Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (With a Vengeance)

[Nick Hansen]

Yes I suspect so. This would be to Ovechkin's benefit most likely. There are old refs who have stated that there are instances where Bobby Hull had a defender holding him up, but since he was so strong and fought through it for a chance on goal, they couldn't justify calling a penalty. Restraining fouls have been relentlessly punished throughout Ovechkin's career.

And who couldn't honestly see this be the case with prime Ovechkin as well?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I can't. Ovechkin played in the era with the least amount of interference in the history of the game, and by no small margin. Particularly early in his career...you couldn't belch at someone in 2006 or 2007...vastly different from even five years previous...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

And who couldn't honestly see this be the case with prime Ovechkin as well?

Powerplays were handed out like candy for the first several years of Ovechkin's career, so I find it less likely he had problems getting calls. By my memory Washington was routinely a league leader in PPs and he was amongst the NHL's ice time leaders. But regardless, numbers are what they are. Hull did not post a -35 in a year where he led the NHL in goals, or any year at all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What's even the thing that is supposed to separate Ovechkin and Hull by any significant margin? I get that Hull has a few more AS1 or AS2 placements but besides that...Hull probably slightly better in playoffs, but not a huge difference. Their overall play, I've never heard Hull was a two-way player of any particular significance. Three Art Ross (one shared) for Hull, but Ovechkin has three Hart's and two 2nd placements, Hull's got two of those and two 2nd placements, both 7 (retro in Hull's case) Richards...They just seem very similar in a lot of ways.

Another thing: Orr just winning one Lindsay/Pearson was surprising to me, I know it only existed for a few years during his careeer but. He's always been described as so impressive and over-powering. Yet Ratelle wins one in Orr's prime.

1971-72 Orr was playing hurt, required knee surgery that forced him to miss the Summit Series.

Not the player he was the year before.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Powerplays were handed out like candy for the first several years of Ovechkin's career, so I find it less likely he had problems getting calls. By my memory Washington was routinely a league leader in PPs and he was amongst the NHL's ice time leaders. But regardless, numbers are what they are. Hull did not post a -35 in a year where he led the NHL in goals, or any year at all.

And Gretzky posted a -25 in a year where he led the NHL in scoring. No one has ever done that. Is it really that relevant?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

And Gretzky posted a -25 in a year where he led the NHL in scoring. No one has ever done that. Is it really that relevant?

It's highly relevant. Indicates the player in question bled goals against at even strength at a greater rate than he was able to produce them. Going -35, by far the worst on the team, which had 90 points and only -5 goal differential, is astoundingly bad for a player of Ovechkin's ilk. Bobby Hull has no such crater in the middle of his career.

 

[ted2019]

I can't. Ovechkin played in the era with the least amount of interference in the history of the game, and by no small margin. Particularly early in his career...you couldn't belch at someone in 2006 or 2007...vastly different from even five years previous...

This is why on what players like John LeClair & Eric Lindros did seem so remarkable. They were practically hog tied every night and still scored 40 to 50 goals on a regular basis.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And Gretzky posted a -25 in a year where he led the NHL in scoring. No one has ever done that. Is it really that relevant?

Why would anyone want to generate a -35 or a -25 regardless of leading the NHL in goals or scoring?

 

[K Fleur]

Hockey reference tracks league average powerplay opportunities per game back to the 63-64 season.

Of these seasons

Ovechkin's rookie season, 05-06, is the highest (5.85).
His sophomore season, 06-07, ranks 7th highest (4.85).
07-08 ranks 19th highest (4.28)*

Of these same seasons:

16-17 ranks the lowest (2.99)
17-18 ranks the 2nd lowest (3.04)*
14-15 ranks the 3rd lowest (3.06)*
15-16 ranks the 4th lowest (3.11)*
13-14 ranks the 6th lowest (3.27)*
11-12 ranks the 10th lowest (3.31)
12-13 ranks the 12th lowest (3.32)*
10-11 ranks the 18th lowest (3.54)

*Rocket Richard Trophy win

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[K Fleur]

These are the Washington Capitals league placing in powerplay opportunities throughout Ovechkin's career:

17-18: 19th
16-17: 13th
15-16: 19th
14-15: 23rd
13-14: 3rd
12-13: 14th
11-12: 27th
10-11: 28th
09-10: 10th
08-09: 19th
07-08: 17th
06-07: 9th
05-06: 13th

If my math is right that gives the Ovi era caps an avg placing of 16th

 

[Kyle McMahon]

These are the Washington Capitals league placing in powerplay opportunities throughout Ovechkin's career:

17-18: 19th
16-17: 13th
15-16: 19th
14-15: 23rd
13-14: 3rd
12-13: 14th
11-12: 27th
10-11: 28th
09-10: 10th
08-09: 19th
07-08: 17th
06-07: 9th
05-06: 13th

If my math is right that gives the Ovi era caps an avg placing of 16th

Thanks for digging this up, I would have guessed the Capitals had more PP opportunities than league average.

