Are two Czechs better than any Soviet player ever?

[Staniowski]

Jagr got better peak, better playoffs, better prime, better international career and so on. Jagr is just a step up. Ovi is the better goalscorer(although not by much at their bests) but that's about it.

Hard disagree on Ovi being a top 5 skater of all time, regardless of where you rank him in relation to Jagr.

Yes, Jagr was a really good goal-scorer.

 

[Staniowski]

I don't think anyone, in North America anyway, ever meant "Fetisov is the Soviet Orr" as a quality or stylistic comparison. It's just a reflection of Orr being by far the best Canadian defenceman and Fetisov being by far the best Soviet defenceman. Larionov being called the Soviet Gretzky was a different thing, somewhat more about style of play.

Did Soviets or Europeans refer to Fetisov as the Soviet Orr? People in North America would say it as a way to put Fetisov's significance into context. I'm not sure how big Orr's name would be in Europe.

Yeah, it was definitely not about style. Fetisov was only a decade younger than Orr, and really didn't look anything like him. Like Orr, Fetisov was a great skater, but it was mostly about his lateral and backward skating, rather than Orr's all-out style.

And it's also true that everybody recognized that Fetisov was by-far the best Soviet defenseman they'd ever seen.

But it was partly about quality too. Many people who saw Fetisov in the early '80s thought he was the best they'd ever seen, other than Orr. Fetisov overlapped a lot with Potvin, Robinson, Coffey, Bourque, so it's was relatively easy to evaluate this.

And I think many NHLers who played against Fetisov believed he was the most difficult defenseman they ever faced.

 

[Stephen]

I don't think anyone, in North America anyway, ever meant "Fetisov is the Soviet Orr" as a quality or stylistic comparison. It's just a reflection of Orr being by far the best Canadian defenceman and Fetisov being by far the best Soviet defenceman. Larionov being called the Soviet Gretzky was a different thing, somewhat more about style of play.

Did Soviets or Europeans refer to Fetisov as the Soviet Orr? People in North America would say it as a way to put Fetisov's significance into context. I'm not sure how big Orr's name would be in Europe.

There's a certain level of inaccuracy in calling someone the Soviet Orr or the Soviet Gretzky because like you said there's both a hierarchical comparison and a stylistic comparison as well. If you don't have the context, that can lead someone to some odd conclusions.

One thing the recent 4 Nations tournament reinforced for me is how limited the exposure to Soviet players were in the 70s and 80s through various tournaments. I was trying to think what it would be like for us to watch guys like Werenski and Guentzel pile on the numbers for the Americans and how we might build their legendary status way up without the stress test of an 82 game NHL season, an NHL career.

 

[ViD]

That’s a weird comparison for 90s players vs someone playing in the 70-80s.

McDavid is by far a better player than Gretzky if we talk skating, stick handling, etc, but Gretzky’s greatness comes from being 5x better than anyone who played during his era.

So how do you really compare Hasek vs Tretiak for example?

Tretiak revolutionized the way goalies played and even the equipment they used, he was winning gold medals left and right during his time, but is he better than Hasek technically, athletically ? Of course not

 

[Czechboy]

That’s a weird comparison for 90s players vs someone playing in the 70-80s.

McDavid is by far a better player than Gretzky if we talk skating, stick handling, etc, but Gretzky’s greatness comes from being 5x better than anyone who played during his era.

So how do you really compare Hasek vs Tretiak for example?

Tretiak revolutionized the way goalies played and even the equipment they used, he was winning gold medals left and right during his time, but is he better than Hasek technically, athletically ? Of course not

Agree with this. It's hard to compare different eras. I find, and especially on HF, the arguments come down to going to eliteprospects and looking at NHL stats too. A lot of the former soviet guys (Czech and Russian etc) came over when they were old... Ruzicka, Kazatanov, Fetisov, Hlinka etc.

Totally different time and hard to compare someone playing in a Soviet League vs one that played in the NHL.
I'd leave it at they are both great. As a Czech fanatic, i never mind when Hasek is compared to Roy, Brodeur or Tretiak Hell of a compliment! Same with when Jagr gets in these talks. I think people forgot Don Cherry and how much people shit on Jagr when he was at his peak.lol Hang nail and split end. Yanny Yager... all that bullshit!

