Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[bobholly39]

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?

You're saying a bunch of different things and changing the subject like 10x in 2 paragraphs.

I'm not saying raw points is all that matters in hockey. How you got that from my post i'd like to know - maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

What i'm saying is that PP vs ES, or P/60 or sh% are all means to an end. The end is actually getting the goal, or point.

In the case of your example of a player scoring 55 goals vs one scoring 52 goals - well with no additional data I'd be tempted to say the one with 55 goals had the better season. Assists, overall play, defensive play, intangible, heck even leadership qualities may change the answer since 55 and 52 are so close - but insomuch as looking strictly at goal totals, 55 > 52. I don't care about # of shots. If anything the guy with 100 more shots sounds like he had the puck more often and helped control the flow of the game more.

How we get from talking about a made up player with 55 goals and one with 52 goals to talking about Crosby being better than Ov because cup counting i'm not sure...

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're saying a bunch of different things and changing the subject like 10x in 2 paragraphs.

I'm not saying raw points is all that matters in hockey. How you got that from my post i'd like to know - maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

What i'm saying is that PP vs ES, or P/60 or sh% are all means to an end. The end is actually getting the goal, or point.

In the case of your example of a player scoring 55 goals vs one scoring 52 goals - well with no additional data I'd be tempted to say the one with 55 goals had the better season. Assists, overall play, defensive play, intangible, heck even leadership qualities may change the answer since 55 and 52 are so close - but insomuch as looking strictly at goal totals, 55 > 52. I don't care about # of shots. If anything the guy with 100 more shots sounds like he had the puck more often and helped control the flow of the game more.

How we get from talking about a made up player with 55 goals and one with 52 goals to talking about Crosby being better than Ov because cup counting i'm not sure...

Giving up the puck 100 more times for a maximum benefit of 3 goals seems like sub .500 strategy.

 

[bobholly39]

Giving up the puck 100 more times for a maximum benefit of 3 goals seems like sub .500 strategy.

It's all guesswork without more data. It also means you had the puck long enough to generate those extra 100 shots, and hence kept the puck away from the opposite team for that much longer. And there's no guarantee that a shot = turning the puck over - as rebounds are often given.

Like I said - all guesswork.

Scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals - without further data supplied, 55 goals > 52 goals.

Still waiting to hear how this leads to Cup counting means Crosby > Ovi.

 

[daver]

Giving up the puck 100 more times for a maximum benefit of 3 goals seems like sub .500 strategy.

Doesn't one have to get the puck first in order to give it up? And who says that each missed shot goes to the other team?

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's all guesswork without more data. It also means you had the puck long enough to generate those extra 100 shots, and hence kept the puck away from the opposite team for that much longer. And there's no guarantee that a shot = turning the puck over - as rebounds are often given.

Like I said - all guesswork.

Scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals - without further data supplied, 55 goals > 52 goals.

Still waiting to hear how this leads to Cup counting means Crosby > Ovi.

No guesswork, look at the 2017-18 data and get back to us.

2017-18 NHL Summary | Hockey-Reference.com

Then breakdown shots within a team.

Basically a team cannot afford long game stretches without scoring.

 

[Theokritos]

And there's no guarantee that a shot = turning the puck over - as rebounds are often given.

Calculating points per shot (instead of goals per shot) would account for that, no?

 

[bobholly39]

Calculating points per shot (instead of goals per shot) would account for that, no?

I don't know - i'm not sure what the argument even is anymore with so much back and forth.

My argument was that on an individual basis - in a given season - I care about actual points, and actual goals. Efficiency is a means to the end - the end is the actual point, or the actual goal, not how many shots it takes to achieve it.

If player 1 takes 600 shots and scores 50 goals
And if player 2 takes 400 shots and scores 40 goals

Everything else being equal (or with lack of further data) - 50 > 40 goals. Same idea for points instead of goals.

Now if someone wants to further analyze one specific player in one specific season and try to calculate how many of his missed shots lead to turnovers, vs how many of his attempted shots are actually beneficial because his teams keeps the puck very long before each shot vs how many rebounds off of his shots give his team back puck control vs any other number of components - then sure we might be able to come up with a proper analysis of whether more shots in a specific season by a specific player can sometimes be a bad thing.

But without that - to me more shots is always a good thing, especially if it leads to more actual goals (or points).

 

[ImporterExporter]

I don't know - i'm not sure what the argument even is anymore with so much back and forth.

My argument was that on an individual basis - in a given season - I care about actual points, and actual goals. Efficiency is a means to the end - the end is the actual point, or the actual goal, not how many shots it takes to achieve it.

If player 1 takes 600 shots and scores 50 goals
And if player 2 takes 400 shots and scores 40 goals

Everything else being equal (or with lack of further data) - 50 > 40 goals. Same idea for points instead of goals.

Now if someone wants to further analyze one specific player in one specific season and try to calculate how many of his missed shots lead to turnovers, vs how many of his attempted shots are actually beneficial because his teams keeps the puck very long before each shot vs how many rebounds off of his shots give his team back puck control vs any other number of components - then sure we might be able to come up with a proper analysis of whether more shots in a specific season by a specific player can sometimes be a bad thing.

