5th Greatest all time

[BigBadBruins7708]

I pretty much agree with your list and assessment, though I think Ovechkin needs to be added too. He's another of those players that I think has a weaker argument for fifth, but I also think has one of the weaker arguments to bottom out among the group too. To me, the biggest point in Hull's favor is the argument that he's the greatest goal scorer ever, and Ovechkin is very much in the thick of that too, and, I'd argue he's passed Hull there. We might have finally seen him start to trail off this past season, but to remain a legit 50-goal scorer as long as he has is incredible -- only Covid prevented it last year.

While posting this, I also want to acknowledge that my views on how some of these players should be ranked has been shaken up a good bit in the last few months. I'm not sure how much that says about what I've learned, how much it says about my tendency to be indecisive at times, and how much it says about how close a lot of them are, but while the first two are factors, I think the third one is key.

The other thing in Hull's favor is you can extrapolate out and make the claim that if he didnt go to the WHA, he would have the all time goals record and more retro Rockets

He went to the WHA in 1971 at age 34. To that point he had 604 NHL goals in 1036 games

It's not a stretch to put him at 900+ NHL goals if he played in the expansion era 70s

 

[seventieslord]

The other thing in Hull's favor is you can extrapolate out and make the claim that if he didnt go to the WHA, he would have the all time goals record and more retro Rockets

He went to the WHA in 1971 at age 34. To that point he had 604 NHL goals in 1036 games

It's not a stretch to put him at 900+ NHL goals if he played in the expansion era 70s

And also, it's not just about goals with Hull. He is one of the strongest consistent point producers of all-time. Mostly because he scored a ton of goals, sure, but also because he didn't have seasons like 50-21-71. Or 48-19-67. He was.... I don't want to say "more balanced", but... "less unbalanced".

 

[Golden_Jet]

Bobby Hull for fifth for me.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I pretty much agree with your list and assessment, though I think Ovechkin needs to be added too. He's another of those players that I think has a weaker argument for fifth, but I also think has one of the weaker arguments to bottom out among the group too. To me, the biggest point in Hull's favor is the argument that he's the greatest goal scorer ever, and Ovechkin is very much in the thick of that too, and, I'd argue he's passed Hull there. We might have finally seen him start to trail off this past season, but to remain a legit 50-goal scorer as long as he has is incredible -- only Covid prevented it last year.

While posting this, I also want to acknowledge that my views on how some of these players should be ranked has been shaken up a good bit in the last few months. I'm not sure how much that says about what I've learned, how much it says about my tendency to be indecisive at times, and how much it says about how close a lot of them are, but while the first two are factors, I think the third one is key.

To me there's different brackets. Richard, Hull & Ovechkin are in the goal-scoring bracket. Beliveau & Messier are in the all-around, team success bracket. Mikita, Espo, Jagr, and probably soon to be McDavid are in the scoring bracket. Crosby's in the scoring bracket too, but he's sandwiched by Jagr & McDavid, so he's not winning that bracket IMO (he didn't even dominate his era, never beat Ovi/Malkin head to head when at peak/healthy... his best scoring levels aren't significantly higher than them either). I don't see him winning the all-around/team success bracket either. So that's why people shift between the two, depending on which sort of player they're arguing against. I've never seen so many warped arguments for a player, esp. how PPG is important in the regular season (when there's a balanced schedule and an equal number of games available) and total points in the playoffs (when things are massively imbalanced and contingent on team quality over time). I think Lafleur has the scoring & team success combo over Crosby too. So while he's very good in many areas, he's not the best in any, and I would take Jagr, Hull, Believeau, etc. in terms of overall peak & career value.

 

[Professor What]

The other thing in Hull's favor is you can extrapolate out and make the claim that if he didnt go to the WHA, he would have the all time goals record and more retro Rockets

He went to the WHA in 1971 at age 34. To that point he had 604 NHL goals in 1036 games

It's not a stretch to put him at 900+ NHL goals if he played in the expansion era 70s

I'm not saying it's the only argument for Hull, but I do think it's the strongest. I also agree with @seventieslord in saying that Hull is "less unbalanced." But still, it has to be noted that while Hull led the NHL in goals seven times, Ovechkin has done it nine times. The only WHA season that Hull had that I think could remotely be considered as a potential league-leading season in that 77-goal season in 1974-75, and that seems unlikely to me. I think the difference in league strenghts would have been enough to see to it that Esposito's 61 would have still been the mark to beat. Ovechkin led the league as a 34-year-old, and without that WHA season, Hull's last time would have been as a 30-year-old, which gives
Ovechkin a longevity boost as an elite scorer. By the same token, Ovechkin has lost a full season and roughly a half season to lockouts and a not insignificant part of another to Covid. The what if game is fair, but then it also has to be noted that Ovechkin would easily be closer to 800 than 700 goals if not for those things.

