bure
1995: Jagr vs Bondra
1997: Lemieux vs Tkachuk

Scoring goals is a wonderful thing. But scoring fewer goals, while making teammates better, and producing more offense overall is even better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: psycat and Ageless

BackToTheBasics

Registered User
Dec 26, 2013
3,815
776
While I think it is more difficult to win 10 rockets, winning 10 Art Ross trophies is just a bit more impressive.
 

StoneHands

Registered User
Feb 26, 2013
6,608
3,674
Art Ross for sure. There's a lot more competition for the Art Ross on a year to year basis than the Rocket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->