But without that - to me more shots is always a good thing, especially if it leads to more actual goals (or points).

How much success have the Caps had since 8 came into the league with him being the sole focal point offensively? Bombing near or twice as many shots as anyone else in the league?

If you think shots are simply an inherently good thing I'd suggest you/we evaluate things beyond simple raw totals.

 

[bobholly39]

How much success have the Caps had since 8 came into the league with him being the sole focal point offensively? Bombing near or twice as many shots as anyone else in the league?

If you think shots are simply an inherently good thing I'd suggest you/we evaluate things beyond simple raw totals.

How many nuclear bombs have gone off on Earth since Ovechkin has come into the league? 0. I guess Ovi for world peace is a good thing.

Logic gap = Logic gap.
Reading comprehension = Reading comprehension

 

[daver]

How many nuclear bombs have gone off on Earth since Ovechkin has come into the league? 0. I guess Ovi for world peace is a good thing.

Logic gap = Logic gap.
Reading comprehension = Reading comprehension

I have been more gassy since OV entered the league. I am thinking now there isn't a connection.

 

[daver]

How much success have the Caps had since 8 came into the league with him being the sole focal point offensively? Bombing near or twice as many shots as anyone else in the league?

If you think shots are simply an inherently good thing I'd suggest you/we evaluate things beyond simple raw totals.

More than every other team except the Pens, Hawks, and Kings, maybe the Wings and Bruins.

 

[ImporterExporter]

More than every other team except the Pens, Hawks, and Kings, maybe the Wings and Bruins.

13 years, once past the 2nd round.

What is the outlier?

 

[daver]

13 years, once past the 2nd round.

What is the outlier?

OV legitimately is a Top 5 -10 playoff performer of his era. Yes, his playoff resume does not quite live up to his RS resume which can be reasonably viewed as his game not being as conducive to playoff success as two other notable players' games. This certainly seems to be reflected in his HOH ranking.

I am sensing a Jagr-like multi-page debate so I will leave it at that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

More dimension = less restricted by advanced scouting.

Players that lack it or lack the hockey smarts to adapt sufficiently, often fail. Unless you're the most technically skilled player in the league by a good margin, like Maurice Richard for instance. Ovechkin, Stamkos, Housley, etc. not nearly good enough to do it on talent alone...thus, consistent failure when the chips are down.

Luckily, for some, the ship gets buoyed with them on board...let's see Stamkos this playoffs now that he's, what, like the 5th best player on the Lightning...6th? Whatever it is...

Not that anyone can win one alone, of course...but you also want to ensure there isn't a (near) single point of failure by channeling your game plan through a one-dimensional player...

 

[daver]

I have been more gassy since OV entered the league. I am thinking now there isn't a connection.

Is this mike on?

 

[ImporterExporter]

OV legitimately is a Top 5 -10 playoff performer of his era. Yes, his playoff resume does not quite live up to his RS resume which can be reasonably viewed as his game not being as conducive to playoff success as two other notable players' games. This certainly seems to be reflected in his HOH ranking.

I am sensing a Jagr-like multi-page debate so I will leave it at that.

No, he's not.

But more specifically I'm not talking about 8 as a stand alone player. My point is broader and more complex. Players like Ovechkin, as the focal point of a team offensively, drag a team down more than elevate them. You and others seem to think that the blanket statement "more shots are better" is a science. It's not.

Now, to be fair, I don't have a perfect formula for countering that argument but at least I'm willing to compile numbers and investigate.

Thank God the voters didn't give McDavid the Hart last year. I don't care what anyone says. There is no way you can be the most valuable player in the league when the playoffs roll around and you're playing golf. What do you say? Hey, we're the best non playoff team? Without me, we'd have the worst record? But there are many people who just equate scoring the most points being the most valuable. It's rubbish.

Ovechkin has long been overhyped when it comes to value.

Is it any wonder why he has all those goal scoring titles but only 1 Art Ross despite only once missing more than a few games (which were partly missed due to being suspended)? Been at or below a point per game player 4 times in his career. Plays little to no defense for the bulk of his career.

Bobby Hull (4.96) actually had more shots per game than Ovechkin (4.85) but then again, Hull had challengers like Gordie Howe (4.13), Bobby Orr (4.65) and Phil Esposito (4.03) chasing him.

Ovechkin's comp in terms of shot volume are Ilya Kovalchuk (3.58), Rick Nash (3.42), Evgeni Malkin (3.38) and Zach Parise (3.35).

So not only are the gaps much smaller, the level of comp is far greater in the case of Hull.

And as it stands, the Caps have been past the 2nd round once. Once in 13 seasons.

Teams that have done that more than one time since 2006?

