I stated that his peak is much better, what exactly have you stated against him, absolutely nothing.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
- Status
Malkin is in the tier of a few guys (Lindros, Forsberg, Bure) who have a really great peak but lack overall longevity (and overall full seasons), which hurts him, vs maybe slightly lesser "high profile" players but who overtake him in the long run/longevity.
I'd be fine with Malkin being here this round or soon - but that's why he's not yet. He only has 823 career games. He especially also only has 5 seasons where he played over 70 games in 13 total seasons. Meaning he misses out on top scoring finishes, top hart placements, etc. His partial seasons also rarely look all that impressive (vs a Crosby for example whose partial seasons look great).
p.s. im not saying Lindros/Bure are on the same tier all time as Forsberg/Malkin - just that they're similar for elite players with lack of longevity. Forsberg/Malkin are close and both above the first 2.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,756
- 29,246
Richard has like 431 Cups.
Don't list team awards like it matters. But I would take anyone except maybe Conacher and Coffey over Malkin, and a few people not up yet as well.
ted2019
History of Hockey
Henri Richard
Frank Boucher
Pierre Pilote
Chris Chelios
Syl Apps Sr.
Vladislav Tretiak
Valeri Kharlamov
King Clancy
Brad Park
Paul Coffey
about 10 -15 names not up for induction.
sure NP
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe top 3 is firm, everything after is fluid not set in stone
4. Jean Beliveau
5. Bourque
6. Patrick Roy
7. Mario Lemieux
8. Nicklas Lidstrom
9. Bobby Hull
10. Sidney Crosby
11. Dominik Hasek
12. Denis Potvin
13. Sergei Makarov
14. Jaromir Jagr
15. Doug Harvey
16. Stan Mikita
17. Alexander Ovechkin
18. Maurice Richard
19. Jacques Plante
20. Steve Yzerman
I always appreciate your posts and research and thought put into them, but your idea of true shooting % isn't very use full historically.
SOG at least has a longer track record and true shooting % is a stat that is about as use full as G/60 or P/60 IMO.
I don't see you making any arguments here.
Malkin is the 3rd best player over an era of 12 years, which of those players can make that claim?
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,756
- 29,246
I don't think it's intended to be. But we're not talking about historical stats - these are current players so the numbers have a bit more meaning.
At the same time - I generally think directing shots toward the net is a good thing, so it's not something I knock Ovi for much. He shoots from fairly far out normally, but those are still dangerous shots coming from him.
Yeah I believe that in people's constant desire to look at more advanced stats we sometimes lose track of the big picture.
What counts is scoring goals. That's it. It doesn't matter if a player scores 50 goals on 700 shots in 1 year, and another scores 20 goals on 40 shots in one year. 50 goals is better than 20, and that's where it ends.
What does being more efficient matter? Maybe it matters if you're looking at current active players and trying to decide who to take for next year - considering the more efficient guy is more likely to shoot more than the other one is to repeat 700 shots - but when looking at past performances the absolute only thing that should matter is actual goals.
If someone was to go one step further and to try and analyze how a player like Ovi shooting too much actually hurts his team (ie - he shoots too much, thus turning the puck over/stopping play when instead he could cycle/pass more and keep the puck and creating more/better chances) - than sure, maybe then you can start arguing how shooting too much isn't always better. There's no way for anyone to be able to properly analyze this though, would take an in-depth analysis on a game by game basis I expect.
Similar as G/60 or P/60 have 0 bearing. Maybe it does if you're looking at 2 players in today's season and trying to pick the best choice for next year- since you assume the guy with less ice time can get more and hence (maybe) more points - but it always comes down to actual points and goals. And in the context of this project, where we're only looking at past performances - i don't see how p/60 or g/60 have any worth at all. If player A has more points than player B but player B has better P/60 - well too bad for player B not being good enough to earn more ice-time for his coach, and instead wasting more time being completely and uselessly sitting on a bench than player A.
Finally - I wanted to commend you for posting your top 20 list above, it's always fun to see lists from others who haven't participated but who are commenting a lot. If you notice I'm commending you for your list here - and I even 'liked' the post of yours i'm directly replying to - but specifically chose not to 'like' the post where you put your top 20 list and put Mario Lemieux at #7. But i'm going to try and remain disciplined and not take us further off-topic by launching into a huge tirade of why you're out of your mind for having him so low
Although I tend to agree with you, to put up a new metric of "true shooting %", it just adds more noise to the field rather than bring any more clarity on the situation.
I mean shooting % makes up exactly how much of the report card or score for any all time great, maybe less than 1%?
"True shooting %" doesn't add any more light to the darkness for me.
Is there really any argument that OV's point totals do not reflect the amount of offense he brought to his team? I don't see a real reason to either lower or raise the value of them based on his goal totals or digging into his shot totals/shooting %.