Ovechkin has three Harts as compared to two, though Hull has more top three finishes. They have the same number of all-star selections, with Hull having more first team choices, but Ovechkin also having a season where he managed to be selected as both a right wing and a left wing. That shouldn't have happened, but it's impressive, nonetheless. Ovechkin also has a Conn Smythe, and while the trophy wasn't around in 1961, the SIHR gave their retro Smythe to Pilote in a project where they did a really good job over all, which gives a slight advantage to Ovechkin.

My point wasn't really to make a case for one over the other but to point out that both should be in this discussion, as I think it both adds more to the conversation in comparing the clear cut two best left wings to the other greats and Ovechkin's rivalry with Crosby, which I do believe is very historically significant being included adds to it as well. Basically, what I said before was an oversimplification, but I still believe a more complete analysis supports the concept.

 

[Professor What]

To me there's different brackets. Richard, Hull & Ovechkin are in the goal-scoring bracket. Beliveau & Messier are in the all-around, team success bracket. Mikita, Espo, Jagr, and probably soon to be McDavid are in the scoring bracket. Crosby's in the scoring bracket too, but he's sandwiched by Jagr & McDavid, so he's not winning that bracket IMO (he didn't even dominate his era, never beat Ovi/Malkin head to head when at peak/healthy... his best scoring levels aren't significantly higher than them either). I don't see him winning the all-around bracket either. So that's why people shift between the two, depending on which sort of player they're arguing against. I've never seen so many warped arguments for a player, esp. how PPG is important in the regular season (when there's a balanced schedule and an equal number of games available) and total points in the playoffs (when things are massively imbalanced and contingent on team quality over time).

I agree fully with the bolded, and to a large degree the three guys you mention almost have to be mentioned in the same breath in a conversation like this. They're not clones by any stretch, but their styles and results are similar enough that I don't see how two can be included and the other not.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The other thing in Hull's favor is you can extrapolate out and make the claim that if he didnt go to the WHA, he would have the all time goals record and more retro Rockets

He went to the WHA in 1971 at age 34. To that point he had 604 NHL goals in 1036 games

It's not a stretch to put him at 900+ NHL goals if he played in the expansion era 70s

I'd put him around 800 career NHL goals after converting his WHA goals into NHL goals, with a good chance at top 5 in '75.

And also, it's not just about goals with Hull. He is one of the strongest consistent point producers of all-time. Mostly because he scored a ton of goals, sure, but also because he didn't have seasons like 50-21-71. Or 48-19-67. He was.... I don't want to say "more balanced", but... "less unbalanced".

Less unbalanced than which players? His point scoring was tilted towards goal-scoring. Not as much as guys like Ovechkin or Bure, but he still had more goals than assists. I don't think he was more consistent point producer than Jagr or Mikita, nor as balanced of a scorer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Less unbalanced than which players? His point scoring was tilted towards goal-scoring. Not as much as guys like Ovechkin or Bure, but he still had more goals than assists. I don't think he was more consistent point producer than Jagr or Mikita, nor as balanced of a scorer.

He was responding to a post about Ovechkin. And I agree with him. Even if Ovechkin slightly edges Bobby Hull as a goal scorer in the end (something that I'm not entirely convinced of right now), Hull rather decisively beats Ovechkin as a point producer.

 

[The Panther]

I dunno, I do actually think that a fairly high Hart finish is a lot stronger of a look than not having a fairly high Hart finish.

If nothing else, it avoids a potential negative that could drop him out of the conversation entirely. Look at what Crosby did at age 33, then look at what Morenz did at age 33.

Er... You obviously have to apply some era-context to these things. In the post-salary explosion (late-90s) era, players staying in shape, signing long-term deals, and continuing to perform at late-prime level through age 33 is nothing special. In fact, we expect it now.

But that only started in the early/mid-1990s. I remember my Hockey guide from 1987 which stated that it was "impossible to imagine" Wayne Gretzky playing beyond his 30th birthday. The previous generation of stars (born early-to-late-1950s) flamed out quickly by the time they were 30, and in their early-30s were retired. And this was a half century after Morenz. Now, there have always been players who played longer and at a higher level than others, in any era, and Morenz's longevity was not particularly impressive, even in his era, but it wasn't like now when there was big financial incentive to play longer.

Anyway...

