Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[Sentinel]

Don't be surprised if he is out of the top 10 in the next top 100.

We had a guy here who ranked Gretzky at #7.

 

[Johnny Engine]

He is already squarely in Top10 of all time. There is no way in flaming inferno that you can keep the GOAT Goalscorer out of Top 10. You will be laughed out of every discussion.

You need to have better discussions if that's what keeps happening.

 

[maddskkilz]

I guess I’ve seen some top ten lists that exclude Ovechkin and so my point was that winning another Cup & Conn Smythe would make cement his top 10 placement for anyone that has doubts.

Personally my top 10 is:

Gretzky

Lemieux, Orr
Howe

Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin

Hasek, Bourque, Beliveau

 

[WarriorofTime]

Don't be surprised if he is out of the top 10 in the next top 100.

If Maurice Richard is the current bar for top 10, I think Ovechkin transcends him and will almost certainly end up with the better "legacy". Certainly in the "over time" category as the question asks. Guy last played 65 years ago. Can't imagine a "2050" version of a poll/survey (Ovechkin probably has a good shot at still being record goal scorer by then) is going to have Richard, who at that point will have last played 90 years ago and whose contemporary (but not necessarily multi-generational) legend dwarfs his resume, ahead of Ovechkin.

Probably go so far as to say Ovechkin ahead of Mark Messier, Frank Nighbor, Jacques Plante, Denis Potvin, Red Kelly, Nicklas Lidstrom, Eddie Shore, Dominik Hasek, Howie Morenz, Ray Bourque, Maurice Richard, Patrick Roy will all be very easily "consensus" opinions held "over time" and one will be in an extreme minority to seriously advocate for any of those options ahead of Ovechkin.

Jagr, Harvey likely closer to a tossup, leaning Ovechkin. Really not sure why Bobby Hull did so well in HOH poll, but Ovechkin likely leans over him as well with a more compelling best LW of all time resume. Beliveau could go either way but likely leaning Beliveau.

Crosby, McDavid over Ovechkin.

So probably looking at something like Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, McDavid, Crosby, Beliveau, Ovechkin, Harvey, Jagr, Hull until such time as someone new comes along to push players down

 

[jigglysquishy]

The next time we do a top 100 will be 2029 at the earliest. I fully expect Crosby, McDavid, and Beliveau to end up ahead with minimal fuss. Harvey almost certainly does too (I'm going to make a big Harvey push in the fall's dman project).

That only leaves 2 spots. Most people will force a goalie into their top 10, so that leaves 1 spot.

At least for me, Jagr over Ovechkin is a very easy choice. That's not even getting into Hull.

In reality, 10th vs 11th mattering that much is a quirk of us using a base 10 system, which has nothing to do with hockey. That there are 18 guys worthy of being 10 top is just the way it is.

I can see him ending up at 9 or 10, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Quoting myself from two recent threads on the main board:

"There are at least ten players who have legitimate case for 5-10 all-time:

• Forwards - Beliveau, Hull, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid (and arguably Richard)
• Defensemen - Harvey, Bourque (and arguably Shore and Lidstrom)
• Goalies - Roy and Hasek

At a minimum that's ten names, and maybe as many as 13. There are only six spots. Anybody who makes a list is going to have to make some difficult choices."

"People fixate on "the top ten", because that's the number of fingers we, as a species, have evolved with. But there's nothing magical about being ranked 10th. The difference between 9th place and 11th place is miniscule. Some people get offended if someone has Bourque or Ovechkin on the wrong side of that divide, but it's splitting hairs.

In some ways, it's better to think of it in tiers. You have the big four (Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux). Then you have the next 12-14 names (see above). After that you'd have players like Plante; Fetisov, Robinson, Potvin, Kelly; Makarov, Messier, Mikita, Lafleur, Nighbor, and Clarke. The line between one tier and the next can be blurry, but maybe this would avoid the "you should be banned from HFBoards because you don't have Player X in the top ten" comments."

 

[qcal1427]

Ovechkin's legacy will improve over time if people's understanding of math and statistics and particularly the concept of adjusting for era improve. So probably not!

