Give us your top ten players of all time

[danincanada]

I tend to agree with this point, however the New Jersey Devils’ Martin Brodeur managed to pick up seven top-5 placements in Hart voting, including 3 nominations in this same time frame while winning had also became the expectation in New Jersey. Different players on the Colorado Avalanche nearly swept the trophy for three years during their 7th, 8th, and 9th division titles. It could be done.

If Nicklas Lidstrom is top-10 because Doug Harvey is top-10, then Martin Brodeur is top-10 because Nicklas Lidstrom is top-10. And then we get into the issue of how basing a top-10 argument for an individual player wholly on the positioning of what appears to be a single high-ranked comparable player (due to position or circumstance) is going to open the floodgates.

I’m not a big goalie guy in terms of comparing them with each other or skaters but I do tend to think they are more often the most valuable member of the team than the other positions. From what I’ve read I think I probably rate Brodeur higher than you do. He was awfully good at stopping the puck and acting as the third defenseman and did it for such a long time in an extremely competitive era for goalies.

I understand what you’re saying though and I could have 20 honourable mentions because I don’t think there are a clear top 10 and Lidstrom isn’t a clear top 10 guy either. To me only the top 3 are clearly there as skaters because they separated themselves individually from the pack so much, with Howe probably being in that group as well. I just don’t see Harvey placing above Lidstrom though, and that doesn’t mean either MUST be in the top 10, but with so many posters having Harvey in their top 10, I don’t understand the absence of Bourque and Lidstrom, even as HM’s in a lot of cases. On an individual level I see more arguments for Bourque than both, actually. He doesn’t have the playoff resume or team success though, so it clouds things. It depends on how much you value the impact of the other two on playoff and team successes. I don’t see much of a separation between Lidstrom/Harvey on a peer to peer level. Lidstrom faced so much more of everything though and it seems very irrational that one can ignore that altogether.

 

[danincanada]

In the same light, Harvey elevated the play of St.Laurent, Turner and Langlois in a fashion similar to how Crosby elevated the play of rethreads, rookies and fringers.

Yet with Lidstrom you have the Andreas Lilja effect in the first round of the 2005-06 playoffs.

It wasn’t really the Lijla effect, it was more the Manny Legace effect. A small goalie who was given a shot at being a starter at 32 but then had a mental and emotional meltdown when the pressure of the playoffs hit him. Lilja struggled but Legace imploded. Having a defenseman on the team that makes some mental and positional mistakes can get covered up when you have an elite goalie but the combination of the Legace/Lilja variety is a death knell for a team. Legace’s .884 SV% was never going to get it done with Roloson’s .929 at the other end, which is more like Plante’s playoff numbers. Plante hit .950, .936 twice, .923, and .908 during the Cup runs. That’s the Plante (having an elite goalie) effect.

Lidstrom helped Ian White have what was probably his best all-around season and this was Lidstrom’s last season at 41/42 years of age, which was unfortunate for White cause he only lasted another 25 games in the league after that. Dandenault/Bykov is another example for ‘02-03. What’s the alternative, that Lidstrom was reliant on his partners and/or didn’t make them perform much better? Do you really feel comfortable trying to portray that?

 

[danincanada]

If it were just the regular season, it's probably Bourque > Harvey ~ Lidstrom, but if we include the playoffs, I think Harvey does deserve a place in a top-ten list.

I don’t think I value the ES vs. PP discussion as much as others. A goal is a goal and a point is a point at the end of the game. Does Harvey increasing his ES output come playoff time really mean he automatically surpasses the other two guys? Shouldn’t it be put into context more than that?

The problem is we don’t have adjusted points for the playoffs and even if we did it’s quite a lot different than the regular season because it depends on the teams you draw in each series. In the regular season most teams have relatively similar schedules and need to face every team, so it should even out more. Anyways, the closest I can come to adjusted playoff points, which is a big assumption, is to assume the scoring environmental was similar to the corresponding regular season over the course of their careers. I’ll put an asterisk beside it because, well, it is what it is.