I do agree with you that adding on high Hart-finish seasons to an already impressive resume is really good. It obviously adds some late-prime / longevity credit to the player's career value.

On the other hand, I get what your opponent is saying. I'm not sure that aging players adding on 'really-good-but-not-quite-elite' seasons to their resume pushes them any further up the all-time rankings. Maybe it does if these seasons end in a Cup win or something, but otherwise it's really just for longevity value.

Obviously, I would consider all factors when evaluating individual players, but for me, personally, the key aspect is consistent performance during an extended (6-8 years +) peak/prime. Now, obviously, if that prime can go on longer it's going to elevate the player's ranking... a little, but not necessarily a lot. Maybe more than most people, I would tend to focus on the peak/prime seasons, but not one of less than about 7-8 years.

To use examples, Bobby Orr's ranking doesn't lose any points, for me, because of his shortened career. He played just enough -- consistently and without missing many games -- that his foreshortened career is irrelevant to my ranking of him. Eric Lindros is an example of one who is "on the fence". His NHL prime from 1993-ish to 2000 is just about long enough that I don't dock him points for a shortened prime... but he regularly missed some games during that whole period, which does push him down my list a little (not a lot).

 

[The Panther]

Not saying that he's the 5th greatest player in history, but if the games mattered, I'd take Messier over any of the names mentioned -- Beliveau, Hull, Hasek, Jagr, Bourque, Ovechkin, etc.

I get exactly what you mean, and I agree.

Everyone knows I'm a Messier fan, but I strongly disagree with anyone trying to elevate Messier into the top-10 players or whatever. He just wasn't that skilled, or consistent enough in his younger days (or two-way enough in his later prime). I would never rank him that high.

The requirements for teams change over time. Like, nowadays, you need four lines of skilled forwards to win the Cup. But in Messier's prime (late 80s/early 90s), you needed two skilled lines -- preferably with some muscle on them --, one line of checkers, and one line of goons / tough guys. In his era, Messier's presence would help your team win more than any other individual.

That doesn't mean Mess was a top-10 player, but if you were coming at it from the "whichever guy helps you win is best" extreme angle, I can see it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

And also, it's not just about goals with Hull. He is one of the strongest consistent point producers of all-time. Mostly because he scored a ton of goals, sure, but also because he didn't have seasons like 50-21-71. Or 48-19-67. He was.... I don't want to say "more balanced", but... "less unbalanced".

Not to mention, there were fewer assists per goal leaguewide during Hull's career compared to Ovechkin's career (there were about 1.64 assists per goal during Hull's career, and 1.70 assists per goal during Ovechkin's career).

Hull's assist-to-goal ratio is about 14% better than Ovechkin's, and he did that in an environment where there were about 4% fewer assists per goal. Factor in the scoring environment, and that's about an 18% edge for Hull.

Granted this is a small adjustment, but Hull was "less unbalanced" (I like the way this is phrased) in an era when it was harder to do that.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Also Hull era was a 70-72 game season

 

[daver]

Er... You obviously have to apply some era-context to these things. In the post-salary explosion (late-90s) era, players staying in shape, signing long-term deals, and continuing to perform at late-prime level through age 33 is nothing special. In fact, we expect it now.

So we should apply context that diminishes the significance of Crosby arguably having an elite prime that is only bettered by Wayne and Howe in longevity, what about context for Crosby's bad luck and timing with injuries?

If he plays 5% more career games (50 games) at key times in his career, he likely has 3 more Art Rosses and at least two more Harts/Lindsays. Two of those Art Rosses would have been up there with Hull and Beliveau's peak seasons.

You can argue that Beliveau has a couple more Art Rosses he plays a few more games too to be fair.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Also Hull era was a 70-72 game season

Ten seasons of 70 game schedules.

So possibly 120 more games in Hull's first 10 seasons.

 

[Troubadour]

To me there's different brackets. Richard, Hull & Ovechkin are in the goal-scoring bracket. Beliveau & Messier are in the all-around, team success bracket. Mikita, Espo, Jagr, and probably soon to be McDavid are in the scoring bracket. Crosby's in the scoring bracket too, but he's sandwiched by Jagr & McDavid, so he's not winning that bracket IMO

Don't forget Kucherov who's been slowly building a legacy that could, if all goes well, end up being a very luxurious one. He's well on his way to a second straight Smythe. I know, Sid dubiously given two in a row has forever cast a shadow on such an accomplishment, but not only Kucherov looks like outscoring Sid in his "Smythe runs" combined by a funny 15-20 points. He's already made his mark on the reg season record books as well.A couple more Arts should automatically put him in with the rest of that scoring pack.

