Ovechkin vs Lindsay

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You are comparing his entire career to what AO has done so far when saying this right?

A better and more fair comparison at this point would be to compare their 1st 5 years in the league and AO is safely in front when one makes the relevant comp.

The original post obviously asked about their entire careers: "has Ovechkin passed Lindsay yet?."

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm getting into a scrap on the main board, with a poster who said that Ovechkin is already widely regarded as the 2nd best LW of all-time. I'm suggesting that Lindsay holds that honour. At what point could one reasonably suggest that Ovechkin has passed him?

I'm not even sure he's passed greats like Denneny, Joliat, or Moore yet. In fact, there's decent evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thoughts?

The original post obviously asked about their entire careers: "has Ovechkin passed Lindsay yet?."

Well I guess that's a problem if we compare a guy going into his 6th season to a guy who played 17 seasons and has been retired for 45 years.

To me it's pretty reasonable, and a much more viable exercise, to compare apples with apples ie. the 2 players 1st 5 years than one entire career of one and the 1st 6 years of the other.

 

[Regal]

Well I guess that's a problem if we compare a guy going into his 6th season to a guy who played 17 seasons and has been retired for 45 years.

To me it's pretty reasonable, and a much more viable exercise, to compare apples with apples ie. the 2 players 1st 5 years than one entire career of one and the 1st 6 years of the other.

I'm not sure what that really accomplishes though, other than perhaps helping project how Ovechkin will end up. Players progress at different rates, so just because a guy is better at a certain point in their careers doesn't mean it will stay that way. I think the majority of people would say Ovechkin's first 5 years are better, and when asked earlier on this forum, most people seemed to agree that Ovechkin has the second highest peak of any LW after Hull. The next step appears to be comparing their careers and seeing if Ovechkin has passed him in total yet, or what he would have to do to pass him.

 

[Big Phil]

The 06 era gets tons of credit in this section of the boards (maybe too much IMO with talk of dynasties, Cup counting and top 5 finishes).

After WW2 there was a definite increase in the level of play in the NHL with the death of community teams across Canada but lets keep some perspective here.

Some people try to equate the 06 hockey talent level to the current 30 team NHL (either by inference or comments on the quality of talent between the 2 eras) though as if it was compacted to only 6 teams (or some level very close to it) which is complete rubbish.

The number and quality of feeder programs into the NHL is much great than the increase in the number of teams over time.

The 06 era was better than the volatile late 20's and 30's NHL and arguably better than the 67-mid 70ish NHL but it just doesn't stack up to the current NHL in terms of quality and skill of the players, coaches and systems in place period.

All I was saying is that the amount of top level players hasn't changed over the years. There were as many people who had a shot at the Hart/Art Ross than there are today. Overall depth has gotten better and why wouldn't it, there are 30 teams. But what's the difference that there are a few more Phil Kessels in the NHL? How does a player of that caliber impact Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin or Stamkos? Nobody would predict Kessel to win a major award anymore than a player like (oh I am just picking a name) Claude Provost could have in 1956. And even then Provost > Kessel.

I'm just saying 2011 is no different than 1955. There were as many truly elite players in the NHL then as there are now and that's all that matters for a discussion like this

The fact that your Reibel and Olmstead equivalents are former scoring champs should tell you all you need to know...

They were picked out in a specific year (1955). Reibel didn't have a HHOF career but at least played like one for two seasons. Olmstead is a HHOFer and was among the top scorers for at least a couple of years. They weren't the threats like Geoffrion, Richard, Beliveau, Howe or Lindsay were but Olmstead would have been a threat for the scoring race much the way Thornton was at one point. Olmstead did finish 4th in scoring one year so..........

 

[JackSlater]

All I was saying is that the amount of top level players hasn't changed over the years. There were as many people who had a shot at the Hart/Art Ross than there are today. Overall depth has gotten better and why wouldn't it, there are 30 teams. But what's the difference that there are a few more Phil Kessels in the NHL? How does a player of that caliber impact Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin or Stamkos? Nobody would predict Kessel to win a major award anymore than a player like (oh I am just picking a name) Claude Provost could have in 1956. And even then Provost > Kessel.

I'm just saying 2011 is no different than 1955. There were as many truly elite players in the NHL then as there are now and that's all that matters for a discussion like this

There is no reasonable way to reach this conclusion. In 1955 all of the elite players were Canadian. In 2010 the elite players are Canadian plus some Americans and Europeans. There is a larger talent pool now due to these other nations also producing elite talent. The only way you could reasonably state that the number of elite players is the same is if you believe that Canada produces maybe half as many elite players now as in 1955. Is that really what you think?