Although I'd actually be curious to see what the situational breakdown is. Washington usually finished high in the standings, and teams that are ahead by 2+ goals in a game don't tend to get given PPs unless it's an obvious call.

 

[steve141]

How does that affect his pla cing in terms of this project? I mean, we're not really ranking the fiercest competitors or the best "winners" of all-time, but the top hockey players.

I'm not judging Bobby Hull for Chicago not winning more, I'm judging him for not doing all he could to make his team win.

Let's compare him to a Zetterberg, a player who didn't have a 10th of Hull's talent. Zetterberg spent the 2008 and 2009 playoff finals shutting down Crosby. He also managed to lead the playoffs in goals and points in 2008. Would Hull have been able to do that? Would he have accepted the assignment of forgoing his own scoring to maximize the team's chance of winning?

I don't even have Zetterberg in my top 120, but he's a good example of a player who did everything he could to win. Hull didn't. I guess I'm not that impressed with offense only guys.

The HOH board ranked Hull as the 31th best playoff performer. Can you really be a top 10 player all-time if you aren't a top 30 playoff performer all-time?

 

[daver]

I'm not judging Bobby Hull for Chicago not winning more, I'm judging him for not doing all he could to make his team win.

Let's compare him to a Zetterberg, a player who didn't have a 10th of Hull's talent. Zetterberg spent the 2008 and 2009 playoff finals shutting down Crosby. He also managed to lead the playoffs in goals and points in 2008. Would Hull have been able to do that? Would he have accepted the assignment of forgoing his own scoring to maximize the team's chance of winning?

How does one of the best goalscorers of all-time forgoing goalscoring maximize his team's chances of winning?

I think placing value on playoff performances is important but at the end of the day, it has to complement regular season performances. I really dislike when perceived underachieving in the playoffs is taken to be a player caring more about their regular season stats.

Hull is in the Top 10 for sure, placing him below players like Belliveau and Richard (and potentially Crosby in a few more years) based on playoff resumes is completely reasonable.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I can't. Ovechkin played in the era with the least amount of interference in the history of the game, and by no small margin. Particularly early in his career...you couldn't belch at someone in 2006 or 2007...vastly different from even five years previous...

What I meant was that I am pretty certain Ovechkin could've fought his way through as well if need be, man was strong as an ox, particularly in the earlier days. Not that he didn't get the whistle when he should've.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Could he? Sure, probably. Would he be nearly as effective? Seems highly, highly unlikely...

It's just not him either...his partners in crime need to be able to help too...Nicklas Backstrom, Alexander Semin, Mike Green...yeesh, there's a wet paper bag still intact somewhere...

 

[daver]

Yes I suspect so. This would be to Ovechkin's benefit most likely. There are old refs who have stated that there are instances where Bobby Hull had a defender holding him up, but since he was so strong and fought through it for a chance on goal, they couldn't justify calling a penalty. Restraining fouls have been relentlessly punished throughout Ovechkin's career.

I don't get this line of thinking. Both stood out among their peers who also played in the same environments of less or more calls being made. I don't see a reason to assume that Hull would have performed differently relative to the league if he played in OV's era unless we make that same presumption for other players from Hull's era.

 

[Laineux]

Following the same line of thinking, wouldn't Hull's relative dominance diminish if the calls were made and his ability to fight through fouls would become irrelevant?

 

[Michael Farkas]

How does one of the best goalscorers of all-time forgoing goalscoring maximize his team's chances of winning?

It's about playing within the team game to maximize chances of winning. This was discussed a ton before re: Ovechkin. Ovechkin played a much, much different game in 2018 than he did in any other playoffs...but yet, who still led the league in goals and shots and power play goals in the postseason, Ovechkin...he's never done that before either.

I believe it was you, among others, that this has already been explained (that is, the differences in Ovechkin's game compared to past years), I can dig it up if necessary.

The game is not binary.

 

[pappyline]

I'm not judging Bobby Hull for Chicago not winning more, I'm judging him for not doing all he could to make his team win.

Let's compare him to a Zetterberg, a player who didn't have a 10th of Hull's talent. Zetterberg spent the 2008 and 2009 playoff finals shutting down Crosby. He also managed to lead the playoffs in goals and points in 2008. Would Hull have been able to do that? Would he have accepted the assignment of forgoing his own scoring to maximize the team's chance of winning?

I don't even have Zetterberg in my top 120, but he's a good example of a player who did everything he could to win. Hull didn't. I guess I'm not that impressed with offense only guys.