 

[GuineaPig]

Don't forget Kucherov who's been slowly building a legacy that could, if all goes well, end up being a very luxurious one. He's well on his way to a second straight Smythe.

Hedman won the Smythe last year.

 

[K Fleur]

Don't forget Kucherov who's been slowly building a legacy that could, if all goes well, end up being a very luxurious one. He's well on his way to a second straight Smythe. I know, Sid dubiously given two in a row has forever cast a shadow on such an accomplishment, but not only Kucherov looks like outscoring Sid in his "Smythe runs" combined by a funny 15-20 points. He's already made his mark on the reg season record books as well.A couple more Arts should automatically put him in with the rest of that scoring pack.

Kucherov is almost definitely going to win his first Smythe in a couple days; not his second straight.

 

[Troubadour]

Kucherov is almost definitely going to win his first Smythe in a couple days; not his second straight.

See? That's all on people who gave Sid two in a row.

 

[Overrated]

The other thing in Hull's favor is you can extrapolate out and make the claim that if he didnt go to the WHA, he would have the all time goals record and more retro Rockets

He went to the WHA in 1971 at age 34. To that point he had 604 NHL goals in 1036 games

It's not a stretch to put him at 900+ NHL goals if he played in the expansion era 70s

Extremely unlikely he would start getting more goals in his late 30s than before. Mikita's numbers too decreased throughout the 70s.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Extremely unlikely he would start getting more goals in his late 30s than before. Mikita's numbers too decreased throughout the 70s.

Hull didn't need a jump, just stay even.

He scored 50 in his last year before going to the WHA

 

[Czech Your Math]

Don't forget Kucherov who's been slowly building a legacy that could, if all goes well, end up being a very luxurious one. He's well on his way to a second straight Smythe. I know, Sid dubiously given two in a row has forever cast a shadow on such an accomplishment, but not only Kucherov looks like outscoring Sid in his "Smythe runs" combined by a funny 15-20 points. He's already made his mark on the reg season record books as well.A couple more Arts should automatically put him in with the rest of that scoring pack.

He's already one of the best in the playoffs, but it's quite early to put him in the discussion for #5. If there was no McDavid, then he would have a decent chance at another couple of Rosses, but since there is and Kucherov is 28 with some history of injury, he's got his work cut out for him in that regard.

I was going to wait until playoffs were over, but I calculated some players' adjusted playoff points during their primes, using this method:

1968-2020 - Leading Playoff Scorers Adjusted to Opponent GA

	AGES		YEARS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG
Gretzky	20	28	1981	1989	128	182.3	1.42
Lemieux	23	31	1989	1997	89	117.5	1.32
Lafleur	23	28	1975	1980	72	87.6	1.22
Jagr	23	36	1995	2008	106	123.3	1.16
Forsberg	22	32	1996	2006	133	151.4	1.14
Kucherov	21	27	2015	2021	109	121.4	1.11
Sakic	26	36	1996	2006	150	163.8	1.09
Bo. Hull	22	33	1961	1972	107	115.1	1.08
Crosby	19	30	2007	2018	160	167.0	1.04
Malkin	21	30	2008	2017	144	144.0	1.00
Kane	20	27	2009	2016	123	120.2	0.98
Bossy	23	28	1980	1985	103	98.9	0.96
Kurri	20	27	1981	1988	117	112.2	0.96
Mikita	20	33	1961	1974	134	126.0	0.94
Fedorov	23	31	1993	2001	117	109.4	0.93
Messier	22	34	1983	1995	193	179.2	0.93
Stastny	24	35	1981	1992	84	77.5	0.92
Sundin	24	38	1995	2009	85	77.9	0.92
Br. Hull	25	35	1990	2000	127	115.9	0.91
Ovechkin	22	33	2008	2019	128	115.7	0.90
Yzerman	27	36	1993	2002	127	109.9	0.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

One can see how this all but eliminates players like Mikita, Messier & Ovechkin from the #5 discussion. There's no adjustment for the expansion effect in the 70s, so Lafleur's PPG should probably be at least a few hundredths lower after some sort of adjustment. He also has the shortest prime in terms of both years and games played. I didn't calculate Esposito & Orr due to the expansion effect, and have yet to calculate players like Howe, Beliveau & Richard. For the latter players, they don't have nearly complete plus-minus data, which I'm including in the following table for the top ten ~half in the table above:

	AGES		SEASONS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		+/-	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Gretzky	20	28	1981	1989	128	182.3	1.42		+89	+80.8	0.70	0.63	0.38
Lemieux	23	31	1989	1997	89	117.5	1.32		+16	+21.4	0.18	0.24	0.06
Lafleur	23	28	1975	1980	72	87.6	1.22		+58	+36.8	0.81	0.51	0.55
Jagr	23	36	1995	2008	106	123.3	1.16		+32	-47.6	0.30	-0.45	0.53
Forsberg	22	32	1996	2006	133	151.4	1.14		+47	-13	0.35	-0.10	0.40
Kucherov	21	27	2015	2021	109	121.4	1.11		+31	-2.4	0.28	-0.02	0.30
Sakic	26	36	1996	2006	150	163.8	1.09		+12	+44	0.08	0.29	-0.07
Bo. Hull	22	33	1961	1972	107	115.1	1.08		+22	-11.4	0.21	-0.11	0.26
Crosby	19	30	2007	2018	160	167.0	1.04		+21	+17.6	0.13	0.11	0.08
Malkin	21	30	2008	2017	144	144.0	1.00		+18	+24	0.13	0.17	0.04
Kane	20	27	2009	2016	123	120.2	0.98		+7	+25.8	0.06	0.21	-0.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky & Lafleur have by far the best plus-minus per game during their primes, but of course they played on by far the best teams (with their teams ~ +0.63 & +0.51 per game without them on the ice). After that, it's Forsberg, Jagr, Kucherov & Hull with the best plus-minus per game (ranging from +0.21 to 0.35 per game). Estimated adjusted plus-minus is just a ballpark calculation for comparison purposes:

OFF = [ Team PM - (ON * 5) ] / 5
Est. APM = ON - (OFF/2)

It's not adjusting for SH GF & GA, since we don't have that data, and it's assuming each listed player is on the ice for ~1/3 of ES scoring events. Just a rough calculation, but still useful.

Jagr was clearly on the worst teams by far (-0.45 per game at ES when he was off the ice, with Hull's teams the next worst at -0.11), yet aside from Gretzky & Lafleur (who were on teams that were around a full goal per game better than Jagr's teams without those players on the ice) he has about as good a plus-minus per game during playoff primes as anyone. So outside of the big 4, players like Jagr, Lafleur, Forsberg & Kucherov stand out as playoff beasts, both in terms of adjusted scoring and from plus-minus data.

Of those 4, Jagr & Lafleur were clearly the best peak scorers, and Jagr & Forsberg had the largest overall value at ES, according to adjusted plus-minus. On top of that, none of those other three have close to Jagr's longevity, as Jagr's prime lasted about as long as each of the others' careers. That's what puts him in such elite territory IMO, there is no other forward outside of the big 4 than can match him in all or even most of these important metrics (peak/prime/career: Scoring, ES effectiveness, playoff scoring, playoff ES effectiveness, etc.).
----------------------
Peak/Prime scoring: One could make arguments for Espo & Lafleur, but Orr's influence aside, they each played in an unbalanced league and without the competition from non-Canadian players. Mikita & Hull have the same issue with competition. I don't believe any of them were on Jagr's level, as Espo is the only one that appears to me to possibly be on the same level, and he has the most extraneous factors.

Career Scoring: I think this is pretty clear.

Peak/Prime Adjusted Plus-Minus: There are players like Forsberg & Lindros with similar, perhaps a bit better adjusted plus-minus per game during their peaks/primes, but of course we must keep in mind that they were nowhere as durable as Jagr, and so not only were missing many more games per season, but also missing entire seasons and had much shorter careers as a result of their physical play (which likely enabled them to have such excellent per-game ES performances).

Career Adjusted Plus-Minus: This is very clear, as the only person outside of the big 4 that's anywhere close is Bourque, who played many more minutes as a d-man.

Peak/Prime Playoff Scoring: There are the aforementioned players in his range, but nobody clearly above him, outside of the big 4.

Peak/Prime Playoff ES Data: Again, when considering the low quality of his teams, his ES data is remarkable and difficult to match, let alone surpass.

Career Playoffs: Playing a high % of playoff games outside his prime hurts his career averages, but we're still talking about a player that won two Cups, led the playoffs in ES goals & points at age 20 during one of those runs, was shown by another study (since WHA merger) to be among the most clutch playoff players, and has (at this time, at least) the most career playoff points of any non-Oiler. I'm not saying he clearly wins this category or anything, but it's not at all the weakness portrayed by many.

 

[The Panther]

He's already one of the best in the playoffs, but it's quite early to put him in the discussion for #5. If there was no McDavid, then he would have a decent chance at another couple of Rosses, but since there is and Kucherov is 28 with some history of injury, he's got his work cut out for him in that regard.

