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

[Michael Farkas]

For all of the "Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand" talk that you try to get away with...it's incredible that Lemieux gets this treatment. Incredible...lacking credibility.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Over the course of Lemieux's career, the Penguins had a .509 points percentage. You'd think such a vaunted player would have been able to lift a team to above average. Mario Lemieux didn't.

For Crosby that number is .612 and for Ovechkin it's .604.

Just for my own understanding, you're aware that both Crosby and Ovechkin (but not Lemieux except for late in his career) have played in an era that allows for an "average team" to have a points percentage well above 50%?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Just for my own understanding, you're aware that both Crosby and Ovechkin (but not Lemieux except for late in his career) have played in an era that allows for an "average team" to have a points percentage well above 50%?

Yes, that's a fair point and it can and should be factored in.

 

[Midnight Judges]

For all of the "Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand" talk that you try to get away with...it's incredible that Lemieux gets this treatment. Incredible...lacking credibility.

I factor in durability to player value, whereas many hockey fans basically don't, or at least treat it as so insignificant as to not matter.

But in real life, providing value in games is a prerequisite for team success, and contributing to team success (as opposed to individual glory) ought to be the measurement.

Anyway, I don't think Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand nor did I say that. I think he was dealt a fairly average hand. He came to a lottery team and it turned into a perennial contender largely based on his consistent contributions. The team made some great moves (Oshie for Brouwer, drafting Kuznetsov, drafting Holtby in the 4th round) and some unbelievably stupid moves (Forsberg for Erat, letting Trotz walk after winning the cup).

I think lots of all-time greats were dealt better or far better hands - especially the ones who were lucky enough to be paired with multiple other top 50 players of all time. Sometimes that talent clustered in fortuitous ways that are perhaps not even possible in the salary cap era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Anyway, I don't think Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand nor did I say that. I think he was dealt a fairly average hand. He came to a lottery team and it turned into a perennial contender largely based on his consistent contributions.

I see. So, Ovechkin gets a lot of the credit for returning them into a "perennial contender" (even though upthread, the president's trophy winners were "flawed"). He doesn't shoulder the load for them losing in the playoffs or losing with Russia. Largely drags them off the floor to the top of the league. Until he doesn't...then it's everyone else.

I think lots of all-time greats were dealt better or far better hands

Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I see. So, Ovechkin gets a lot of the credit for returning them into a "perennial contender" (even though upthread, the president's trophy winners were "flawed"). He doesn't shoulder the load for them losing in the playoffs or losing with Russia. Largely drags them off the floor to the top of the league. Until he doesn't...then it's everyone else.

You're not accurately summarizing my opinion, but whatever.

You think my posts are inconsistent, but they actually aren't.

A team requires far more to win than any 1 player can provide. Ovechkin's contributions are among the greatest of all time - as evidenced by him flirting with the all-time goals record and top 10 all time in points despite not playing in the high scoring era. He'll likely end his career top 5 in adjusted points.

Ovechkin should get credit for his own contributions on the ice. Nothing more and nothing less. Not extrapolations. Not what you think could or should have happened. But what actually did happen.

An all-time great player can play their entire career on a crappy team. An all-time medium player can be fortunate to play on a dynasty or for multiple great teams. Those things are largely happenstance that are the responsibility of the GM, not the player.

Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.

Indeed Lemieux came into a crappy team, then had a stacked dream team that no player in the current era could even dream of, then he played with the best player in the world, then he played 1.5 season's worth of games on a crappy team again.

There is not much stopping a superstar's entire career from playing out the way Lemieux's first 6 seasons played out. I think the difference is, for folks who are accounting for those things to begin with, it would not impact their assessment.

 

[WarriorofTime]

International makes even less sense to compare. "NHL Franchises" start off on a somewhat equal playing field, if they get a franchise marquee talent, they get a chance to build around them. Sometimes they do a good job, sometimes they do a bad job. We can evaluate how successful a team is in building with the player and then from there assess what that says about the player, and squabble around (the extreme end being daver, the low end being the nihilistic no team success ever matters that you sometimes see). With international though, there's no "building", countries just kinda have who they have lol. A country doesn't just go out and spend draft capital on defense, sign a new goaltender. International resume often just feels likes a Canadian "padding", any Canadian best on best roster is gonna have like 15 hall of fame players. They won't always win because hockey has enough variance, but they are, particularly historically, always a clear favorite.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I just can’t get over how elegant an obfuscating phrase “he never played with another top 200 player” or “never played with another HOFer” is.