 

[MadLuke]

That’s a weird comparison for 90s players vs someone playing in the 70-80s.

Tretiak retired around 1984, Hasek started around 1982/83, they were not that far apart. (Born 13 years after, that about the same as Fleury and Brodeur).

If we can compare players that close, a lot of the History board talk..... would just get away. Tretiak was an all around athlete I think and quite athletic and to take what someone said recently, 2 of the best player in the NBA (a sport that reward athleticism immensely) are not that much of athletic phenom with Jokic and Lucas, do not seem to be strict diet-hyper training during the off season type either. They would fit really well in the 70s-80s players routine-habit and vice versa.

This is one of the very best athlete of all-time:


If he played in the 60s looking like that, we would find some to say he could not have done it like that now with the Mackinnon super mono-focus athlete.

 

[JackSlater]

There's a certain level of inaccuracy in calling someone the Soviet Orr or the Soviet Gretzky because like you said there's both a hierarchical comparison and a stylistic comparison as well. If you don't have the context, that can lead someone to some odd conclusions.

One thing the recent 4 Nations tournament reinforced for me is how limited the exposure to Soviet players were in the 70s and 80s through various tournaments. I was trying to think what it would be like for us to watch guys like Werenski and Guentzel pile on the numbers for the Americans and how we might build their legendary status way up without the stress test of an 82 game NHL season, an NHL career.

We see that in terms of a guy like Yakushev getting into the HHOF before various Soviets who would almost certainly regarded as better, greater players. Yakushev was awesome in particular when he played in North America, peaking as the best Soviet forward (and probably should have been credited as leading scorer) in the 1972 Summit Series. A deeper look shows that Firsov, for instance, should be in the HHOF well before him though.

As you said these things depend on the context. In basketball I can say that Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is the Canadian Michael Jordan because he is the best Canadian scorer (and probably player) ever though their style of play is not very similar, or that Steve Nash is the Canadian John Stockton due to more of a lazy stylistic comparison though Nash's place in Canadian basketball is way bigger than Stockton's place in American basketball. Or that Kopitar is the Slovenian Gretzky + Howe + Orr, at least in compared to other Slovenian players. Fetisov is not Orr, but I think you can make a good case that the gap between Fetisov and the next best Soviet/Russian defenceman ever is bigger than the gap between Orr and whoever someone considers the number two defenceman ever.

 

[Overrated]

Tretiak retired around 1984, Hasek started around 1982/83, they were not that far apart. (Born 13 years apart, that about the same as Fleury and Brodeur.

If we can compare players that close, a lot of the History board talk..... would just get away. Tretiak was an all around athlete I think and quite athletic and to take what someone said recently, 2 of the best player in the NBA (a sport that reward athleticism immensely) are not that much of athletic phenom with Jokic and Lucas, do not seem to be strict diet-hyper training during the off season type either. They would fit really well in the 70s-80s players routine-habit and vice versa.

This is one of the very best athlete of all-time:


If he played in the 60s looking like that, we would find some to say he could not have done it like that now with the Mackinnon super mono-focus athlete.

By the way, he was playing with professionals against amateurs in that soccer game. I don’t think it is indicative of anything.

 

[MadLuke]

By the way, he was playing with professionals against amateurs in that soccer game. I don’t think it is indicative of anything.

It was just a video that show him looking a bit fat for a "modern" pro athlete (could have been shirtless Patrick Mahomes)

 

[Overrated]

It was just a video that show him looking a bit fat for a "modern" pro athlete (could have been shirtless Patrick Mahomes)

Ah I misunderstood then. I thought you posted it to show his “superhuman strength”.

 

[Gerulaitis]

Jagr got better peak, better playoffs, better prime, better international career and so on. Jagr is just a step up. Ovi is the better goalscorer(although not by much at their bests) but that's about it.

Hard disagree on Ovi being a top 5 skater of all time, regardless of where you rank him in relation to Jagr.

Saying you dislike Ovechkin without saying it.

Better playoff - by being Lemieux's wingman in beginning of his NHL career?

Jagr never led a team to the Cup.

Better peak ? We can argue about that.

Better prime. Not really.

Ovechkin is a much better goal scorer. In fact, only Draisaitl has a better GPG than him at the moment. And Ovechkin is long way past his prime.

Ovechkin also beats Jagr at physicality and durability.