I was going to wait until playoffs were over, but I calculated some players' adjusted playoff points during their primes, using this method:

1968-2020 - Leading Playoff Scorers Adjusted to Opponent GA

	AGES		YEARS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG
Gretzky	20	28	1981	1989	128	182.3	1.42
Lemieux	23	31	1989	1997	89	117.5	1.32
Lafleur	23	28	1975	1980	72	87.6	1.22
Jagr	23	36	1995	2008	106	123.3	1.16
Forsberg	22	32	1996	2006	133	151.4	1.14
Kucherov	21	27	2015	2021	109	121.4	1.11
Sakic	26	36	1996	2006	150	163.8	1.09
Bo. Hull	22	33	1961	1972	107	115.1	1.08
Crosby	19	30	2007	2018	160	167.0	1.04
Malkin	21	30	2008	2017	144	144.0	1.00
Kane	20	27	2009	2016	123	120.2	0.98
Bossy	23	28	1980	1985	103	98.9	0.96
Kurri	20	27	1981	1988	117	112.2	0.96
Mikita	20	33	1961	1974	134	126.0	0.94
Fedorov	23	31	1993	2001	117	109.4	0.93
Messier	22	34	1983	1995	193	179.2	0.93
Stastny	24	35	1981	1992	84	77.5	0.92
Sundin	24	38	1995	2009	85	77.9	0.92
Br. Hull	25	35	1990	2000	127	115.9	0.91
Ovechkin	22	33	2008	2019	128	115.7	0.90
Yzerman	27	36	1993	2002	127	109.9	0.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

One can see how this all but eliminates players like Mikita, Messier & Ovechkin from the #5 discussion. There's no adjustment for the expansion effect in the 70s, so Lafleur's PPG should probably be at least a few hundredths lower after some sort of adjustment. He also has the shortest prime in terms of both years and games played. I didn't calculate Esposito & Orr due to the expansion effect, and have yet to calculate players like Howe, Beliveau & Richard. For the latter players, they don't have nearly complete plus-minus data, which I'm including in the following table for the top ten ~half in the table above:

	AGES		SEASONS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		+/-	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Gretzky	20	28	1981	1989	128	182.3	1.42		+89	+80.8	0.70	0.63	0.38
Lemieux	23	31	1989	1997	89	117.5	1.32		+16	+21.4	0.18	0.24	0.06
Lafleur	23	28	1975	1980	72	87.6	1.22		+58	+36.8	0.81	0.51	0.55
Jagr	23	36	1995	2008	106	123.3	1.16		+32	-47.6	0.30	-0.45	0.53
Forsberg	22	32	1996	2006	133	151.4	1.14		+47	-13	0.35	-0.10	0.40
Kucherov	21	27	2015	2021	109	121.4	1.11		+31	-2.4	0.28	-0.02	0.30
Sakic	26	36	1996	2006	150	163.8	1.09		+12	+44	0.08	0.29	-0.07
Bo. Hull	22	33	1961	1972	107	115.1	1.08		+22	-11.4	0.21	-0.11	0.26
Crosby	19	30	2007	2018	160	167.0	1.04		+21	+17.6	0.13	0.11	0.08
Malkin	21	30	2008	2017	144	144.0	1.00		+18	+24	0.13	0.17	0.04
Kane	20	27	2009	2016	123	120.2	0.98		+7	+25.8	0.06	0.21	-0.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky & Lafleur have by far the best plus-minus per game during their primes, but of course they played on by far the best teams (with their teams ~ +0.63 & +0.51 per game without them on the ice). After that, it's Forsberg, Jagr, Kucherov & Hull with the best plus-minus per game (ranging from +0.21 to 0.35 per game). Estimated adjusted plus-minus is just a ballpark calculation for comparison purposes:

OFF = [ Team PM - (ON * 5) ] / 5
Est. APM = ON - (OFF/2)

It's not adjusting for SH GF & GA, since we don't have that data, and it's assuming each listed player is on the ice for ~1/3 of ES scoring events. Just a rough calculation, but still useful.

Jagr was clearly on the worst teams by far (-0.45 per game at ES when he was off the ice, with Hull's teams the next worst at -0.11), yet aside from Gretzky & Lafleur (who were on teams that were around a full goal per game better than Jagr's teams without those players on the ice) he has about as good a plus-minus per game during playoff primes as anyone. So outside of the big 4, players like Jagr, Lafleur, Forsberg & Kucherov stand out as playoff beasts, both in terms of adjusted scoring and from plus-minus data.