 

[Big Phil]

There is no reasonable way to reach this conclusion. In 1955 all of the elite players were Canadian. In 2010 the elite players are Canadian plus some Americans and Europeans. There is a larger talent pool now due to these other nations also producing elite talent. The only way you could reasonably state that the number of elite players is the same is if you believe that Canada produces maybe half as many elite players now as in 1955. Is that really what you think?

There is a bigger pool because the population has gotten bigger and other countries have stepped up. But at the end of the day you can be good in your native Sweden (or wherever) and be a minor leaguer in the best league in the world. Someone complained that the 1980s didn't have the Europeans like we do now. My answer is so what? Does it matter that Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Savard, Bossy, Trottier etc. were Canadian sprinkled with a few Euros (Kurri, Stastny)? Who cares where you come from, if you can play the game at the highest level you can play the game at the highest level. The ones that can't simply won't.

This is no different in 1955 than in 2011. The best are still the best no matter what. The talent pool also offers a lot more "also rans" too you are forgetting. I mentioned this in my other post, just because there are more Phil Kessels in the NHL now than in the O6 it doesn't mean the top stars are affected by it. Is Sidney Crosby worried that Phil Kessel will win the Hart? No. Should he be? No. So how does the addition of mid level players affect the top tier ones?

This is typical of what we believe in. I refuse look at things the easy way and assume the original 6 was easy. I prefer the truth. It was a competitve league where the best 120 players in the world could join. Even if most of them were Canadian so what? It was still very tough. In 40 years when some now unborn people assume that Crosby and Ovechkin had it "easy" and the game looked so easy back then will you actually tell them the truth? Hopefully.

 

[BraveCanadian]

There is a bigger pool because the population has gotten bigger and other countries have stepped up. But at the end of the day you can be good in your native Sweden (or wherever) and be a minor leaguer in the best league in the world. Someone complained that the 1980s didn't have the Europeans like we do now. My answer is so what? Does it matter that Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Savard, Bossy, Trottier etc. were Canadian sprinkled with a few Euros (Kurri, Stastny)? Who cares where you come from, if you can play the game at the highest level you can play the game at the highest level. The ones that can't simply won't.

This is no different in 1955 than in 2011. The best are still the best no matter what. The talent pool also offers a lot more "also rans" too you are forgetting. I mentioned this in my other post, just because there are more Phil Kessels in the NHL now than in the O6 it doesn't mean the top stars are affected by it. Is Sidney Crosby worried that Phil Kessel will win the Hart? No. Should he be? No. So how does the addition of mid level players affect the top tier ones?

This is typical of what we believe in. I refuse look at things the easy way and assume the original 6 was easy. I prefer the truth. It was a competitve league where the best 120 players in the world could join. Even if most of them were Canadian so what? It was still very tough. In 40 years when some now unborn people assume that Crosby and Ovechkin had it "easy" and the game looked so easy back then will you actually tell them the truth? Hopefully.

Not to beat a dead horse but the increased talent pool worldwide and the increased number of teams offering opportunities of 1st line minutes and PP time means that there are a lot more players capable of winning a scoring title or placing in say the top 10/25 than in 1955.

And Jack is right. If you look at the % of Canadian players and European players in the top scorers between O6 and now and take into account the fact that the population and hockey playing population has gone up.. either Canada is producing 50% less top talent now or these other countries are producing a lot more.

I'd wager Canada is not producing a lot less. Therefore there are a lot more elite level players with a lot more opportunities available to play the minutes needed to place highly in scoring.

Secondly, the best are not always the best. Evaluating talent is an art as much as a science. Ask Martin St. Louis.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not sure what that really accomplishes though, other than perhaps helping project how Ovechkin will end up. Players progress at different rates, so just because a guy is better at a certain point in their careers doesn't mean it will stay that way. I think the majority of people would say Ovechkin's first 5 years are better, and when asked earlier on this forum, most people seemed to agree that Ovechkin has the second highest peak of any LW after Hull. The next step appears to be comparing their careers and seeing if Ovechkin has passed him in total yet, or what he would have to do to pass him.

I agree with you but some are comparing an apple (entire career) to an orange(AO's 1st 5 years ) and barring a major collapse of injury AO is going to end up ahead of Lindsay by quite a bit and be in the Hull category.

 

[JackSlater]

BraveCanadian already made a good post addressing this but I'm going to made some additional comments.