 

[Boxscore]

Ovi is the better goalscorer(although not by much at their bests) but that's about it.

How so?

Ovechkin has 9 goal-scoring titles; Jagr had 0.

Jagr had 9 top-10 finishes; Ovechkin has 17 (almost double).



I also don't get the sentiment that "Ovechkin was just a better goal scorer," as if scoring goals isn't the single most important factor in winning hockey games. Neither player was Bobby Clarke or Bob Gainey defensively. Ovechkin demolished Jagr as a goal scorer... and soon will pass Gretzky all-time.

If we're building a team from scratch and an elite 10/10 goal scorer, an elite 10/10 set-up man, and an elite 10/10 defensive forward are available... the 10/10 goal scorer is the pick every day and twice on Sunday. Since when has it been en vogue to diminish the magnitude of magnificent goal-scorers? It is the most important attribute to have in the sport, lol.

 

[Stephen]

How so?

Ovechkin has 9 goal-scoring titles; Jagr had 0.

Jagr had 9 top-10 finishes; Ovechkin has 17 (almost double).



I also don't get the sentiment that "Ovechkin was just a better goal scorer," as if scoring goals isn't the single most important factor in winning hockey games. Neither player was Bobby Clarke or Bob Gainey defensively. Ovechkin demolished Jagr as a goal scorer... and soon will pass Gretzky all-time.

If we're building a team from scratch and an elite 10/10 goal scorer, an elite 10/10 set-up man, and an elite 10/10 defensive forward are available... the 10/10 goal scorer is the pick every day and twice on Sunday. Since when has it been en vogue to diminish the magnitude of magnificent goal-scorers? It is the most important attribute to have in the sport, lol.

I would say the idea of The Goalscorer (TM) being the highest value in the sport makes sense on a rhetorical, logical level, but in the history of the game it often doesn't game out that way.

The best player, MVP, cup driving best player any given year is not the best goal scorer. Look at instances of Rocket Richard winners since they've started awarding it and Hart Trophy winners. They don't often line up. Look at guys who won Rockets and Stanley Cups the same year, there are only two instances. Ovi in 2018 and Crosby in 2017. I'm too lazy to look up highest goal scorer and cup winners/Hart Trophy before 1999, but a quarter of a century is enough of a proof of concept.

On the goal scoring front, I think Jagr is actually a lot closer to Ovi than you'd think. 766 goals scored in the NHL regular season and 78 more in the playoffs for 844. Missed half of 1995-95, all of 2005-06 due to lockouts, and another half year in 2012-13 which Ovi missed too. Took 3 years off to play in the KHL (no one's fault but Jagr's). A lot of work done during the Dead Puck Era. Ovi has 889 goals and 72 playoff goals for 961 goals. They live in the same neighborhood.

 

[MadLuke]

It can be binary and underrating Jagr to look at Top 1 or even Top 10 considering the missed seasons during still his possible prime, while Ovechkin is one of the few obvious greater than Jagr as a goalscorer for sure.

Most goals regular season, adjusted defense faced.
Alex Ovechkin 1426 853 (.77)
Gordie Howe 1767 801 (.59)
Jaromir Jagr 1733 766 (.56)

First 19 seasons .77 to .62, that a good gap, one way to look at it, per games first 19 seasons, Jagr is very similar to Crosby goalscoring (Jagr 4th time second place in goals is not worst than crosby Rockets seasons, his 62 goals one arguably better than all of them) and the gap in goalscoring between Ovechkin and Crosby was obvious enough.

It is true the correlation between goalscorer and cup winning can look thinner but could it be that being a strong team help point scoring more than goalscoring.

That said assists winner winning the cups is also rare since 1999

2004 St-Louis, 2009 Malkin and that's it ?

 

[psycat]

How so?

Ovechkin has 9 goal-scoring titles; Jagr had 0.

Jagr had 9 top-10 finishes; Ovechkin has 17 (almost double).



I also don't get the sentiment that "Ovechkin was just a better goal scorer," as if scoring goals isn't the single most important factor in winning hockey games. Neither player was Bobby Clarke or Bob Gainey defensively. Ovechkin demolished Jagr as a goal scorer... and soon will pass Gretzky all-time.