Of those 4, Jagr & Lafleur were clearly the best peak scorers, and Jagr & Forsberg had the largest overall value at ES, according to adjusted plus-minus. On top of that, none of those other three have close to Jagr's longevity, as Jagr's prime lasted about as long as each of the others' careers. That's what puts him in such elite territory IMO, there is no other forward outside of the big 4 than can match him in all or even most of these important metrics (peak/prime/career: Scoring, ES effectiveness, playoff scoring, playoff ES effectiveness, etc.).
----------------------
Peak/Prime scoring: One could make arguments for Espo & Lafleur, but Orr's influence aside, they each played in an unbalanced league and without the competition from non-Canadian players. Mikita & Hull have the same issue with competition. I don't believe any of them were on Jagr's level, as Espo is the only one that appears to me to possibly be on the same level, and he has the most extraneous factors.

Career Scoring: I think this is pretty clear.

Peak/Prime Adjusted Plus-Minus: There are players like Forsberg & Lindros with similar, perhaps a bit better adjusted plus-minus per game during their peaks/primes, but of course we must keep in mind that they were nowhere as durable as Jagr, and so not only were missing many more games per season, but also missing entire seasons and had much shorter careers as a result of their physical play (which likely enabled them to have such excellent per-game ES performances).

Career Adjusted Plus-Minus: This is very clear, as the only person outside of the big 4 that's anywhere close is Bourque, who played many more minutes as a d-man.

Peak/Prime Playoff Scoring: There are the aforementioned players in his range, but nobody clearly above him, outside of the big 4.

Peak/Prime Playoff ES Data: Again, when considering the low quality of his teams, his ES data is remarkable and difficult to match, let alone surpass.

Career Playoffs: Playing a high % of playoff games outside his prime hurts his career averages, but we're still talking about a player that won two Cups, led the playoffs in ES goals & points at age 20 during one of those runs, was shown by another study (since WHA merger) to be among the most clutch playoff players, and has (at this time, at least) the most career playoff points of any non-Oiler. I'm not saying he clearly wins this category or anything, but it's not at all the weakness portrayed by many.

I'm not sure about some of the logic you're using here.

First of all, just eliminating Orr and Esposito (and others?) completely just because the League was in a large expansion era is clearly unfair to those players. They couldn't control what their competition was, so it doesn't reduce their stature. In 1969, the Bruins faced Toronto and Montreal. In 1970, the Bruins faced the Rangers, Hawks, and Blues -- 1 expansion club, and the best of them all. In 1971 they faced Montreal. In 1972, they face Toronto, St. Louis (again), and the Rangers. In 1973, the Rangers. In 1974, Toronto, Chicago, Philly -- the latter at this point a 112-point Cup champ. So, from 1969 to 1974, Orr and Esposito appeared in 13 series, of which 3 were against expansion-era clubs, of which 2 were recent expansion clubs. The level of playoff competition here is the same as any club before or after them.

Second, I'm not sure that basing anything on how good/bad the team was with that player OFF the ice is accurate. (And how are you figuring that out, exactly?) Just because the club was, say, as good at even strength with the player off the ice as on doesn't mean his ES play was weaker than someone whose club was slightly better with him off the ice. Today, McDavid and Draisaitl, for example, are not three times better at even strength as Orr and Esposito, even if a comparison to teammates might make it appear so. If a star player is on a one-line team that focuses on defense, he's bound to be favored by this method, but not for accurate reasons. Likewise, any player on deep Cup-dynasties is bound to look "weaker" by comparison when off the ice because his team is strong. But it doesn't follow that his ES-play is any less dominant. (For one thing, those 1st-line guys may have had the toughest match-ups against the other team's best players.) In any case, I don't think we can draw any cross-team, cross-era conclusions by looking at how a given player's teammates did when he was off the ice. We could possibly (only 'possibly') look at that individual team, but not across different teams and eras.

Also, what about Bossy and Trottier?

 

[Overrated]

Hull didn't need a jump, just stay even.