Harvey – Career:
540 regular season points in 1,113 games (.485 PPG)
675 regular season adjusted points in 1,113 games (.606 PPG)
72 playoff points in 137 games (.526 PPG)

*Adjusted playoff points (.526 + .121) .647 PPG*

Lidstrom – Career:
1,142 regular season points in 1,564 games (.730 PPG)
1,204 adjusted regular season points in in 1,564 (.770 PPG)
183 playoff points in 263 games (.696 PPG)

*Adjusted playoff points (.696 + .040) .736 PPG*

Bourque – Career:
1,579 regular season points in in 1,612 games (.980 PPG)
1,426 adjusted regular season points in 1,612 games (.885 PPG)
180 playoff points in 214 games (.841)

*Adjusted playoff points (.841 - .095) .746 PPG*

*IF this is close to reality than Harvey’s increase in playoff scoring still doesn’t close the whole gap with the other two guys overall production.


I was thinking of having Makarov in my top 10 but the unknown part about it made me retract him to an HM. I agree with you though, he may be finishing second to Gretzky in scoring a few times during the 80's, and may be that missing link between Wayne and the rest of the field some years. He sure appeared to have that ability when he went up against NHLers and elite defenders.

 

[danincanada]

What I can't wrap my head around with regards to Kelly is why would any coach/team move an elite two-way defenseman up to forward? One can say they were deeper on defense and needed help up front, which makes sense if someone like Howe gets hurt, but I can't imagine that happening often with any other all-time great defenseman because they can play bigger minutes on the back end. No only that but he was an all-star on D but not at forward so doesn't that speak to Kelly being a better defenseman than forward? Something is missing here. Was he not great at defending? Housley played forward sometimes early on but then went back to D so that's the comparable that comes to me and he was simply not a very good defender but had very good offensive skills. Problem is it happened the other way with Housley playing forward early on.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He played forward even in Detroit sometimes...I think to fill in for Gordie Howe in particular...

I think later in his career he settled into a more defensive role (because he was a very strong defensive player, very tactical...smart, not burly) at center...still productive, but I read one account where he was used to shut down Jean Beliveau one time and did it so well that the "experiment" was kept up for the remainder of his career...

Housley isn't comparable to this situation at all...other than they both played multiple positions, it was for very different reasons...

 

[danincanada]

He played forward even in Detroit sometimes...I think to fill in for Gordie Howe in particular...

I think later in his career he settled into a more defensive role (because he was a very strong defensive player, very tactical...smart, not burly) at center...still productive, but I read one account where he was used to shut down Jean Beliveau one time and did it so well that the "experiment" was kept up for the remainder of his career...

Housley isn't comparable to this situation at all...other than they both played multiple positions, it was for very different reasons...

The Leafs were deep on the back end so I guess it makes sense. In an all-time sense Kelly should have still been their best defenseman though since he's the only Norris winner on that team. It's still hard to imagine a coach deciding he'd rather have what should have been his best D at the 3C or 4C role instead. If it really did neutralize Beliveau more than having him on D than I guess that's the answer. Coaches decision because he thought, and may have been correct, that it would lead more to winning that big trophy at the end of the year. It sounds like an extremely unique situation because most defenseman get better with age, yet Kelly was more like Leetch, who dominated early on at D but then trailed off.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Kelly lost a step due to injuries around the time of his departure from Detroit. With his speed, he had played as close to a Bobby Orr style as hockey had before Orr himself. His last year in Detroit was bad by his standards; no longer superstar level. And when Kelly mentioned his leg injury to the press, he broke a major taboo and was ostracized from the team.