If we're building a team from scratch and an elite 10/10 goal scorer, an elite 10/10 set-up man, and an elite 10/10 defensive forward are available... the 10/10 goal scorer is the pick every day and twice on Sunday. Since when has it been en vogue to diminish the magnitude of magnificent goal-scorers? It is the most important attribute to have in the sport, lol.

I said at their best, Ovechkin obviously got all those goalscoring titles etc but would he have been a much worse one if he lost all of them by 1 goal?

On a per game basis at their best, without really looking adjusted stats up not that I care much for them, it's 65 goals vs 62(id guess the seasons are roughly the same in terms of goal per game) so a wash, add the fact that Jagr scored substantly more points.

Heck Jagr cleared Ovi:s points best while with the Rangers and past his prime, also scoring more goals than Ovi did in any year but the one mentioned above.

It's not a goalscorer vs a defensive specialist or whatever it's a slightly better goalscorer vs a overall superior player.

Jagr got close to 800 goals himself it's not like comparing him to, say, Joe Thornton.

Both amongst the best longevity wise. Like sure they are close but to me Jagr just got the better peak(and prime), career? Debatable but if you add better international and playoff resumé it tips in Jagrs favor for me.

 

[MadLuke]

(id guess the seasons are roughly the same in terms of goal per game

3.15 goal per game Jagr year to 2.72 Ovechkin, about 15% higher scoring in 1996.

But also power play heavy, in 1996 46 goals you were just out of the top 10, in 2009 that was tie for second place.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That’s a weird comparison for 90s players vs someone playing in the 70-80s.

McDavid is by far a better player than Gretzky if we talk skating, stick handling, etc, but Gretzky’s greatness comes from being 5x better than anyone who played during his era.

So how do you really compare Hasek vs Tretiak for example?

Tretiak revolutionized the way goalies played and even the equipment they used, he was winning gold medals left and right during his time, but is he better than Hasek technically, athletically ? Of course not

Pretty good case that Tretiak was better technically in some or most areas, sure.

It's a bit abstract, but not too difficult. You look at the player against his peers and then you also look at the era against other eras.

Tough to fault George Washington for not nuking the British...

 

[Boxscore]

I would say the idea of The Goalscorer (TM) being the highest value in the sport makes sense on a rhetorical, logical level, but in the history of the game it often doesn't game out that way.

The best player, MVP, cup driving best player any given year is not the best goal scorer. Look at instances of Rocket Richard winners since they've started awarding it and Hart Trophy winners. They don't often line up. Look at guys who won Rockets and Stanley Cups the same year, there are only two instances. Ovi in 2018 and Crosby in 2017. I'm too lazy to look up highest goal scorer and cup winners/Hart Trophy before 1999, but a quarter of a century is enough of a proof of concept.

On the goal scoring front, I think Jagr is actually a lot closer to Ovi than you'd think. 766 goals scored in the NHL regular season and 78 more in the playoffs for 844. Missed half of 1995-95, all of 2005-06 due to lockouts, and another half year in 2012-13 which Ovi missed too. Took 3 years off to play in the KHL (no one's fault but Jagr's). A lot of work done during the Dead Puck Era. Ovi has 889 goals and 72 playoff goals for 961 goals. They live in the same neighborhood.

True, there's intangibles, circumstance, etc. Point taken. However...

Brett Hull, Adam Oates, and Guy Carbonneau are all magically available at 20 years old... all at the top of their games... who are you hitching your wagon to for the next 12 years? I'm taking Hull, even though Carbonneau might steal a Conn Smythe during a miracle run.

Guys like Clarke, Gilmour, Kopitar, and Bergeron are different animals because they match 10/10 defense with 8.5/10 offense. These guys are few and far between.

When it comes to matching up Ovechkin vs. Jagr, I view it this way...

Goal scoring: Ovechkin
Passing: Jagr
Durability: Wash
Longevity: Ovechkin (based on better production with age, not tenure itself)
Physicality: Ovechkin
Position Advantage: Wash

These guys are both all-time greats. Both are legends, and both have a strong case for the best Euro ever. Tbh, can't go wrong either way. But if I'm picking, I think the guy who (will have) scored the most goals in the history of the sport gets the nod. That feat is so spectacular, in my opinion, that it breaks any tie.

 

[psycat]

True, there's intangibles, circumstance, etc. Point taken. However...