The HOH board ranked Hull as the 31th best playoff performer. Can you really be a top 10 player all-time if you aren't a top 30 playoff performer all-time?

This is nonsense. Hull did everything he could to make his team win including playing with severe injuries,

"In a 1963 playoff game against the Detroit Red Wings, Hull scored three goals despite a rearranged nose that severely hampered his breathing. But that was nothing compared to the broken jaw Hull sustained on Christmas Day in 1968. He missed one game, then played six weeks with his jaw wired shut, sipping a "brownish ugh" for nourishment through a straw. Hull scored 10 goals while losing weight. When able to eat solid food again, he binged on steak and scored 19 goals in 14 games."

 

[daver]

It's about playing within the team game to maximize chances of winning. This was discussed a ton before re: Ovechkin. Ovechkin played a much, much different game in 2018 than he did in any other playoffs...but yet, who still led the league in goals and shots and power play goals in the postseason, Ovechkin...he's never done that before either.

I believe it was you, among others, that this has already been explained (that is, the differences in Ovechkin's game compared to past years), I can dig it up if necessary.

The game is not binary.

The poster I quoted sounded like they were presuming that Hull did not play within the team game with the only proof being the Hawks did not have more team success. I was looking for something more concrete than "he lead the league in goals, therefore he must have not sacrificed offense for the good of the team".

The popular opinion on OV was that he did not contribute much in terms of defense until later in his career. I don't think it can be framed in black and white that this change was the reason the Caps finally won and his career up until that point should be viewed as not having the value his regular season resume would suggest.

Both OV and Hull, while having per playoff game performances befitting their regular season performances, are lacking the playoff resumes of their peers with similar regular season resumes which is a very defensible position to place them below those respective players.

 

[pappyline]

The poster I quoted sounded like they were presuming that Hull did not play within the team game with the only proof being the Hawks did not have more team success. I was looking for something more concrete than "he lead the league in goals, therefore he must have not sacrificed offense for the good of the team".

The popular opinion on OV was that he did not contribute much in terms of defense until later in his career. I don't think it can be framed in black and white that this change was the reason the Caps finally won and his career up until that point should be viewed as not having the value his regular season resume would suggest.

Both OV and Hull, while having per playoff game performances befitting their regular season performances, are lacking the playoff resumes of their peers with similar regular season resumes which is a very defensible position to place them below those respective players.

Teams win cups. Cup counting is not a good way of ranking individual players. Chicago didn't have near the depth of those Montreal & Toronto teams of the 1960's. They also had inferior coaching and a lack of clutch goaltending.

 

[DannyGallivan]

What's even the thing that is supposed to separate Ovechkin and Hull by any significant margin? I get that Hull has a few more AS1 or AS2 placements but besides that...Hull probably slightly better in playoffs, but not a huge difference. Their overall play, I've never heard Hull was a two-way player of any particular significance. Three Art Ross (one shared) for Hull, but Ovechkin has three Hart's and two 2nd placements, Hull's got two of those and two 2nd placements, both 7 (retro in Hull's case) Richards...They just seem very similar in a lot of ways.

Another thing: Orr just winning one Lindsay/Pearson was surprising to me, I know it only existed for a few years during his careeer but. He's always been described as so impressive and over-powering. Yet Ratelle wins one in Orr's prime.

Well, don't forget that Hull (for me at least) is rated based on his entire career, which has been longer than Ovechkin's. Plus, I sincerely believe that Bobby Hull was a better hockey player than Ovechkin. It's really that simple. I saw both play. Perhaps we can get into this more in the next round.

For the record, while I have Hull at number 5, I have Ovechkin at number 13. When you're talking about the top 120 players of all time, that's really just a couple of decimal points away.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Consider level of what was allowed and not. I don't know, but I am guessing that the referees are enforcing the rules much harsher during Ovechkin's career than during Hull's career.

It's a good thing Hull was so strong, because he was regularly mugged game in and game out. He usually dragged two defenders on his back. There was a ton of clutching, grabbing, etc. in those days.

 

[DannyGallivan]

That 15-30 span of my list, which includes Esposito, Clarke, Lafleur, and Mikita is proving to be an exercise in futility to try and re-arrange. At this point I think I might be content to keep them where I had them originally and let the more detailed discussion sort things out.

I have Lafleur much higher on my list. His skill set was magical, plus he produced. He had the sizzle and the steak. For my money, the best Hab ever (and that's saying a lot). The others you list are all ranked 23rd or lower for me.

 

[DannyGallivan]

And who couldn't honestly see this be the case with prime Ovechkin as well?

Except it wasn't. The game is called differently during Ovechkin's career.