Do you think Ovechkin's legacy will improve over time?

[The Panther]

I’ve never seen a player cherry pick more to put up meaningless stats.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I’ve never seen a player cherry pick more to put up meaningless stats.

2nd all-time in GWG, 1st all-time in OT goals, and the Capitals went from lottery team to 2nd most wins in the NHL over a stretch of 15 years despite not having any other top 200 players.

But yeah for sure he had very little impact and the all-time goals record is mere coincidence on top of coincidence.

 

[MadLuke]

GWG

I mean, is there a more meaningless stat in the NHL than GWG ? Scoring the first goal of game stats would have arguably a stronger meaning in some era. (all first goal were by definition ultra important in the low scoring eras, goal winning goals could easily be garbage goals)

This one:

most wins in the NHL over a stretch of 15 years

Should say it all... from 2007 to 2017 Ovechkin had the most points in the nhl and during that time the Caps were third in regular season wins, had the best power play in the league and 8th in the playoff wins

 

[The Panther]

2nd all-time in GWG, 1st all-time in OT goals, and the Capitals went from lottery team to 2nd most wins in the NHL over a stretch of 15 years despite not having any other top 200 players.

In fairness, these kinds of stats, while impressive, are much less impressive than they sound.

Any combination of (a) good goal scorer, (b) good team, but not overly deep team offensively, and (c) low-scoring era -- ie., Ovechkin's career -- is going to end up with the player ranking high in game winning goals (see: Marleau and Jeff Carter also top-20 all time).

And most overtime goals simply means you played your prime through the post-Lock Out era of 4-on-4 and 3-on-3 overtime. Don't get me wrong; it's impressive, but not overly so.

Anyway, Ovechkin's career speaks for itself. I would tend to ignore posters who make comments like "meaningless stats" when talking about legendary players like Ovechkin. Probably someone just walked in from the main board, where that kind of stuff belongs.

 

[authentic]

People overrate Crosby due to not wanting to believe the best players of their era were inferior to the best players of the last era they didn't get to see. I can't even count how many times I've read that it's impossible to score anywhere near the levels of Gretzky and Lemieux due to everyone being so good these days. Now with McDavid around it's clear Crosby was vastly inferior to Mario Lemieux.

Lemieux is about as much better than McDavid as McDavid is over Crosby, and in each of those cases that’s not as much as people think.

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux is about as much better than McDavid as McDavid is over Crosby, and in each of those cases that’s not as much as people think.

It's just opinion, but I would say the difference between Lemieux and McDavid isn't that big, and the difference between McDavid and Crosby is bigger.

McDavid's still a moving target, of course. At this point, I doubt Crosby will do anything to add to his legacy (other than extend his already impressive longevity), but McDavid may still add a lot to his. We'll see.

But peak McDavid and prime-era Lemieux are quite comparable. It's just that McDavid hasn't had those two superhuman seasons (1988-89, 1992-93) that Mario had (only one of which was really a full season).

 

[daver]

It's just opinion, but I would say the difference between Lemieux and McDavid isn't that big, and the difference between McDavid and Crosby is bigger.

McDavid's still a moving target, of course. At this point, I doubt Crosby will do anything to add to his legacy (other than extend his already impressive longevity), but McDavid may still add a lot to his. We'll see.

But peak McDavid and prime-era Lemieux are quite comparable. It's just that McDavid hasn't had those two superhuman seasons (1988-89, 1992-93) that Mario had (only one of which was really a full season).

Mario had the superior career arc leading to his prime.

He was a bit better than McDavid was in his 2nd season, clearly better in his 3rd season and even more clearly better in his 4th season. Then he hits his peak in 88/89.

There is no argument to be made that before Mario's 5th year, McDavid was keeping pace. McDavid was keeping pace with Crosby through their first 6 seasons and with Jagr, once he hit his prime at age 22.

McDavid's two peak seasons are clearly below Mario's three, maybe four best seasons.

 

[authentic]

It's just opinion, but I would say the difference between Lemieux and McDavid isn't that big, and the difference between McDavid and Crosby is bigger.

McDavid's still a moving target, of course. At this point, I doubt Crosby will do anything to add to his legacy (other than extend his already impressive longevity), but McDavid may still add a lot to his. We'll see.

But peak McDavid and prime-era Lemieux are quite comparable. It's just that McDavid hasn't had those two superhuman seasons (1988-89, 1992-93) that Mario had (only one of which was really a full season).