There is a bigger pool because the population has gotten bigger and other countries have stepped up. But at the end of the day you can be good in your native Sweden (or wherever) and be a minor leaguer in the best league in the world. Someone complained that the 1980s didn't have the Europeans like we do now. My answer is so what? Does it matter that Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Savard, Bossy, Trottier etc. were Canadian sprinkled with a few Euros (Kurri, Stastny)? Who cares where you come from, if you can play the game at the highest level you can play the game at the highest level. The ones that can't simply won't.

It clearly doesn't matter where they come from. It does matter that there are other countries producing elite players now, because that increases the talent pool, assuming that Canada hasn't regressed. This does not mean that older players suck because they had fewer elite players to compete against. It means that modern players deserve consideration for competing against more elite players. Once again I'll ask. Do you think that Canada produces less elite talent today than in 1955?

This is no different in 1955 than in 2011. The best are still the best no matter what. The talent pool also offers a lot more "also rans" too you are forgetting. I mentioned this in my other post, just because there are more Phil Kessels in the NHL now than in the O6 it doesn't mean the top stars are affected by it. Is Sidney Crosby worried that Phil Kessel will win the Hart? No. Should he be? No. So how does the addition of mid level players affect the top tier ones?

I'm not forgetting the also rans, they just don't matter in this discussion. My post was not about league talent level, which is a rate, but about the number of elite players. I don't care about Phil Kessel and players of his ilk. I care about guys like Henrik Sedin, an elite player who wouldn't have been in the NHL in the 1950s. Sidney Crosby is somewhat worried that Henrik Sedin will win the Hart.

This is typical of what we believe in. I refuse look at things the easy way and assume the original 6 was easy. I prefer the truth. It was a competitve league where the best 120 players in the world could join. Even if most of them were Canadian so what? It was still very tough. In 40 years when some now unborn people assume that Crosby and Ovechkin had it "easy" and the game looked so easy back then will you actually tell them the truth? Hopefully.

Who is saying that it was easy in the original six era? The league had lots of great players, some of whom are among the best ever. No one is disputing that. I would have to say that you are looking at things simplistically, not taking into account the increase in the talent pool and the ramifications that increase has on the number of elite players. I'm hoping that you will answer my question above.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Richard Martin

Being the top overall goal scorer and point getter overall in any players 1st 5 years is not simply nice point totals.

Lindsay did play one one Cup winner in his 1st 5 years (well okay it was his 6th year) and in 4 overall but teams win Cups (and Detroit had some really excellent teams in a 6 team league).

Sure Lindasy deserves some credit for being a major part of 4 cup teams but lets not overstate his Cup success to AO who has hardly been a flop in his 3 playoff years with a 28-20-20-40 line.

Lets throw in another comparable - Richard Martin(234 goals) whose first five seasons approach Ovechkin in terms of goals, plus one SC final. Once you position Martin in the debate you see how far Ovechkin has to go to match Lindsay accomplishments. Yet no one would claim Martin is close to Lindsay nor Ovechkin.

BTW - Lindsay played in a number of SC finals before winning. His teams missed the playoffs only once. Contributed to the turnaround of the Detroit and Chicago franchises.

Effectively the raw goal totals are not that impressive when Ovechkin`s numbers are put in the context of Richard Martin. There may be more hilite reel goals but no parade.

 

[Big Phil]

It clearly doesn't matter where they come from. It does matter that there are other countries producing elite players now, because that increases the talent pool, assuming that Canada hasn't regressed. This does not mean that older players suck because they had fewer elite players to compete against. It means that modern players deserve consideration for competing against more elite players. Once again I'll ask. Do you think that Canada produces less elite talent today than in 1955?

No, I do not. There is a larger talent pool to choose from. But when they play with the big boys the same amount of elite players in the NHL exist as ever. In other words lets say there are approx. 10 truly elite players in the NHL now. In 1955 they all came from Canada. In 2011 5 of them come from Canada, two from Russia, two from Sweden and one from Finland for example. Is there much of a difference?

I'm not forgetting the also rans, they just don't matter in this discussion. My post was not about league talent level, which is a rate, but about the number of elite players. I don't care about Phil Kessel and players of his ilk. I care about guys like Henrik Sedin, an elite player who wouldn't have been in the NHL in the 1950s. Sidney Crosby is somewhat worried that Henrik Sedin will win the Hart.

Sedin is a good case. Swedish players could have played in the 1950s had they been good enough, but they weren't. Henrik Sedin existed back in the 1950s though, his name was probably Andy Bathgate or Bert Olmstead or whatever. In other words there was a player like him who was a threat to win a scoring title too.