Toronto already had a great top 4 defense, but their biggest need was a center with the size and stength to go up against Beliveau. Moving the slower Kelly there was a gamble that sure paid off.
------

Kelly is like Potvin in that the main reason he ranks lower than Lidstrom or Bourque is a shorter prime. I have Kelly a little over Potvin because I think his post-prime time in Toronto has to add something... even if he was no longer a superstar

 

[Canadiens1958]

It wasn’t really the Lijla effect, it was more the Manny Legace effect. A small goalie who was given a shot at being a starter at 32 but then had a mental and emotional meltdown when the pressure of the playoffs hit him. Lilja struggled but Legace imploded. Having a defenseman on the team that makes some mental and positional mistakes can get covered up when you have an elite goalie but the combination of the Legace/Lilja variety is a death knell for a team. Legace’s .884 SV% was never going to get it done with Roloson’s .929 at the other end, which is more like Plante’s playoff numbers. Plante hit .950, .936 twice, .923, and .908 during the Cup runs. That’s the Plante (having an elite goalie) effect.

Lidstrom helped Ian White have what was probably his best all-around season and this was Lidstrom’s last season at 41/42 years of age, which was unfortunate for White cause he only lasted another 25 games in the league after that. Dandenault/Bykov is another example for ‘02-03. What’s the alternative, that Lidstrom was reliant on his partners and/or didn’t make them perform much better? Do you really feel comfortable trying to portray that?

Explanations should be plausible. Game 4 of the series against Edmonton is at the core:

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2006-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-CAR.pdf

Claiming Legace imploded after a solid 15 save first period and holding the Oilers scoreless thru 2 periods does not reflect what happened. Third period was problematic. Lidstrom and Lilja were -2.

On the series, Chris Chelios was +2, Lebda +3.Game 6 Lebda was +2.

2005-06 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Video. Lidstrom on for all 4 goals, Lilja only 3.



Legace remained solid when Lidstrom was on the bench, zero goals allowed. Implosion theory does not work.

Alternative(s)? The obvious that Lidstrom did not adjust well to his weaker partners limitations. The pairing did not communicate well on the ice or on the bench since the "gap" problem persisted.

Throwing Legace under the bus does not work.

 

[danincanada]

Explanations should be plausible. Game 4 of the series against Edmonton is at the core:

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2006-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-CAR.pdf

Claiming Legace imploded after a solid 15 save first period and holding the Oilers scoreless thru 2 periods does not reflect what happened. Third period was problematic. Lidstrom and Lilja were -2.

On the series, Chris Chelios was +2, Lebda +3.Game 6 Lebda was +2.

2005-06 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Video. Lidstrom on for all 4 goals, Lilja only 3.



Legace remained solid when Lidstrom was on the bench, zero goals allowed. Implosion theory does not work.

Alternative(s)? The obvious that Lidstrom did not adjust well to his weaker partners limitations. The pairing did not communicate well on the ice or on the bench since the "gap" problem persisted.

Throwing Legace under the bus does not work.

This again? You're right, Lidstrom sucks. Happy?

I could post Harvey dumping it around the boards, giving the puck away, and then trying to glove the point shot down only to screen his goalie for the OT winning goal for the Cup. But I would feel petty.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What I can't wrap my head around with regards to Kelly is why would any coach/team move an elite two-way defenseman up to forward? One can say they were deeper on defense and needed help up front, which makes sense if someone like Howe gets hurt, but I can't imagine that happening often with any other all-time great defenseman because they can play bigger minutes on the back end. No only that but he was an all-star on D but not at forward so doesn't that speak to Kelly being a better defenseman than forward? Something is missing here. Was he not great at defending? Housley played forward sometimes early on but then went back to D so that's the comparable that comes to me and he was simply not a very good defender but had very good offensive skills. Problem is it happened the other way with Housley playing forward early on.

Actually started in 1950 when Howe was nearly fatally injured in game 1 of the semi-finals. Only eligible replacement of quality was Marcel Pronovost. So Kelly played forward as he had in junior. Other wingers were shifted..

At times in a game it makes sense to have the three best defencemen on the ice especially if weak checking centers or wingers are the alternative.