Mario had the superior career arc leading to his prime.

He was a bit better than McDavid was in his 2nd season, clearly better in his 3rd season and even more clearly better in his 4th season. Then he hits his peak in 88/89.

There is no argument to be made that before Mario's 5th year, McDavid was keeping pace. McDavid was keeping pace with Crosby through their first 6 seasons and with Jagr, once he hit his prime at age 22.

McDavid's two peak seasons are clearly below Mario's three, maybe four best seasons.

I believe those adjustments WalterLundy has shown give you a good idea with McDavid’s best seasons being better than Lemieux’s 1995-96 all things considered and closer to Lemieux than you would imagine in his two peak seasons, then there are his best playoff runs which are up there as well. Crosby comes very close to McDavid as well on a per game basis in peer domination from the end of 2010 to the first half of 2013-14, but we’ll never really know if that could’ve been his full season level of play which will always hold him back unfortunately.

I tend to think he would’ve been extremely close to McDavid offensively if not for those concussions and neck/jaw injuries. He also had playoff runs of 19 points in 13 games, 21 in 12 and 28 in 17 during the first 3 rounds which are all closer to McDavid’s best than they first appear when adjusted as well. But really McDavid at his best has been visibly on another level for me, especially in the playoffs and his first time in the Stanley Cup finals was at least twice as good as any performance Crosby has had in multiple appearances.

 

[MadLuke]

There is no argument to be made that before Mario's 5th year, McDavid was keeping pace. McDavid was keeping pace with Crosby through their first 6 seasons and with Jagr, once he hit his prime at age 22.

first 4 season
Gretzky...: 755
Lemieux...: 516
Kurri.....: 470
Hawerchuck: 456
Savard....: 442

PPG:
Gretzky: 2.49
Lemieux: 1.77 (1.00)
Kurri..: 1.52 (0.86)
Coffey.: 1.49 (0.84)
Bossy..: 1.44 (0.81)
Savard.: 1.43 (0.81)
Hawerck: 1.43 (0.81)

---------
Kane....: 381
Kucherov: 379
McDavid.: 372
Crosby..: 363
Wheeler.: 334

PPG:
McDavid.: 1.30 (1.00)
Kucherov: 1.21 (0.93)
Kane....: 1.17 (0.90)
Crosby..: 1.15 (0.88)
Malkin..: 1.13 (0.87)

Lemieux gap from the Bossy-Savard-Hawerchuck is indeed bigger than McDavid from the Crosby-Malkin, but it is not that vast of a gap.

 

[daver]

first 4 season
Gretzky...: 755
Lemeiux...: 516
Kurri.....: 470
Hawerchuck: 456
Savard....: 442

PPG:
Gretzky: 2.49
Lemieux: 1.77 (1.00)
Kurri..: 1.52 (0.86)
Coffey.: 1.49 (0.84)
Bossy..: 1.44 (0.81)
Savard.: 1.43 (0.81)
Hawerck: 1.43 (0.81)

---------
Kane....: 381
Kucherov: 379
McDavid.: 372
Crosby..: 363
Wheeler.: 334

PPG:
McDavid.: 1.30 (1.00)
Kucherov: 1.21 (0.93)
Kane....: 1.17 (0.90)
Crosby..: 1.15 (0.88)
Malkin..: 1.13 (0.87)

Lemieux gap from the Bossy-Savard-Hawerchuck is indeed quite bigger than McDavid from the Crosby-Malkin, but it is not that vast of a gap.

This is a bit misleading since McDavid missed games in his rookie season at a lower PPG. From their 2nd to their 4th season

Lemieux: 1.90 (1.00)
Savard.: 1.47 (0.77)
Stastny 1.43 (0.75)
Messier 1.38 (0.73)

McDavid.: 1.34 (1.00)
Kucherov: 1.33 (0.99)
Marchand: 1.19 (0.89)
Crosby..: 1.18 (0.88)

 

[MadLuke]

This is a bit misleading since McDavid missed games in his rookie season at a lower PPG. From their 2nd to their 4th season

Larger share of non-Rookie game as well, good point.

 

[Professor What]

How did this turn into another Crosby-McDavid thread?

 

[DitchMarner]

How did this turn into another Crosby-McDavid thread?

A thread about Ovechkin's legacy of all things...

 

[MadLuke]

How did this turn into another Crosby-McDavid thread?

The road is somewhat clear this time.