Also no one mentions this, but if we are to say that the talent pool is expanded I can see that, but there are also 30 teams. In other words, if you were to pick which league is more watered down the Original 6 in the 1950s or the 30 team league in 2011 which one would most of us pick? Probably the latter right? And it isn't a knock on either league because both have their advantages and disadvantages. The description of hockey today is very similar to 50 years ago because we claim there aren't any patsies today (like the O6), we claim the competition is supreme (like the O6) and this is the best league in the world (like the O6). The more things change the more they stay the same

 

[BraveCanadian]

No, I do not. There is a larger talent pool to choose from. But when they play with the big boys the same amount of elite players in the NHL exist as ever. In other words lets say there are approx. 10 truly elite players in the NHL now. In 1955 they all came from Canada. In 2011 5 of them come from Canada, two from Russia, two from Sweden and one from Finland for example. Is there much of a difference?

You just contradicted yourself.

If you don't believe Canada produces less top talent than before, why did it produce 10 truly elite players in the O6 and only 5 now?

If your point is that the other countries sprinkling into the top 10 or 25 is because they are also producing top talent then, you just confirmed our point.

 

[seventieslord]

Lets throw in another comparable - Richard Martin(234 goals) whose first five seasons approach Ovechkin in terms of goals, plus one SC final. Once you position Martin in the debate you see how far Ovechkin has to go to match Lindsay accomplishments. Yet no one would claim Martin is close to Lindsay nor Ovechkin.

BTW - Lindsay played in a number of SC finals before winning. His teams missed the playoffs only once. Contributed to the turnaround of the Detroit and Chicago franchises.

Effectively the raw goal totals are not that impressive when Ovechkin`s numbers are put in the context of Richard Martin. There may be more hilite reel goals but no parade.

Do you really think Martin is at all comparable to Ovechkin?

He was 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and out of the top-10 in his first five seasons, and he did so while never being the catalyst for his line.

Ovechkin has always been the catalyst for his line, and was 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th in goals, and the league was not watered down by the WHA and included all the best europeans too.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Do you really think Martin is at all comparable to Ovechkin?

He was 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and out of the top-10 in his first five seasons, and he did so while never being the catalyst for his line.

Ovechkin has always been the catalyst for his line, and was 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th in goals, and the league was not watered down by the WHA and included all the best europeans too.

I agree here, while Martin was, surprisingly, the 2nd best goal scorer in his 1st 5 years in the league, he was only 11th in points and is not a very good Comp to AO.

Martin's league (72076 NHL) was watered down as stated above as well but he really was quite the sniper in those 1st 5 years.
AO also was the best player on his team in each of those 5 years, Martin's success in part was due to Gilbert Perrault IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Missing the Point

Do you really think Martin is at all comparable to Ovechkin?

He was 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and out of the top-10 in his first five seasons, and he did so while never being the catalyst for his line.

Ovechkin has always been the catalyst for his line, and was 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th in goals, and the league was not watered down by the WHA and included all the best europeans too.

Yet when all is said and done Richard Martin produced comparable numbers during his first five seasons. Comparable to Ovechkin and far superior to Ted Lindsay. Yet no one surmises that Martin was better than Lindsay.

The interesting part is that the Ovechkin defenders have a rather limited focus. Catalyst for his line = easily 200 players since WWII can have this said about them.
Rate Ovechkin as a complete hockey player and he suffers badly in terms of various defensive attributes, leadership, complete offense, etc. Easy to be the top dog but subordinating oneself for the good of the team is another issue all together.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Elite Players

There are rather humourous red herrings swimming thru this thread. That winning or contending for the scoring title confirs elite status on a player.

The following either contended for the Art Ross or led their team in scoring - Bronco Horvath, Earl Reibel, Murray Oliver to name a few. NONE of them could be considered elite except perhaps by their parents or the delusional.

There is also this mathematical abstraction that in the O6 era there were 6 teams each with a number one line which defined the top 18 or elite players.Rather foolish given the following. Canadiens at various times had as their first line Bonin / Beliveau / Geoffrion, second line Moore/H.Richard/M.Richard. Bonin was a journeyman forward who brought a bit of physicality when he wasn`t wrestling bears. He was not an elite player.

Most teams played an average level forward on their top line. Leafs played Bob Nevin, a rookie with Kelly and Mahovlich. He was far from the Leafs best right winger.
Detroit had a habit of playing a fringer with Howe and Delvecchio - Parker MacDonald, Gary Aldcorn types. Chicago would play a average, solid right winger opposite Bobby Hull - Chico Maki, Murray Balfour - under rated. Rangers would play Larry Popein as the center on their top line with Bathgate, etc.