When the Leafs traded for Kelly the need was a center to play with Frank Mahovlich. Worked very well so it lasted.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Sawchuk is my #29.

I have the feeling that once the official statistical record catches up to his peak, his reputation will climb back up to the top-10 range with a lot of people (Dryden is experiencing something of a resurgence in attention, but without Sawchuk’s longevity).

Then again, I don’t think too many people have mentioned that Johnny Bower was essentially a save away from 7 save percentage titles in the 1960s, so I don’t know how far back people are really inclined to look.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have the feeling that once the official statistical record catches up to his peak, his reputation will climb back up to the top-10 range with a lot of people (Dryden is experiencing something of a resurgence in attention, but without Sawchuk’s longevity).

Then again, I don’t think too many people have mentioned that Johnny Bower was essentially a save away from 7 save percentage titles in the 1960s, so I don’t know how far back people are really inclined to look.

If you believe Johnny Bower's save percentage numbers, you believe that the dynasty Leafs with the reputation for smothering defense-first, defense-second hockey gave up more shots than any other NHL team.

Just saying...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I have Kelly a little over Potvin because I think his post-prime time in Toronto has to add something... even if he was no longer a superstar

Same, though I think those are the two players I flip-flop on the most. I think my new policy will be to refer to Potvin as the better defenseman and Kelly as the better player, and both as pretty swell playoff performers.

I don’t know that it would take all that much convincing to move Kelly around in the Jagr, Nighbor, Sawchuk, Ovechkin, and Lafleur grouping I have immediately above him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My hesitation on Sawchuk is chicken or egg I guess...did the Wings start to fall off because Sawchuk fell off...or did Sawchuk fall off because the Wings started to fall off...? After Sawchuk's first five years or whatever it was, what else is there?

His five-year peak is insane, no question...I'm not trying to say he's like the 16th best goalie of all time or anything crazy...I'm still talking about that big-7...but after his insane peak (again, I know, I get it...)

1955-56 to 1966-67 GAA stats:
1 .Jacques Plante 2.46 GAA (582 GP)
2 .Charlie Hodge 2.48 GAA (223 GP)
3. Johnny Bower 2.50 GAA (413 GP)
4. Glenn Hall 2.52 GAA (758 GP)
5. Terry Sawchuk 2.81 GAA (569 GP)
6. Roger Crozier 2.86 GAA (207 GP)
7. Don Simmons 2.91 GAA (239 GP)
8. Ed Chadwick 2.94 GAA (184 GP)
9. Harry Lumley 2.95 GAA (136 GP)
10. Gump Worsley 2.98 GAA (562 GP)
11. Eddie Johnston 3.50 GAA (234 GP)

1955-56 to 1966-67 Save Pct. stats:
1. Johnny Bower .921
2. Glenn Hall .918
3. Jacques Plante .917
4. Gump Worsley .912
5. Charlie Hodge .912
6. Terry Sawchuk .907
7. Harry Lumley .905
8. Roger Crozier .904
9. Don Simmons .904
10. Ed Chadwick ..901
11. Eddie Johnston .899

1955-56 to 1966-67 wins:
1. Glenn Hall 344
2. Jacques Plante 304
3. Terry Sawchuk 229
4. Gump Worsley 223
5. Johnny Bower 200
6. Charlie Hodge 113
7. Don Simmonds 97
...

1955-56 to 1966-67 shutouts:
1. Glenn Hall 67
2. Jacques Plante 53
3. Terry Sawchuk 43
4. Johnny Bower 26
5. Gump Worsley 23
6. Don Simmons 20
7. Charlie Hodge 20
...

I get how this is framed. But I had similar reservations with the lesser Bernie Parent...outside of those two or three years whatever it was...what is he? I think five is a significantly bigger number than 2 or 3, especially because Sawchuk did do it consecutively...but I just wonder what the chain of events is because he's not terribly noteworthy for the last 10 years of his career give or take...