2006: Canes, Sabres, Ducks, Oilers,
2007: Sens, Sabers, Ducks, Wings
2008: Pens, Flyers, Wings, Stars
2009: Pens, Canes, Wings, Hawks,
2010: Flyers, Habs, Hawks, Sharks,
2011: Bruins, Lightning, Nucks, Sharks,
2012: Devils, Rangers, Kings, Coyotes,
2013: Bruins, Pens, Hawks, Kings
2014: Rangers, Habs, Kings, Hawks,
2015: Lightning, Rangers, Hawks, Ducks,
2016: Pens, Lightning, Sharks, Blues
2017: Pens, Sens, Preds, Ducks,
2018: Caps, Lightning, Knights, Jets

Pens = 5
Hawks = 5
Lightning = 4
Ducks = 4
Sharks = 3
Wings = 3
Kings = 3
Rangers = 3
Bruins = 2
Habs = 2
Sabers = 2
Sens = 2
Canes = 2
Flyers = 2

14 teams. Nearly half the league.

Again, until the Caps prove last year wasn't an outlier, it is, mathematically speaking. Now, I probably just guaranteed them another Cup (jinx lol) but I said the same thing about Crosby and the Penguins in 2009. 1 isn't enough for a generational player to be crowned on.

Most shots per game since 2006 on a per game basis are OV, Kovy, Evander Kane, Tyler Seguin, Rick Nash, Malkin, MacKinnon, Parise, Hall and Jeff Carter.

Kovy, Kane, Nash, Mackinnon, Parise and Hall have 0 Cups. Seguin got 1 as a rookie in Boston, Malkin has 3, Carter has 2.

 

[Nick Hansen]

So Ovy, Malkin, Carter and Seguin account for seven cups whilst only being four players out of ten. Seems like shooting a lot might be pretty good then.

Or it is a flawed argument. Nash, Kovy, Parise, Mackinnon, Hall and E. Kane never played for any true contenders if you ask me. Ya, nice runs by both Rangers and NJ but nobody expected them to win the cup. So their finals should perhaps be a plus in their case tbh.

Most of these are elite shooters any way, you want them to shoot a lot!

 

[ImporterExporter]

So Ovy, Malkin, Carter and Seguin account for seven cups whilst only being four players out of ten. Seems like shooting a lot might be pretty good then.

I'm no math wiz, but more players accounted for 0 than 1+.

Plus, the only guy on that list that is THE player on his team is Ovechkin. Seguin was a rookie passenger, Carter a role player. Malkin accounts for nearly 50% of that total and is one guy.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I'm no math wiz, but more players accounted for 0 than 1+.

Plus, the only guy on that list that is THE player on his team is Ovechkin. Seguin was a rookie passenger, Carter a role player. Malkin accounts for nearly 50% of that total and is one guy.

Why do you cut my post in half, when the second half was relevant? Did you expect Hall, Evander Kane or Mackinnon to have won cups by now?

The answer is that cup-winning teams need a great 2C or a 1D who is great alongside a goalie becoming decently hot which Caps had sometimes (Holtby's got a pretty good record IMO). Ovechkin didn't have either before Kuznetsov came along (Green? Come on.). Kings had Carter/Richards/Doughty(/Quick), Hawks had Keith who I consider an all-time great PO performer and PIT had Crosby/Malkin.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Why do you cut my post in half, when the second half was relevant?

The answer is that cup-winning teams need a great 2C or a 1D who is great alongside a goalie becoming decently hot which Caps had sometimes (Holtby's got a pretty good record IMO). Ovechkin didn't have either before Kuznetsov came along (Green? Come on.). Kings had Carter/Richards/Doughty(/Quick), Hawks had Keith who I consider an all-time great PO performer and PIT had Crosby/Malkin.

Because when I hit reply you hadn't edited in the 2nd paragraph.

John Carlson isn't a #1 Dman? Braden Holtby hasn't won a Vezina and posted stellar playoff numbers almost every year? Kuz was around the 3 previous years when the Caps got bounced in the 2nd round each time. He explodes for an all time great run this past year. And again, the Caps have been the President trophy winning team 3 times. Over a 100 points numerous other times.

Again, I'm talking about consistency and outliers.

 

[czechmate]

What are the reasons for Crosby being ranked above Jagr?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Because when I hit reply you hadn't edited in the 2nd paragraph.

John Carlson isn't a #1 Dman? Braden Holtby hasn't won a Vezina and posted stellar playoff numbers almost every year? Kuz was around the 3 previous years when the Caps got bounced in the 2nd round each time. He explodes for an all time great run this past year. And again, the Caps have been the President trophy winning team 3 times. Over a 100 points numerous other times.

Again, I'm talking about consistency and outliers.

Ok.

Both Kuz and Carlson have been uneven until last year where both seemingly broke out in a big fashion, kept it through the playoffs and are holding it up this year as well. And no, I didn't consider either to be great guys to rely in a playoff battle going forward before last year...did you think Carlson or Kuz was like having a Doughty, Keith or Malkin beside you before last year? I for sure didn't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What are the reasons for Crosby being ranked above Jagr?

Read the relevent discussions.

Crosby was,is and will remain a more complete and better player.

 

[czechmate]

Read the relevent discussions.

Crosby was,is and will remain a more complete and better player.

Agree to disagree Ive been searching for the discussion, is it in this thread?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Agree to disagree Ive been searching for the discussion, is it in this thread?

Eventually will be linked at the base of the first post in this thread.