OVechkin legacy will be vastly tie with Crosby and where he end up, where Crosby end up will be vastly influenced by McDavid.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is a bit misleading since McDavid missed games in his rookie season at a lower PPG. From their 2nd to their 4th season

Lemieux: 1.90 (1.00)
Savard.: 1.47 (0.77)
Stastny 1.43 (0.75)
Messier 1.38 (0.73)

McDavid.: 1.34 (1.00)
Kucherov: 1.33 (0.99)
Marchand: 1.19 (0.89)
Crosby..: 1.18 (0.88)

So just pretend Lemieux was first when in fact he was second?

Never change history revision forum.

 

[CanadienShark]

I suppose it depends how you rate him. Personally, I have him top 15 all time, pushing top 10. It's hard to justify moving him up any more. I'm a big fan of his. He's such an entertaining player and personality.

 

[Crosby2010]

If people are just going to look at numbers then Crosby will still look better in 50 years. He has more points than Ovechkin, and will finish with more points barring a career ending injury. And the best part for Crosby is the PPG. He has 1.25 to Ovechkin's 1.08. If last season is any indication then Ovechkin's will get worse while Crosby's will more or less stay the same. Then there are the Cups, Crosby has three to Ovechkin's one. It won't be too hard to take a deep dive into their careers in 50 years. Both will be all-time greats though.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

The Gretzky goal record chase is fun but it's also sort of obnoxious, at this point. He's a liability on a bad team and he's openly searching for goals, even, I would argue, at times where he'd be better off looking to pass or re-group in the offensive zone.

Openly searching for goals? The horror

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Openly searching for goals? The horror

When you sacrifice every other part of your game and become a detriment. It is indeed sinister.

 

[Moose Head]

Yes, he will rise. To tie into the further speculation in the OP, Crosby will fall a bit. The reasons are pretty much already laid out - trophies and the goal record. When people didn't experience a player they try to piece together a story of that player, rather than actually knowing generally how good they were, and Ovechkin has some great building blocks. He is one of the best players ever, but the experience of watching Ovechkin is less impressive. People aren't going to go back and watch much video of post-2010 Ovechkin.

Great highlights, great awards, very prominent record. What's not to like if you're just looking back trying to figure him out?

To counter that with an example, before Gretzky and Lemieux, most all time lists had Beliveau behind Hull and Richard for 3rd best ever. The two wingers are more like Ovechkin. Crosby is more like Beliveau. Great career, leader and maybe a tad weak in the individual Trophy case in comparison to his true ability. He also had a lot of incomplete seasons. Yeah Richards trophy case isn’t that great either, but he’d have some Retro Rockets and Smythes.

Time has been kinder to Beliveau’s legacy. He’s usually ranked ahead of Hull and Richard nowadays. I agree with it, but that wasn’t the prevailing opinion back in 1980.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If people are just going to look at numbers then Crosby will still look better in 50 years. He has more points than Ovechkin, and will finish with more points barring a career ending injury. And the best part for Crosby is the PPG. He has 1.25 to Ovechkin's 1.08. If last season is any indication then Ovechkin's will get worse while Crosby's will more or less stay the same. Then there are the Cups, Crosby has three to Ovechkin's one. It won't be too hard to take a deep dive into their careers in 50 years. Both will be all-time greats though.

If secondary assists were just as good as goals you might have a point.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What percentage of secondary assists do not lead to goals?

 

[Midnight Judges]

When you sacrifice every other part of your game and become a detriment. It is indeed sinister.

853 goals in a largely low scoring era = "detriment."

Is there any limit to the absurd things you are willing to say for Crosby?

What percentage of secondary assists do not lead to goals?

A helluva lot of them are fairly mundane passes - as you well know.

You could make your exact same statement about tertiary assists.

 

[Michael Farkas]

A helluva lot of them are fairly mundane passes - as you well know.

You could make your exact same statement about tertiary assists.

Maybe so. I didn't know if you or anyone had done the work on this. I wonder what the difference is between secondary assists that, uhhh, "don't matter" is too strong, but maybe "aren't crucial to the success of the goal" (?) vs. how many secondary assists are more important (more difficult?) than the primary...

There's an interesting study in there somewhere.

 

[K Fleur]

Ovechkin does deserve a lot of credit for adapting his approach to still be able to score tons of goals after his explosive skating/puck handling seemed to just disappear.

That a little too often gets misconstrued as

“Openly searching for goals” or whatever.