 

[quoipourquoi]

He did get some Hart support for his first-half of 1956-57 before mid-season retirement (and for what it’s worth, the numbers back it up). I took it as a sign that he was still great as an individual, but perhaps one that was not handling the pressures of external forces as well as he was handling his responsibilities in-game.

I agree about the back-9 of his career, which is why I’d still have two goaltenders and just shy of a dozen skaters with lesser peaks above him, but I don’t think the post-1955 career was nothing either. It’s hard enough in the Original 6 just to record enough games to have a ranking season, and he managed to have 18 of them if I recall. In a larger league with the wealth better distributed, I’d like to think he wouldn’t be having to look over his shoulder so much.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I hear that too...I don't think it's unfair to say, that era that I highlighted (or cherry picked) probably contains the greatest concentration of talent the league has ever seen or will see...just top to bottom, the talent pool at the NHL level was probably never more dense than in that time leading up to the league doubling in size in 1968 and then there being, what, four times as many pro teams within five years of that...

That said, he got out-dueled statistically in that time, I just wonder what gave out...

This also reminds me...where's @Killion - I haven't seen him a while...hope he's ok and just on a long vacation...

 

[blogofmike]

Between 1954-55 and 1959-60, Doug Harvey was the 5th highest EV scorer among defensemen in the regular season, but in the playoffs he was the highest EV scorer in both raw points and points per game:

Player	GP	EV PTS	EV PTS/GP
Doug Harvey	61	27	0.443
Red Kelly	40	16	0.400
Carl Brewer	22	8	0.364
Jim Morrison	21	7	0.333
Leo Boivin	34	11	0.324

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In comparison with the regular season's top-12 EV scorers among defensemen over the same period:

Player	P.O. EV PTS/GP	R.S. EV PTS/GP	Change
Doug Harvey	0.443	0.275	+61%
Red Kelly	0.400	0.310	+29%
Bill Gadsby	0.188	0.320	-41%
Marcel Pronovost	0.167	0.292	-43%
Fern Flaman	0.182	0.283	-36%
Jim Morrison	0.333	0.261	+28%
Allan Stanley	0.176	0.267	-34%
Tim Horton	0.167	0.286	-42%
Tom Johnson	0.151	0.252	-40%
Pierre Pilote	0.200	0.297	-33%
Dollard St. Laurent	0.184	0.229	-20%
Jean-Guy Talbot	0.208	0.236	-12%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Admittedly, this is more of a "back of the envelope" demonstration rather than a rigorous analysis (i.e. adjusting for opponent GA for each series played), but I think that it is significant that only three of the top 12 EV-scoring defensemen could increase their EV output in the postseason. Considering that the average opponent strength is going to be higher in the playoffs than the regular season, this isn't too surprising. Two of the exceptions are considered to be the best D-men of the era, and Jim Morrison played only 21 postseason games over 6 years. The fact that Harvey could increase his EV output by 61% going into the playoffs is impressive.

If it were just the regular season, it's probably Bourque > Harvey ~ Lidstrom, but if we include the playoffs, I think Harvey does deserve a place in a top-ten list.

Anyway, here's a top-10 list from me, with the big 4 and "positional considerations" (one center, two wingers, two D-men, one goalie). Personally, I consider the "shelf life" of a modern player to be a decade, and players from before the O6 era 7 years.

Bobby Orr (D)
Wayne Gretzky (C)
Gordie Howe (RW)
Mario Lemieux (C)
Sergei Makarov (RW)
Doug Harvey (D)
Jean Beliveau (C)
Maurice Richard (RW)
Ray Bourque (D)
Patrick Roy (G)

Doug Harvey's playoff numbers look good there. It's a sample size where the majority of all games played are wins by the Montreal Canadiens and the top 6 ES scorers of the time all happen to be playing in the bleu blanc rouge in front of Harvey. But it does give him a numerator that takes advantage of middling RS numbers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

How many full periods of hockey do we have available from the era in question? Can we just go back and watch and see what happened...?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey's playoff numbers look good there. It's a sample size where the majority of all games played are wins by the Montreal Canadiens and the top 6 ES scorers of the time all happen to be playing in the bleu blanc rouge in front of Harvey. But it does give him a numerator that takes advantage of middling RS numbers.