Basically teams tried to balance their lines and win. The Art Ross was an after thought or a by product. Example the championship Leaf teams from the 1940`s and 60`s were loaded with elite players yet these players never seriously challenged for the Art Ross.

Also the population argument is seriously misdirected. Simply a question of ice time and coaching at the youth level. Canada is lagging. Compare the province of Quebec with the state of Minnesota. Minnesota has more rinks for a smaller population so the kids have a much greater opportunity to develop. The kids and coaches can concentrate on hockey as opposed to travel.

Conversely Russia with its huge population base is lagging since there is a very limited infrastructure. The number of hockey players produced is not keeping pace.

 

[WilliamRanford]

I think we need to separate the ideas around how many 'good' or 'elite' players there were in different eras to how difficult it was to win a scoring race. The former concept is filled with a lot of ambiguous rationale that can be argued either way. The latter is more clear cut.

Look at Ovechkin. Tied for 9th in scoring today, with Loui Eriksson and Anze Kopitar. Would anyone dispute that he is a better player than them? Not likely. But the fact that today there are 90 top line players and ~ another 10 dangerous second line players who accumulate enough EV and PP minutes and could receive enough good fortune to find themselves tied with Ovechkin halfway through a season is not to be underestimated. In O6 days there were 18 top line players and perhaps another few 2nd line threats. 100 players today vs 20 then.

Yes, perhaps a similar ratio of players is considered 'elite' between different eras, but surely it must be harder for the elite of today to continuously prove themselves as such.

If Lindsay had a bad month in 1950, maybe he falls out of the top 10 in scoring. If Ovechkin has a bad month, he's only 8 points away from being tied for 31st. There were 20 actual threats against Lindsay -- there are 100 against Ovechkin.

So, yes, I believe O6 was just as competitive, with a similar number of elite players at any one time. But I do believe it's harder for those elite players to prove it game after game simply because of the crush of players nipping at their heels waiting to take advantage of any misstep.

 

[seventieslord]

Yet when all is said and done Richard Martin produced comparable numbers during his first five seasons. Comparable to Ovechkin and far superior to Ted Lindsay. Yet no one surmises that Martin was better than Lindsay.

The interesting part is that the Ovechkin defenders have a rather limited focus. Catalyst for his line = easily 200 players since WWII can have this said about them.
Rate Ovechkin as a complete hockey player and he suffers badly in terms of various defensive attributes, leadership, complete offense, etc. Easy to be the top dog but subordinating oneself for the good of the team is another issue all together.

Yes, "comparable numbers" - let's just ignore the fact that scoring was higher in the 1970s and the league included neither the elite players from Europe or the best of the WHA. Let's also ignore the fact that Ovechkin created his own goals and points and Martin was the second best player on his line. Let's just compare raw totals and act like it's apples and apples. (and, let's also pretend that 234 is "comparable" to 259, or, more laughably, that 414, Martin's point total in those years, is "comparable" to 529)

Ovechkin has been considered the best player in the world by some since he stepped on NHL ice. I disagree, but it's hard to say that he's not firmly in the top-3. No one would ever call Rick Martin a top-10 player. On the other hand, Ted Lindsay's first 5 years are nothing more than a strawman here, as he was not yet an elite offensive player those years - they don't define his career.

I'm not an Ovechkin defender. I don't even like him. I'm just not so crusty that I can't appreciate his talent and objectively place his achievements thus far in an all-time context. You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in viewing anything relatively.

There are rather humourous red herrings swimming thru this thread. That winning or contending for the scoring title confirs elite status on a player.

The following either contended for the Art Ross or led their team in scoring - Bronco Horvath, Earl Reibel, Murray Oliver to name a few. NONE of them could be considered elite except perhaps by their parents or the delusional.

Did they win a scoring title? Or just compete for one?

 

[seventieslord]

By the way, C1958, I agree with everything you said about Ovechkin's flaws (although he's highly underrated as a playmaker) - but all you're telling me is reasons why he's not as good as the world's best player - Sidney Crosby. That doesn't put him below the likes of Malkin, Stamkos, Toews, Kane, Richards, or any defenseman or goalie.

 

[JackSlater]

No, I do not. There is a larger talent pool to choose from. But when they play with the big boys the same amount of elite players in the NHL exist as ever. In other words lets say there are approx. 10 truly elite players in the NHL now. In 1955 they all came from Canada. In 2011 5 of them come from Canada, two from Russia, two from Sweden and one from Finland for example. Is there much of a difference?

So in other words, Canada produced 10 elite players in 1955 and only 5 in 2011... but Canada is still producing the same amount of elite talent. This will need to be explained to me.