He was an overall offensive threat in his early years, a player who created offense on his own for the most part, then transitioned to primarily a triggerman who is much more reliant on his linemates.
The latter is reflected in his diminished overall offensive production. He was 1st in points and 2nd in PPG from '05 to '10; he is 4th in points and 6th in PPG from '11 to today.
He was an overall offensive threat in his early years, a player who created offense on his own for the most part, then transitioned to primarily a triggerman who is much more reliant on his linemates.
The latter is reflected in his diminished overall offensive production. He was 1st in points and 2nd in PPG from '05 to '10; he is 4th in points and 6th in PPG from '11 to today.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,756
- 29,246
I think it does, simply because it's odd that blocked shots, crossbars, etc. dont exist in the stat universe. I would use it as a predictive rather than measuring tool to determine if it's a cold streak or a player is playing at an unsustainable rate though.
TBF - Stamkos has always been a more accurate shooter than Ovi. Or maybe more selective is the better phrase. And Crosby scores most of his goals within 5 feet of the net.
ted2019
History of Hockey
How' s he the 3rd best player? Explain. I also don't need to make the argument, since you are the one who I've never seen post in any of these threads before, say that Malkin is better then most of the players on here.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
I'd like to see Malkin in the next vote, but it's not a shame that he's unavailable this round. Easy to forget that while his per-game impact is extremely high, he only has 3 or 4 full seasons that make him relevant at this stage.
Five straight years between his Hart season and last season where he missed 26% of Pittsburgh's total games really hurts him. And it's not like his missed time can be chalked up to freak injuries like Crosby's puck to the jaw.
Five straight years between his Hart season and last season where he missed 26% of Pittsburgh's total games really hurts him. And it's not like his missed time can be chalked up to freak injuries like Crosby's puck to the jaw.
I agree 100% with the Forsberg/Lindros comparisons, Bure is far below them in my opinion.
I hope lindros sneaks into the bottom of the list because a peak lindros had the impact of a top 20 all time great.
Sentinel
Registered User
Kharlamov. Has a claim as a top 3 player in the world in 1970-1976 (yeah, tell me he was worse than Clarke).
Sentinel
Registered User
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,895
- 6,330
Bure is clearly below Forsberg, but he's not far below Lindros, accomplishment wise. If Lindros was another player (which is, not Eric Lindros), who could stay healthy, then perhaps he could have been far ahead, but he wasn't. I certainly understand if someone wants to rank him above Bure, but the accomplishments just aren't there to put him far ahead. He won a tight Hart/Ross/Pearson in a lockout season, that's it more or less. Full season and he likely gets injured and Jagr pulls ahead. Lindros had a great 97 playoffs, but Bure's in 94 was slightly better (16 game point streak, Churla elbow, PPG over a final series going the distance).
Lindros, for whatever reason/reasons, couldn't step into the shoes of a leader during the Nagano Olympics, his team missed the final and he was below PPG. Bure captained Russia to the final game and was selected best forward of the tournament.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I think context matters. Where is the shot coming from? What is it doing for possession. How many shots are getting to the net?
Why is it that hockey is so resistant to anything "new" when it comes to evaluating play (not saying you are personally). There are people who still think +/- on the surface matters. I'm talking about the fact that players on the ice when an empty net goal is given up earn a minus. How ridiculous is that? The damn net is empty! What if you're skating off behind an odd man rush and a goal happens while you're still technically on the ice? You get a plus. Did you deserve it?
There are absolutely times when the Caps have been to focused on feeding 8 that they give up other quality chances. How many of those 8000+ shots were literally .00001% chance attempts? I don't know but I'm sure they exist. Dismissing that and the disparity between his peers smacks of....something lol.
We need to get beyond raw data when evaluating this game. I'm not slighting 8's goal scoring. He scored those goals. Nobody can take that away from him.
BUT. And I think there is some merit to that but, his goal scoring totals are gotten by taking such a massive amount of shots relative to his peers. So A, nobody else in the league is shooting as much as Ovechkin. Not even close. I've shown the numbers quite clearly. And then, B, on top of that, his competition for goal scoring supremacy in this era is very weak. There is no Gordie Howe challenging him. There is no Mario, or Richard, or Hull.
Crosby scored 50 in a season. Good chance he hits 60+ in 2011. Are you, or anyone else really going to argue that if Sid cared more about being a goal scorer he couldn't have hit 50+ in more than a few seasons? What if he took another 200 shots a season? Same with Stamkos if he hadn't suffered so many debilitating injuries + MSL being a geezer by the time Stammer hit his stride. Ovechkin has literally launched 100% more shots on net (misses included) than those guys. Is he doubling them up in totals? No.
Your question about being a net positive or not is certainly a good question and one that probably can't be completely answered but how much has success has Ovechkin and his teams had since 2006? It literally took them 13 years to win a Cup. Before that, never once, not once did they go past the 2nd round. It's certainly not all 8's fault. But he's not blameless either.