1956-60 actually 40-9, better by far , at least 15 % than RS. Wonder why? Winning 5 consecutive cups, by default means that the majority of the games the team plays will be wins.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I don’t think I value the ES vs. PP discussion as much as others. A goal is a goal and a point is a point at the end of the game. Does Harvey increasing his ES output come playoff time really mean he automatically surpasses the other two guys? Shouldn’t it be put into context more than that?

It's more of an indication that Harvey significantly stepped up in the playoffs over his regular season level on a level playing field. His regular season play was enough to earn him 7 Norris trophies (5 over the span looked at in my post).

I do think that some consideration needs to be put on the fact that Harvey played before Orr. Comparing him to his defensive peers from 1954-55 to 1959-60, with a minimum of 12 points scored over 6 postseasons:

Rk	Player	PTS/GP	Vs2	Tm	Pos	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	PTS
1	Doug Harvey*	0.79	168	MTL	D	1954	1960	6	61	8	40	48
2	Red Kelly*	0.47	100	DET	D	1954	1958	4	30	5	9	14
3	Leo Boivin*	0.35	74	BOS	D	1954	1959	4	34	3	9	12
4	Allan Stanley*	0.35	74	TOT	D	1957	1960	3	34	3	9	12
5	Tom Johnson*	0.23	49	MTL	D	1954	1960	6	53	4	8	12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In terms of points-per-game, Harvey has a significant lead over his peers. He was already the best defender of his era in the regular season where his production was among the best (0.58 PTS/GP, second only to Gadsby at 0.60 and ahead of Kelly at 0.52 over the aforementioned time span).

To put it into context, if you assume Lidstrom generated the same separation from his peers from, say, 1996-97 to 2001-02 as Harvey did from Kelly, we're assuming that the 2nd highest per-game scoring defender (min. 12 points) from 1954-60 is roughly equivalent to the 18th or 19th highest per-game scoring defender from 1996-2002 (min. 12 points). I personally find that unlikely.

My personal take is that Orr > [Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom, Shore], with those four forming a cluster, but it really comes down to how you weigh the different factors.

I was thinking of having Makarov in my top 10 but the unknown part about it made me retract him to an HM. I agree with you though, he may be finishing second to Gretzky in scoring a few times during the 80's, and may be that missing link between Wayne and the rest of the field some years. He sure appeared to have that ability when he went up against NHLers and elite defenders.

Using Gabriel Desjardins' "league equivalencies" (here) to adjust for league strength, and the VsX benchmarks here:

Season	Makarov	Benchmark	Notes	VsX (PTS/GP)	VsX adj.	Adj. GP	NHL PTS (est.)
1980	1.55	1.22	#3 (Mikhailov)	127.0	115.6	80	138
1981	1.61	1.39	#2 (Kasputin)	115.8	105.4	80	142
1982	1.63	1.51	#2 (Kozhevnikov)	107.9	98.2	78	141
1983	1.4	1.4	#2 (Makarov)	100.0	91.0	55	85
1984	1.66	1.28	Top 6	129.7	118.0	80	143
1985	1.63	1.33	#2 (Krutov)	122.6	111.5	80	151
1986	1.55	1.3	#2 (Larionov)	119.2	108.5	80	153
1987	1.33	1.28	#2 (Krutov)	103.9	94.6	80	102
1988	1.33	1.19	#2 (Sukhanov)	111.8	101.7	80	133
1989	1.23	1.17	#2 (Krutov, *fudge*)	105.1	95.7	80	133
TOTALS						773	1321
7-year VsX				119.2
w/ league adj. (x0.91)				108.4
10-year VsX				114.3
w/ league adj. (x0.91)				104.0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Without Gretzky in the mix, Makarov probably wins the Art Ross the bolded years with roughly those point totals. It's possible for 1979-80 to still go to Dionne given that it's basically a lucky bounce or two from going either way. Either way, I suspect that it's four or five Art Ross wins for Makarov without Gretzky.