Sedin is a good case. Swedish players could have played in the 1950s had they been good enough, but they weren't. Henrik Sedin existed back in the 1950s though, his name was probably Andy Bathgate or Bert Olmstead or whatever. In other words there was a player like him who was a threat to win a scoring title too.

That is not the point. I can point to numerous elite Canadians today and say that he is the Andy Bathgate or whoever of today. The point is that Swedes, along with other nationalities, were not elite hockey players yet. It was only Canadians. Since the other nations are now able to produce elite hockey players, the talent pool grows, and it follows that there are more elite level players.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There are rather humourous red herrings swimming thru this thread. That winning or contending for the scoring title confirs elite status on a player.

The following either contended for the Art Ross or led their team in scoring - Bronco Horvath, Earl Reibel, Murray Oliver to name a few. NONE of them could be considered elite except perhaps by their parents or the delusional.

There is also this mathematical abstraction that in the O6 era there were 6 teams each with a number one line which defined the top 18 or elite players.Rather foolish given the following. Canadiens at various times had as their first line Bonin / Beliveau / Geoffrion, second line Moore/H.Richard/M.Richard. Bonin was a journeyman forward who brought a bit of physicality when he wasn`t wrestling bears. He was not an elite player.

Most teams played an average level forward on their top line. Leafs played Bob Nevin, a rookie with Kelly and Mahovlich. He was far from the Leafs best right winger.
Detroit had a habit of playing a fringer with Howe and Delvecchio - Parker MacDonald, Gary Aldcorn types. Chicago would play a average, solid right winger opposite Bobby Hull - Chico Maki, Murray Balfour - under rated. Rangers would play Larry Popein as the center on their top line with Bathgate, etc.

Basically teams tried to balance their lines and win. The Art Ross was an after thought or a by product. Example the championship Leaf teams from the 1940`s and 60`s were loaded with elite players yet these players never seriously challenged for the Art Ross.

Also the population argument is seriously misdirected. Simply a question of ice time and coaching at the youth level. Canada is lagging. Compare the province of Quebec with the state of Minnesota. Minnesota has more rinks for a smaller population so the kids have a much greater opportunity to develop. The kids and coaches can concentrate on hockey as opposed to travel.

Conversely Russia with its huge population base is lagging since there is a very limited infrastructure. The number of hockey players produced is not keeping pace.

Couple of things here. First the voting for the art Ross in recent times has been for the highest scorer, or one of them. Maybe not the best criteria but with AO his pace has been so incredible in that he is 1st in goals and points of any player in his 1st 5 years (whereas Martin was 2nd in goals but only 11th in points).

Not sure but I doubt there are too many guys not named Wayne who are 1st in goals and points in their 1st 5 years, especially in the modern era.

2nd point on the great Leaf players from the 40-60's not winning art Ross trophies but being great players is suspect in that they are only considered great because they are in the HHOF and mostly due to politics and Cup counting (which isn't that hard in a 6 team league) not purely for their actual talent.

George Armstrong comes to mind.

Dick duff is another.

One can only wonder if Bob Nevin might have made it in if he had stayed with the Leafs.

Bob Pulford is another.

Also the last part about population isn't the entire story either, it takes more than just population growth to see an increase in the number of NHL qaulity players.

The emphasis of elite players with much better coaching and programs from the mid to late teens has increased the quality and skill level of the NHL player IMO as well.

The current World juniors bring this to like with the Swiss making the 1/4's this year as a new pool of talent for Canada, which has done a pretty decent job in producing elite players in their Jr leagues as well in the recent past.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So in other words, Canada produced 10 elite players in 1955 and only 5 in 2011... but Canada is still producing the same amount of elite talent. This will need to be explained to me.



That is not the point. I can point to numerous elite Canadians today and say that he is the Andy Bathgate or whoever of today. The point is that Swedes, along with other nationalities, were not elite hockey players yet. It was only Canadians. Since the other nations are now able to produce elite hockey players, the talent pool grows, and it follows that there are more elite level players.

The big question is why some people cannot understand this and cling to some superior notion of the 06 era

 

[Big Phil]

If Lindsay had a bad month in 1950, maybe he falls out of the top 10 in scoring. If Ovechkin has a bad month, he's only 8 points away from being tied for 31st. There were 20 actual threats against Lindsay -- there are 100 against Ovechkin.

So, yes, I believe O6 was just as competitive, with a similar number of elite players at any one time. But I do believe it's harder for those elite players to prove it game after game simply because of the crush of players nipping at their heels waiting to take advantage of any misstep.