He scored 50 in his last year before going to the WHA

He played 27 matches in 79-80 and scored 6 goals. It's quite optimistic to think he'd be scoring 50 goals every year had he stayed in the NHL.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Second, I'm not sure that basing anything on how good/bad the team was with that player OFF the ice is accurate. (And how are you figuring that out, exactly?) Just because the club was, say, as good at even strength with the player off the ice as on doesn't mean his ES play was weaker than someone whose club was slightly better with him off the ice. Today, McDavid and Draisaitl, for example, are not three times better at even strength as Orr and Esposito, even if a comparison to teammates might make it appear so. If a star player is on a one-line team that focuses on defense, he's bound to be favored by this method, but not for accurate reasons. Likewise, any player on deep Cup-dynasties is bound to look "weaker" by comparison when off the ice because his team is strong. But it doesn't follow that his ES-play is any less dominant. (For one thing, those 1st-line guys may have had the toughest match-ups against the other team's best players.) In any case, I don't think we can draw any cross-team, cross-era conclusions by looking at how a given player's teammates did when he was off the ice. We could possibly (only 'possibly') look at that individual team, but not across different teams and eras.

I more or less agree with the bolded. That being said, it does show that the "Jagr didn't lead his teams anywhere" narrative is quite unfair to Jagr. When his teams were +32 when he was on the ice and -48 when he was off...

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm not sure about some of the logic you're using here.

First of all, just eliminating Orr and Esposito (and others?) completely just because the League was in a large expansion era is clearly unfair to those players. They couldn't control what their competition was, so it doesn't reduce their stature. In 1969, the Bruins faced Toronto and Montreal. In 1970, the Bruins faced the Rangers, Hawks, and Blues -- 1 expansion club, and the best of them all. In 1971 they faced Montreal. In 1972, they face Toronto, St. Louis (again), and the Rangers. In 1973, the Rangers. In 1974, Toronto, Chicago, Philly -- the latter at this point a 112-point Cup champ. So, from 1969 to 1974, Orr and Esposito appeared in 13 series, of which 3 were against expansion-era clubs, of which 2 were recent expansion clubs. The level of playoff competition here is the same as any club before or after them.

After expansion, the unbalanced and diluted league distorted GF/GA data (at least compared to the previous O6 era), as the O6 teams were substantially better than the new expansion teams and this lasted for a while. So one can't take the opponent GA at face value. That said, here's what I calculate:

	AGES		YEARS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		ON	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Esposito	26	33	1968	1975	71	97.6	1.37		30	38.0	0.42	0.54	0.15
Orr	20	27	1968	1975	70	85.9	1.23		60	8.0	0.86	0.11	0.74

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Based on a couple of methods (posted in adjusted playoff scoring thread linked in previous post) of estimating the further adjustment needed for expansion, Espo's APPG should probably be decreased between ~10-15%, which would put him in the top group below of Gretzky/Lemieux (Lafleur, Jagr, Forsberg). Ignoring the Orr factor in his scoring, Espo's plus-minus data is pretty good, but not great, similar to his regular season data. He's strong enough in the scoring categories, that he belongs in the conversation.

Second, I'm not sure that basing anything on how good/bad the team was with that player OFF the ice is accurate. (And how are you figuring that out, exactly?) Just because the club was, say, as good at even strength with the player off the ice as on doesn't mean his ES play was weaker than someone whose club was slightly better with him off the ice. Today, McDavid and Draisaitl, for example, are not three times better at even strength as Orr and Esposito, even if a comparison to teammates might make it appear so. If a star player is on a one-line team that focuses on defense, he's bound to be favored by this method, but not for accurate reasons. Likewise, any player on deep Cup-dynasties is bound to look "weaker" by comparison when off the ice because his team is strong. But it doesn't follow that his ES-play is any less dominant. (For one thing, those 1st-line guys may have had the toughest match-ups against the other team's best players.) In any case, I don't think we can draw any cross-team, cross-era conclusions by looking at how a given player's teammates did when he was off the ice. We could possibly (only 'possibly') look at that individual team, but not across different teams and eras.

Also, what about Bossy and Trottier?

I posted the exact method I used to calculate it. The data is more limited (simple player & team plus-minus instead of TGF&GA and PGF&GA), so the estimates are less accurate than for regular season adjusted plus-minus, but they are useful for grouping players (very good, good, mediocre/bad). These players are all first liners (or it's a 1A/1B situation), so nobody's benefitting much from easier matchups. There's nothing make a player appear weak while other players are on the ice. If the other players are good, the OFF will be better, but the player will also be playing with better players. If the other players are bad, the OFF will be worse, but the player will also be playing with worse players.

I posted Bossy's playoff scoring, it's better than Trottier's, but not enough to compete with many others.

	AGES		SEASONS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		ON	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Bossy	23	28	1980	1985	103	98.9	0.96		30	61.8	0.29	0.60	-0.01

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Along with Gretzky, Lafleur & Espo, Bossy's teams were among the strongest at ES when he was off the ice. I don't think he or Trottier belong in the conversation, as great as they were.