Also, I noticed an anomaly for 1988-89 where the VsX benchmark would have gone to #3 (0.93 PTS/GP) under standard VsX rules, but it's such a drop that I decided to go "fudge it" (or something that sounds vaguely like that) leave the benchmark as #2. It's pretty unlikely that Makarov had his best season when it was his actual weakest season in the Soviet league.

So where does that leave us over the 80's?

Rk	Player	GP	PTS	PTS/GP
1	Wayne Gretzky*	774	1837	2.37
2	Sergei Makarov (est.)	773	1321	1.71
3	Peter Stastny*	675	986	1.46
4	Marcel Dionne*	729	980	1.34
5	Jari Kurri*	676	950	1.41
6	Denis Savard*	676	933	1.38
7	Bernie Federko*	750	914	1.22
8	Mike Bossy*	599	909	1.52
9	Bryan Trottier*	755	905	1.20
10	Michel Goulet*	756	901	1.19

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Batis]

Using Gabriel Desjardins' "league equivalencies" (here) to adjust for league strength, and the VsX benchmarks here:

Season	Makarov	Benchmark	Notes	VsX (PTS/GP)	VsX adj.	Adj. GP	NHL PTS (est.)
1980	1.55	1.22	#3 (Mikhailov)	127.0	115.6	80	138
1981	1.61	1.39	#2 (Kasputin)	115.8	105.4	80	142
1982	1.63	1.51	#2 (Kozhevnikov)	107.9	98.2	78	141
1983	1.4	1.4	#2 (Makarov)	100.0	91.0	55	85
1984	1.66	1.28	Top 6	129.7	118.0	80	143
1985	1.63	1.33	#2 (Krutov)	122.6	111.5	80	151
1986	1.55	1.3	#2 (Larionov)	119.2	108.5	80	153
1987	1.33	1.28	#2 (Krutov)	103.9	94.6	80	102
1988	1.33	1.19	#2 (Sukhanov)	111.8	101.7	80	133
1989	1.23	1.17	#2 (Krutov, *fudge*)	105.1	95.7	80	133
TOTALS						773	1321
7-year VsX				119.2
w/ league adj. (x0.91)				108.4
10-year VsX				114.3
w/ league adj. (x0.91)				104.0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Without Gretzky in the mix, Makarov probably wins the Art Ross the bolded years with roughly those point totals. It's possible for 1979-80 to still go to Dionne given that it's basically a lucky bounce or two from going either way. Either way, I suspect that it's four or five Art Ross wins for Makarov without Gretzky.

Also, I noticed an anomaly for 1988-89 where the VsX benchmark would have gone to #3 (0.93 PTS/GP) under standard VsX rules, but it's such a drop that I decided to go "fudge it" (or something that sounds vaguely like that) leave the benchmark as #2. It's pretty unlikely that Makarov had his best season when it was his actual weakest season in the Soviet league.

So where does that leave us over the 80's?

Rk	Player	GP	PTS	PTS/GP
1	Wayne Gretzky*	774	1837	2.37
2	Sergei Makarov (est.)	773	1321	1.71
3	Peter Stastny*	675	986	1.46
4	Marcel Dionne*	729	980	1.34
5	Jari Kurri*	676	950	1.41
6	Denis Savard*	676	933	1.38
7	Bernie Federko*	750	914	1.22
8	Mike Bossy*	599	909	1.52
9	Bryan Trottier*	755	905	1.20
10	Michel Goulet*	756	901	1.19