That includes 3 President trophy winning teams and multiple other 1st place teams within their division/conference. So those folks who will surely show up can spare me the whining about the Pens had more talent, the rest of the team always dropped the ball and 8 was great, yada, yada, yada. Ovechkin has almost always played on very, very strong rosters that often were better than most of the teams in the league. Why is it that they routinely came up short?
If anything, I'd say that dismissing the notion that an unbalanced offensive scheme revolving around setting up 8 so that he could launch repeated bombs played into that. Might not have been the key. But I think it mattered.
Completely disagree. See above.
Yeah I believe that in people's constant desire to look at more advanced stats we sometimes lose track of the big picture.
What counts is scoring goals. That's it. It doesn't matter if a player scores 50 goals on 700 shots in 1 year, and another scores 20 goals on 40 shots in one year. 50 goals is better than 20, and that's where it ends.
What does being more efficient matter? Maybe it matters if you're looking at current active players and trying to decide who to take for next year - considering the more efficient guy is more likely to shoot more than the other one is to repeat 700 shots - but when looking at past performances the absolute only thing that should matter is actual goals.
If someone was to go one step further and to try and analyze how a player like Ovi shooting too much actually hurts his team (ie - he shoots too much, thus turning the puck over/stopping play when instead he could cycle/pass more and keep the puck and creating more/better chances) - than sure, maybe then you can start arguing how shooting too much isn't always better. There's no way for anyone to be able to properly analyze this though, would take an in-depth analysis on a game by game basis I expect.
Similar as G/60 or P/60 have 0 bearing. Maybe it does if you're looking at 2 players in today's season and trying to pick the best choice for next year- since you assume the guy with less ice time can get more and hence (maybe) more points - but it always comes down to actual points and goals. And in the context of this project, where we're only looking at past performances - i don't see how p/60 or g/60 have any worth at all. If player A has more points than player B but player B has better P/60 - well too bad for player B not being good enough to earn more ice-time for his coach, and instead wasting more time being completely and uselessly sitting on a bench than player A.
Finally - I wanted to commend you for posting your top 20 list above, it's always fun to see lists from others who haven't participated but who are commenting a lot. If you notice I'm commending you for your list here - and I even 'liked' the post of yours i'm directly replying to - but specifically chose not to 'like' the post where you put your top 20 list and put Mario Lemieux at #7. But i'm going to try and remain disciplined and not take us further off-topic by launching into a huge tirade of why you're out of your mind for having him so low
You have such a narrow view on analytics sir. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but if you only care about raw totals, then you really don't need to be involved in complex studies.
No, if player A scored 55 goals on 600 total shots attempted and player B scores 52 goals on 500 total shots attempted, then player B is, IMO, every bit the goal scorer that player A is. Efficiency does matter. At least to some extent IMO. This is a team game. Teams win Cups. Is it any wonder why Crosby and the Pens have been to 4 Cup finals, despite never once being a President trophy winning team? Do I need to point out how few times the Pens actually had a better record than the Caps in the regular season?
To the above post, it's pretty clear that some teams can have alot of regular season success and still do poorly in the playoffs due to poor team construction.
See the Canucks under the Sedins and Vigneault as coach.
Or those Pens teams led by Jagr in the late 90's.
Not all teams that have very good to great regular seasons are set up structurally for great playoff runs.
Put another way, the Capitals led by Ovechkin in the 2010 playoffs didn't lose because Ovechkin was shooting too much or his his "real shooting %" was low, it was because Halak did his best Bernie Parent impersonation in that first round.
See the Canucks under the Sedins and Vigneault as coach.
Or those Pens teams led by Jagr in the late 90's.
Not all teams that have very good to great regular seasons are set up structurally for great playoff runs.
Put another way, the Capitals led by Ovechkin in the 2010 playoffs didn't lose because Ovechkin was shooting too much or his his "real shooting %" was low, it was because Halak did his best Bernie Parent impersonation in that first round.
Accomplishments,sure. I just think in a vacuum, lindros, Forsberg and Malkin are vastly superior.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,797
- 16,540
I don't think your context really applies in his peak years. Wasn't he generating offense besides him actually scoring in his earlier years? Seems like he got a lot of assists from rebounds being scored from the havoc he could create when he drove the net. I think there is also something to be said about simply getting the puck on net much more than anyone too.
IMO, there is no argument that he was able to get the puck in the net better than anyone else regardless of deployment or shots taken. I don't think you can argue efficiency to bring another player up to his level. Raw goal totals count. If another player put up a similar amount, then I think you would have a point but this is not the case.
I think you are arguing against his goal totals being viewed more valuable than Crosby's point totals. I don't think the majority in HOH feel that way or feel that OV's game was as conducive to team success as Crosby's.
- Status