Brett Hull, Adam Oates, and Guy Carbonneau are all magically available at 20 years old... all at the top of their games... who are you hitching your wagon to for the next 12 years? I'm taking Hull, even though Carbonneau might steal a Conn Smythe during a miracle run.

Guys like Clarke, Gilmour, Kopitar, and Bergeron are different animals because they match 10/10 defense with 8.5/10 offense. These guys are few and far between.

When it comes to matching up Ovechkin vs. Jagr, I view it this way...

Goal scoring: Ovechkin
Passing: Jagr
Durability: Wash
Longevity: Ovechkin (based on better production with age, not tenure itself)
Physicality: Ovechkin
Position Advantage: Wash

These guys are both all-time greats. Both are legends, and both have a strong case for the best Euro ever. Tbh, can't go wrong either way. But if I'm picking, I think the guy who (will have) scored the most goals in the history of the sport gets the nod. That feat is so spectacular, in my opinion, that it breaks any tie.

But physicality is in reality also as close to a wash as it get's, Ovi better hitter sure but Jagr and his big ass in the corners was Crosbyesque+ in that department.

And how about peak/prime? I would give both to Jagr(since you put longevity as a category this one should on all accounts be there aswell).

International play also Jagr for sure and strength of national team(like you could argue for Canadians of the past) hardly applies.

Playoffs also Jagr.

Also sure Ovi is a better goalscorer but by how much? And in the same vein how much of a better passer was Jagr? In my opinion Jagr is far closer to Ovi as a goalscorer than Ovi is to Jagr as a playmaker.

I do agree that they are in the same "tier" of players just like, say, Bourque and Lidström are just that it's quite clear who's the higher ranked one. For what it's worth Crosby is also in that tier(no more no less) and id argue McDavid is the only one outside of the big 3 that's clearly on trajectory to be above that tier, but still likely below the 3.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Like most things, there are a couple of different facets to larger tiers. Physicality is one that gets overlooked in terms of its nuance. Ovechkin gets a ton of credit for hits, and I'm sure that he makes them. There's a few ways you can break them up...you might say there's tactical physicality and intimidation physicality...Ovechkin clobbered a lot of guys after pucks were gone, and he could lay some devastating hits - no question. I'd say that he fell more under intimidation than tactical though. And that's a real thing though, I don't say that to dismiss it, it wears you down, it makes some players panic a bit...

But there's more technical and tactical parts to physicality that sometimes gets lost because it's not a highlight...inside leverage, box out techniques...as noted above, Jagr played in a hook and hold time, and he had to protect pucks and make space to get and keep pucks...how good was Jagr at creating faux initial contact points and then working off those would-be defenders? Pretty damn good.

Ovechkin played in a time that was more open (though, he had the build for DPE)...so he had an advantage of a runway and more speed, and then he could initiate contact in a different way.

 

[Boxscore]

Like most things, there are a couple of different facets to larger tiers. Physicality is one that gets overlooked in terms of its nuance. Ovechkin gets a ton of credit for hits, and I'm sure that he makes them. There's a few ways you can break them up...you might say there's tactical physicality and intimidation physicality...Ovechkin clobbered a lot of guys after pucks were gone, and he could lay some devastating hits - no question. I'd say that he fell more under intimidation than tactical though. And that's a real thing though, I don't say that to dismiss it, it wears you down, it makes some players panic a bit...

But there's more technical and tactical parts to physicality that sometimes gets lost because it's not a highlight...inside leverage, box out techniques...as noted above, Jagr played in a hook and hold time, and he had to protect pucks and make space to get and keep pucks...how good was Jagr at creating faux initial contact points and then working off those would-be defenders? Pretty damn good.

Ovechkin played in a time that was more open (though, he had the build for DPE)...so he had an advantage of a runway and more speed, and then he could initiate contact in a different way.

Good point, there is certainly nuance. Jagr could protect the puck as well as anyone... ever... especially in the corners. He gets all those kudos. Ovechkin was equally difficult to remove from the puck, but their approaches were different. Ovechkin was a runaway train who would bull his way into the offensive zone with speed and mammoth strength, similar to the way Eric Lindros would. Once Ovie gets going, you're not getting the puck from him... although he'd rather give and go in most cases.

Jagr, on the other hand, was never a fast skater. He was lumbering but extremely elusive and used tons of dekes, jives, and deception. So his wars were in the corners retrieving pucks and maneuvering around the net, while Ovechkin's were more downstream.