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Great work. Your adjusted 7-year VsX for Makarov is very close to the range (102.2-108.3) where I estimate his score to be. If we look at how high the second highest scoring player from any of the countries which made up the Soviet Union (A Russian in every season but one) has ranked among Canadian players in the NHL-scoring race from the first season (92/93) that the majority of the top former Soviet players played in the league and had at least one year of adjustment time under their belt we can see that the second highest scoring "former Soviet" player in modern times on average has fallen somewhere between the sixth and the seventh highest scoring Canadian player. Since I consider the Soviet hockey of the 80´s to have been on a somewhat higher level than modern Russian hockey I decided that assuming that the second highest scoring Soviet on average was as good as the sixth highest scoring Canadian would be more accurate. So what I did was that I looked at how Makarovs 7-year Vs2 in the Soviet League compared to some all time great players 7-year Vs6 among Canadian players only. While I made some changes to the system I took the inspiration for doing this from this post from Seventieslord. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/127340413/

Makarovs 7-year Vs2 in the Soviet League is 123.1. And this is how some of the forwards who have cases for being in the 5-20 range all-time does when it comes to 7-year Vs6 among Canadians. (Only post-consolidation numbers for Morenz)

Mikita 124.6
Beliveau 124.5
Crosby 123.4
Richard 122.8
Hull 121.8
Lafleur 117.5
Morenz 114.9

Makarov compares very well to any of them and considering that all of these players are in the 102.2-108.3 range when it comes to 7-year VsX I think that this range is a good estimate for Makarov as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Makarov analysis. Outstanding question is with or without a Fetisov level defenceman.

 

[57special]

Not enough old timers. Shore, for one, must be given consideration. It's almost as if people think that no one played hockey before 1950.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Great work. Your adjusted 7-year VsX for Makarov is very close to the range (102.2-108.3) where I estimate his score to be. If we look at how high the second highest scoring player from any of the countries which made up the Soviet Union (A Russian in every season but one) has ranked among Canadian players in the NHL-scoring race from the first season (92/93) that the majority of the top former Soviet players played in the league and had at least one year of adjustment time under their belt we can see that the second highest scoring "former Soviet" player in modern times on average has fallen somewhere between the sixth and the seventh highest scoring Canadian player. Since I consider the Soviet hockey of the 80´s to have been on a somewhat higher level than modern Russian hockey I decided that assuming that the second highest scoring Soviet on average was as good as the sixth highest scoring Canadian would be more accurate. So what I did was that I looked at how Makarovs 7-year Vs2 in the Soviet League compared to some all time great players 7-year Vs6 among Canadian players only. While I made some changes to the system I took the inspiration for doing this from this post from Seventieslord. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/127340413/

Makarovs 7-year Vs2 in the Soviet League is 123.1. And this is how some of the forwards who have cases for being in the 5-20 range all-time does when it comes to 7-year Vs6 among Canadians. (Only post-consolidation numbers for Morenz)

Mikita 124.6
Beliveau 124.5
Crosby 123.4
Richard 122.8
Hull 121.8
Lafleur 117.5
Morenz 114.9

Makarov compares very well to any of them and considering that all of these players are in the 102.2-108.3 range when it comes to 7-year VsX I think that this range is a good estimate for Makarov as well.

This is a fascinating method. The fact that disparate methods converge to similar results is always encouraging. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it's closer to the top of that range simply due to the fact that a score much lower than ~108 would mean a league equivalency of <0.9 for the 80's Soviet league versus the NHL. The NHL was more than just Canada (which was roughly on par with the USSR), but on the other hand, there were only two non-Canadians in the top-21 scorers of the 80's.

Interesting Makarov analysis. Outstanding question is with or without a Fetisov level defenceman.

Ack, we're still working on trying to compare different leagues. One problem at a time!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ack, we're still working on trying to compare different leagues. One problem at a time!

Have faith. New archival data has shown a lot. Just recently you illustrated how under valued Leo Boivin and Allan Stanley are.