If Lindsay had a bad month in 1950 (his only Art Ross year) by looking at the numbers he'd still have won the Art Ross. If Ovechkin had a bad month in 2008 (his only Art Ross) the only player close to him that year was Malkin who still probably would have had his work cut out for him in order to win. The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

By the way, who are these "threats" against Ovechkin? By season's end I am sure he will do what he usually does. He'll get over 100 points and will have outpointed Kopitar and others of his ilk. If not then it's an abberation not a trend because Lindsay had the likes of Tod Sloan and Bill Gadsby (yes a defenseman) outpoint him once even in a healthy year.

So in other words, Canada produced 10 elite players in 1955 and only 5 in 2011... but Canada is still producing the same amount of elite talent. This will need to be explained to me.



That is not the point. I can point to numerous elite Canadians today and say that he is the Andy Bathgate or whoever of today. The point is that Swedes, along with other nationalities, were not elite hockey players yet. It was only Canadians. Since the other nations are now able to produce elite hockey players, the talent pool grows, and it follows that there are more elite level players.

I'll cover it at the the end of this post

You just contradicted yourself.

If you don't believe Canada produces less top talent than before, why did it produce 10 truly elite players in the O6 and only 5 now?

If your point is that the other countries sprinkling into the top 10 or 25 is because they are also producing top talent then, you just confirmed our point.

I don't know the numbers off hand. I know there are more options today than in 1955. Hockey is still the most popular sport in the country today, but just because there is more enrollment it doesn't mean those kids make the NHL. I don't know the ratio of Canadians/Europeans elite players all I know is this. On the surface it looks a lot easier to win the scoring title in the 1950s than today because there are more players. But I have said again things haven't changed all that much because when you eliminate the 2nd 3rd and 4th liners you are left with the first liners of 30 NHL teams. You know as much as I know no one from Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, NYI, Phoenix, Edmonton, Florida, Boston, Toronto, Buffalo etc. will NOT win the scoring title. Probably even more.

At the end of the day you have Crosby, Stamkos, Sedin, Sedin, Malkin, Ovechkin, St. Louis and longshots like Staal, Thornton and others that have a chance at the Art Ross. Check this out below:

Top 10 scorers in 1950-'51:
Howe (HHOFer, eventual 6 time Art Ross winner)
Richard (HHOFer, former Hart winner, eventual 5 time league leader in goals)
Bentley (HHOFer, two time leader in points, one Hart Trophy)
Abel (HHOFer, 1949 Hart winner)
Schmidt (1951 Hart winner)
Kennedy (best player of a dynasty, eventual Hart winner)
Lindsay
Sloan (not in the HHOF)
Kelly (high scoring defenseman)
Smith (not in the HHOF)

Top 10 scorers in 2009-'10:
Sedin (probable HHOFer, Art Ross and Hart winner in 2010)
Crosby (future HHOFer, former Hart and Art Ross winner, consistent threat every year)
Ovechkin
Backstrom (breakout season, first time at 100 point, long ways from HHOF)
Stamkos (breakout season, led the NHL in goals)
St. Louis (future HHOFer, former Hart and Art Ross winner)
Richards (unlikely HHOFer)
Thornton (future HHOFer, former Art Ross and Hart winner)
Kane (good scorer, Cup winner, not much else yet)
Gaborik (unlikely to ever get into the HHOF)


These were the top 10 scorers in those years about 60 years apart. Lindsay and Ovechkin both do very good considering the competition. I am not trying to say Lindsay was better or Ovechkin was better, what I am trying to prove is that regardless of the era there is precious few top tier players who can threaten to win major awards. Honestly, you think it was easy in 1951? Have a look at those names.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If Lindsay had a bad month in 1950 (his only Art Ross year) by looking at the numbers he'd still have won the Art Ross. If Ovechkin had a bad month in 2008 (his only Art Ross) the only player close to him that year was Malkin who still probably would have had his work cut out for him in order to win. The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

By the way, who are these "threats" against Ovechkin? By season's end I am sure he will do what he usually does. He'll get over 100 points and will have outpointed Kopitar and others of his ilk. If not then it's an abberation not a trend because Lindsay had the likes of Tod Sloan and Bill Gadsby (yes a defenseman) outpoint him once even in a healthy year.





I'll cover it at the the end of this post



I don't know the numbers off hand. I know there are more options today than in 1955. Hockey is still the most popular sport in the country today, but just because there is more enrollment it doesn't mean those kids make the NHL. I don't know the ratio of Canadians/Europeans elite players all I know is this. On the surface it looks a lot easier to win the scoring title in the 1950s than today because there are more players. But I have said again things haven't changed all that much because when you eliminate the 2nd 3rd and 4th liners you are left with the first liners of 30 NHL teams. You know as much as I know no one from Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, NYI, Phoenix, Edmonton, Florida, Boston, Toronto, Buffalo etc. will NOT win the scoring title. Probably even more.

