Ovechkin vs Lindsay

[Canadiens1958]

A Few Points

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.

Trust that you are aware that there is no voting for the Art Ross. Won strictly on merit or point counting if you will.

Do not confuse you HHOF issues with being an elite player. Mark Howe being a prime example of an elite player not being in the HHOF, Claude Provost and many others could be added to the list.

 

[Stephen]

That's an interesting concept, and one that's hard to test. One comparable could be Jagr's troubles getting Hart votes until Mario retired (the first time). I believe he went from 13th to 2nd in Hart voting once he was out from under Lemieux's shadow (the only other time he placed that high was the lockout shortened season, when Mario didn't play).

Can we imagine that if Lindsay put up those numbers on the Blackhawks during those years (away from Howe), he would have received more Hart votes? He surely wouldn't have put up as many as he did without Howe/Abel/Kelly, but with a 13% cushion in 1950 he might have had a shot to win the scoring title.

I don't know if that makes any sense at all, because like it or not, Lindsay's success was related to playing with Howe (and Abel), who was one of the best two players in the 1950s. So if Lindsay were accomplishing his career numbers on an inferior team, he would have had to have been a superior player himself. And think about it like this, Lindsay had a Gordie Howe to play with on his line, a superior player to himself. Alexander Ovechkin doesn't have the benefit of playing with an equivalent or superior talent on his line (as good as Backstrom is).

 

[seventieslord]

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.

I am not even referring to data - I'm referring to simple statements like "so and so from the original six played against hall of famers every night while so and so from modern times doesn't" when it should be obvious that it's an impossible comparison that is doomed from the start.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Trust that you are aware that there is no voting for the Art Ross. Won strictly on merit or point counting if you will.

Do not confuse you HHOF issues with being an elite player. Mark Howe being a prime example of an elite player not being in the HHOF, Claude Provost and many others could be added to the list.

Thanks for the correction, I had the Hart on my mind.

Mark Howe I will agree can be considered elite (at least for a short period) but Claude Provost isn't what I would call an elite player. A very good role player but not sure that he was any better than Butch Goring or John Tonelli.

Actually I'm pretty sure that he wasn't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.
.

While this is true at even strength, in the Original 6 era, teams generally had their starting PP unit out there for the whole PP. So the 3-4 forwards per team on a starting PP unit had a huge advantage over their teammates in terms of finishing high in the overall scoring race.

It's why Henri Richard can be underrated if you just look at his scoring finishes - overpass showed fairly recently that Henri was right there with Gordie Howe as the top even strength scorers over the course of his career, but he got barely any PP time. Now, Henri Richard still has a handful of Top 10 finishes, but he's also in almost all likelihood a significantly better player than anyone else from the era who didn't get PP time.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I think Ovechkin is pretty much tied with Lindsay, but 2 more seasons in the top 5 scoring and he'll be the clear-cut 2nd LW.

Don't think he'll ever reach Bobby though.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

The 11-20 top scorers in 1951 are hardly any different than today. The big names in the 11-20 range are:

Roy Conacher (1949 Art Ross Winner)
Elmer Lach (1948 Art Ross Winner, was a first team all-star even after 1951)
an old Woody Dumart and a young Bert Olmstead.

How is this weak?

Anyway I presented my side rather well so if you still think the 1950s was an era of shinny, well then there is nothing else I can do about it.

 

[JackSlater]

Anyway I presented my side rather well so if you still think the 1950s was an era of shinny, well then there is nothing else I can do about it.

Actually you contradicted yourself and have been unable to give any logical proof to support your claim that the number of elite players is exactly the same. Unless one defines the amount of elite players in the league to be a given group of players (top 10 or perhaps top 20 or top50) there is no reasonable way to reach your conclusion. I still don't think anyone has yet said that original six era hockey was shinny level or that high scoring finishes were easy in that era. Anyway this has deviated from Lindsay vs Ovechkin and is probably more appropriate for the thread regarding players of the past and players of today.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Actually you contradicted yourself and have been unable to give any logical proof to support your claim that the number of elite players is exactly the same. Unless one defines the amount of elite players in the league to be a given group of players (top 10 or perhaps top 20 or top50) there is no reasonable way to reach your conclusion. I still don't think anyone has yet said that original six era hockey was shinny level or that high scoring finishes were easy in that era. Anyway this has deviated from Lindsay vs Ovechkin and is probably more appropriate for the thread regarding players of the past and players of today.

I agree here and wish people would stop throwing up straw men (like inferring that i was stating that 06 hockey was like shinny).

Maybe at the end of the day people will just disagree to the difficulty of finishing higher in scoring races from one era to another.