The difference to me, though, is that Ovie had the intimidation factor where he could blow up a couple of guys and tip the energy or momentum of a game with one shift. Ovechkin has some of that Cam Neely and Peter Forsberg DNA where he could be a predator at times... an element Jagr never possessed.

 

[Boxscore]

In my opinion Jagr is far closer to Ovi as a goalscorer than Ovi is to Jagr as a playmaker.

I do agree with this.

I guess, to me, this is sort of like a Babe Ruth vs. Hank Aaron debate. Aaron was closer to Ruth as an HR king than Ruth was to him as a fielder. But, Ruth was so spectacular at that one thing (hitting more HRs than entire teams) that he became larger than life and transcended the sport. While Aaron was close and had a long, steady, and accumulative career... everyone considers the Babe the greatest HR hitter of all-time.

If Ovechkin retired with 875 goals, he'd have more goals than Jagr, but if/when he retires from the NHL with 925 and the most in history... those extra 50 goals become the tipping point that pushes Ovechkin from an "all-time great" to "demigod"... at least for me. The NHL has been around for 117 years, and Ovie will end up scoring more goals than anyone in history. Imho, Jagr's package isn't enough to sweep Ovechkin's immortal feat under the rug... it's gotta be the difference maker in the way these guys are perceived historically.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Tough to fault George Washington for not nuking the British...

Yes but the reason he didn't was because of Mutually Hypothetical Destruction.

 

[Troubadour]

Hmm, fair enough. Jagr was, indeed, iconic. But I feel his icon status began to grow as he aged and the overall sentiment increased. Early on, Jagr was booed mercilessly in many arenas, was considered a diver and crybaby... and in cities like New York and Philly, fans would whistle at him every time he touched the puck. Until Mario hung them up, Jags was generally in his shadow, even owning the "Mario Jr." moniker. He was also criticized heavily in many circles for his mostly disappointing stint in Washington and ended up bolting to the K after a short stint in New York. Jagr may have been iconic in a way during his NHL career, but he was polarizing and often criticized.

Ovechkin, on the other hand, was practically an icon overnight. Even before he arrived in the NHL, he was getting tons of attention, and he appeared on the scene with Crosby post-lockout. He was an instant sensation, and even his mirrored visor was as iconic as his flamboyant and contagious goal celebrations.

For me, the difference between Jagr and Ovechkin is that Ovie was universally beloved right off the rip. Even the hard-nosed and vicious Philly fans had a soft spot for Ovie... perhaps the only Cap they've ever liked!! Ovie is so likeable it's scary. Even though the NHL tried to position him as the Darth Vader to Sid's Luke Skywalker, the fans never took the bait... because Ovechkin was way too likeable to be cast as a heel.

I think the appreciation for Jagr has grown over the years... mad respect paid to him for his genuine love of the game and commitment to playing into his 50s. He deserves ALL OF IT!! But I'm going to venture to say in about 5-6 years if/when Ovie is still playing in the KHL, his legend will have grown even more... when he's in the HHOF as the greatest scorer in hockey history.

He received the most RW All Star Game votes in the East his second year in the league when he was, barely, a PPG player and not even a first line player on his own team.

So yeah, Ovechkin was great from the get-go, Jagr was not, and that's the point -- Jagr was a star before he was a hockey star.

And while his hockey status with the Pens grew, he kept being the most popular RW in the league (or the East) for a decade, rockstar-popular in Pittsburgh.

Yeah, he had some tough times for about four years in a career than spanned almost three decades and he had Don Cherry talking crap about him.

But that's the point.

In my opinion, through hardships, hero to zero, media and fans turned against him, then winning them back, then calling it quits for his own reasons -- having fans and pundits drool over his comeback and his legend growing -- then pissing the Pens fans off again and playing for whoever he wanted to play -- he became iconic. And mysterious, because he will forever have his "what if" factor. And the number up the rafters with the Pens -- a team he made love him, hate him, kinda love him, kinda hate him, then finally retro-love him again.

All those things you mentioned actually make him more iconic, his myth stronger, and his career more colorful. Just like Ovi's "he's my friend" moment and his 'gram pic with you-know-who actually make his personality more interesting.

In terms of personality/impact/status/mystique/story though, Ovechkin is silver to Jagr's gold.

 

[Gerulaitis]