“Top 200” and “HOFer” are both career markers, and the scale of the career is just simply the wrong scale for contemplating the amount of support a guy had. Guys like Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Green, Holtby, Semin, Carlson were all at some point seen as amongst the top in their position in the league. A bunch of those Capitals teams had really solid depth guys: Knuble, Laich, Oshie, Wideman, Eller. All of that is hidden underneath the curtain of “no Top 200 Players” because Kuznetsov, Green, Holtby and Semin had high peaks but short primes, and Backstrom never really got the respect he deserved.

If you were to rank every player in the league, season-by-season, between 07-08 and 18-19 (what I’ll call these teams overlapping contention windows), most seasons the average player ranking between them would be at worst a wash, and I imagine the Caps would come out on top for overall team quality more than the Penguins would.

If someone were to sketch out a full lineup value analysis, season by season, and the above isn’t true? Then that’s fine and I’ll accept it. But you’ll never be able to persuade me that “never played with a HOFer” is meaningful outside of being a trivia answer indicating that Evgeny Kuznetsov stopped liking hockey.

 

[MadLuke]

Over the course of Lemieux's career, the Penguins had a .509 points percentage. You'd think such a vaunted player would have been able to lift a team to above average. Mario Lemieux didn't.

never having much team success without 6-8 other hall of famers.

Old Trottier, rookie Jagr being HHOF can make the statement look stronger than it was, would Barrasso be in the hall without Lemieux ? And a Kevin Stevens was way more important than some of those HHOF at that point.

Indeed Lemieux came into a crappy team, then had a stacked dream team that no player in the current era could even dream of, then he played with the best player in the world, then he played 1.5 season's worth of games on a crappy team again.

The 2 years they won the cup, the Penguins were a .500 teams 32W-33L-5T when Mario was not playing, there is more than HHOF counting in a team construction going on (see some Buffalo sabres era). Superstar which to have a .500 teams without them and it is a good place to be and should put them contender for a cup, but it is not that special either. in 2010 without Ovechkin the Caps went 7 wins-2L-1OL

Were the Mario less 91 and 92 pens that much better than the Kucherov less Lightings at their peak ? Kane less Hawks ? Bergeron less Bruins ?

92-93 Pens without Mario, 11W-11L-2T, excellent team without their big stars, but did they had some massive flaw for all those big names not being able to more than a .500 team ? Someone like Stevens during those years, without Mario his numbers do not like a superstar at all.

You can have supernova help that do not show in a HHOF column and you can have regular help that end up in the HHOF, Markov, Dany Heatley will not end up in the hall or Lecavalier but people that played with the peak version of them did not had less help than people that played with Kevin Lowe. Peak Mike Richards-Backstrom-Been-Panarin-Gaudreau-Spezza, etc... are not big drop rfom a past 30 Joe Mullen

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think the thing though is regardless of any particular snapshot opinions of Semin, Green, Kuznetsov, Carlson, etc. at any one moment, we did have the benefit of actually watching the series in question. Pittsburgh played a competitive series with Washington in each of their seasons that resulted in a cup in the Crosby/Malkin era, and likewise in the season Washington won the Cup.

In the four series that Washington and Pittsburgh played in 2009, 2016, 2017 and 2018, Crosby had 13 goals, 17 assists, 30 points (1.2 PPG, one missed game), +5. Ovechkin had 15 goals, 18 assists, 33 points (1.27 PPG), +6. It'd be hard-pressed for me to say the difference in those particular Series was really that Crosby was just a better/more winning player. I don't think its unreasonable to say Green/Semin in 09, Kuznetsov in 16, Holtby in 17 had some big letdown performances when they really needed more. And that's not so unexpected because going back to it, they were players that had some good seasons but were not all time great players in their own right.