At the end of the day you have Crosby, Stamkos, Sedin, Sedin, Malkin, Ovechkin, St. Louis and longshots like Staal, Thornton and others that have a chance at the Art Ross. Check this out below:

Top 10 scorers in 1950-'51:
Howe (HHOFer, eventual 6 time Art Ross winner)
Richard (HHOFer, former Hart winner, eventual 5 time league leader in goals)
Bentley (HHOFer, two time leader in points, one Hart Trophy)
Abel (HHOFer, 1949 Hart winner)
Schmidt (1951 Hart winner)
Kennedy (best player of a dynasty, eventual Hart winner)
Lindsay
Sloan (not in the HHOF)
Kelly (high scoring defenseman)
Smith (not in the HHOF)

Top 10 scorers in 2009-'10:
Sedin (probable HHOFer, Art Ross and Hart winner in 2010)
Crosby (future HHOFer, former Hart and Art Ross winner, consistent threat every year)
Ovechkin
Backstrom (breakout season, first time at 100 point, long ways from HHOF)
Stamkos (breakout season, led the NHL in goals)
St. Louis (future HHOFer, former Hart and Art Ross winner)
Richards (unlikely HHOFer)
Thornton (future HHOFer, former Art Ross and Hart winner)
Kane (good scorer, Cup winner, not much else yet)
Gaborik (unlikely to ever get into the HHOF)


These were the top 10 scorers in those years about 60 years apart. Lindsay and Ovechkin both do very good considering the competition. I am not trying to say Lindsay was better or Ovechkin was better, what I am trying to prove is that regardless of the era there is precious few top tier players who can threaten to win major awards. Honestly, you think it was easy in 1951? Have a look at those names.

To the 2010 top 10 scorers, Richards is on track for a strong case to make the Hall.

Stamkos and Backstrom and Kane area ll too early to tell but are on a strong track for various reasons.

Gaborik probably won't make it in due to injuries but if he had been healthy most certainly would have made it and he is only 28 and still has time to do it.

I did notice a lot of Hart's and Art Ross in the 51 list but that was not unexpected given there were only 6 teams.

11-20 on the 10 list is a group of excellent players as well, most of whom have or are likely to fight for a top 10 scoring finish in the near future.

This list includes Kovo, D Sedin, Semin, Marleu, Heatley, Paise, Kopitar, Stastny, Malkin,Green, and Perry.

3 maybe 4 of these guys will make the hall IMO (depending if the criteria of 3 or players a year max stay the same or not).

Kovo, D. Sedin and Parise are all on track Malkin too if he gets his head on straight and Heatley if he ages normally.

The 11-20 range for the 51 group is actually a lot weaker than I thought it would be but hardly stacks up at all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooking...........

Yes, "comparable numbers" - let's just ignore the fact that scoring was higher in the 1970s and the league included neither the elite players from Europe or the best of the WHA. Let's also ignore the fact that Ovechkin created his own goals and points and Martin was the second best player on his line. Let's just compare raw totals and act like it's apples and apples. (and, let's also pretend that 234 is "comparable" to 259, or, more laughably, that 414, Martin's point total in those years, is "comparable" to 529)

Ovechkin has been considered the best player in the world by some since he stepped on NHL ice. I disagree, but it's hard to say that he's not firmly in the top-3. No one would ever call Rick Martin a top-10 player. On the other hand, Ted Lindsay's first 5 years are nothing more than a strawman here, as he was not yet an elite offensive player those years - they don't define his career.

I'm not an Ovechkin defender. I don't even like him. I'm just not so crusty that I can't appreciate his talent and objectively place his achievements thus far in an all-time context. You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in viewing anything relatively.



Did they win a scoring title? Or just compete for one?

Overlooking one critical advantage that Ovechkin had - entering the NHL post lock-out where all the veteran players had to adjust their game defensively to the new anti-obstruction rules. This is true for all the post lock-out rookies who to various degrees are getting by with a limited skill set. Crosby and Backstrom are the closest to complete players.

I can appreciate Ovechkin`s talent but I can also look at it from the standpoint of what he could be IF he worked on all aspects of his game. Sadly this is not happening.

As for looking at things relatively. When you come up with relative data that is valid - as an example SV% that reflects the type of shot - perimeter, slot, from various offensive zones etc then we`ll talk about a willingness to look at data relatively. Until that time I will recognize data for its selective nature.