 

[WarriorofTime]

Think Ovechkin's case is stronger, especially now with the freak longevity amongst that entire 8-12 group described above, certainly the goalies who I don't think get one just to get one. Peak was terrific, longevity great, his years where he is cited as not being a big point producer and big dropoff still have four top 10 point (not goals) finishes in a five year span, so scoring environment is really helping suppress those totals, and he only stops being top 10 in points post age 30 (but continues high with goal scoring forever). The sheer resiliency of goals and even points over x years for Ovechkin is something that stands out a lot to me. Real points 11th all time, adjusted points 5th all time, with assists having a 1.7X ratio of frequency per goal to give the goal scorer boost, can knock him a bit for two-way type stuff compared to say a Beliveau but not to like a Richard. Obviously if you think he just floated around, banged a one timer and actually kinda sucked for the last 15 years then you think that and it is what it is, but think that kinda sentiment dies down a bit once the emotions of a career are over.

 

[Sentinel]

You need to have better discussions if that's what keeps happening.

No, you don't. The GOAT goalscorer MUST be in the Top10. There can be no reasonable argument against it.

 

[Sentinel]

Quoting myself from two recent threads on the main board:

"There are at least ten players who have legitimate case for 5-10 all-time:

• Forwards - Beliveau, Hull, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid (and arguably Richard)
• Defensemen - Harvey, Bourque (and arguably Shore and Lidstrom)
• Goalies - Roy and Hasek

At a minimum that's ten names, and maybe as many as 13. There are only six spots. Anybody who makes a list is going to have to make some difficult choices."

"People fixate on "the top ten", because that's the number of fingers we, as a species, have evolved with. But there's nothing magical about being ranked 10th. The difference between 9th place and 11th place is miniscule. Some people get offended if someone has Bourque or Ovechkin on the wrong side of that divide, but it's splitting hairs.

In some ways, it's better to think of it in tiers. You have the big four (Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux). Then you have the next 12-14 names (see above). After that you'd have players like Plante; Fetisov, Robinson, Potvin, Kelly; Makarov, Messier, Mikita, Lafleur, Nighbor, and Clarke. The line between one tier and the next can be blurry, but maybe this would avoid the "you should be banned from HFBoards because you don't have Player X in the top ten" comments."

Inexplicable omission of Esposito.

 

[Sentinel]

My Top 10 is, of course,

99
9
4
66
Hasek
Esposito
Ovechkin
Crosby
Hull
Jagr

11-20: McDavid, Shore, Beliveau, Makarov, Lafleur, Lidstrom, Harvey, Roy, Bourque, Messier

 

[Michael Farkas]

A goalie in the top 10? There can be no reasonable argument for that. That list would be laughed...blah blah blah...

It's not even that fun...

 

[jigglysquishy]

A goalie in the top 10? There can be no reasonable argument for that. That list would be laughed...blah blah blah...

It's not even that fun...

I will say, going through the goalie project has removed a goalie from my top 10. Even the best guys have oofs.

Going through dmen in prep, I suspect I get an upwards shift for dmen on my whole top 100.

 

[Johnny Engine]

No, you don't. The GOAT goalscorer MUST be in the Top10. There can be no reasonable argument against it.

Do you know what a thought-terminating cliche is?

 

[Sentinel]

Do you know what a thought-terminating cliche is?

No, I don't.

 

[Johnny Engine]

No, I don't.

OK. It's a statement that adds no information, but leaves no opening for any further thought or consideration. A good example would be "well that's the way it is". It doesn't tell you anything about the way it is, and no one's going to tell you it isn't the way it is, and there's nothing to think about after that.

Hockey loves thought-terminating clichés. "Goalies are voodoo" is a popular one that invalidates just about anything you can say about goalie stats, achievements, talent or potential. "He's a winner" is another one, where players who have won things are described as players who can win things. "You can't compare different eras/positions" is about the most direct one we've got, because it's literally saying "stop thinking".

They don't say a lot about whether the person using them is right or wrong, but they do kill conversations stone dead and overall degrades the discourse around here, and since I'm here for the conversations, I don't like them much.

"If anyone [this or that] they'd get laughed out of the conversation" is a thought-terminating cliche, but a bit of a unique one in that it's demonstrably untrue, by the number of people here who are carrying on a conversation and not getting laughed out of it.

 

[Overrated]

A goalie in the top 10? There can be no reasonable argument for that. That list would be laughed...blah blah blah...

It's not even that fun...

Why not? He won consecutive Harts after all...

In 97 against peak Jagr, Selanne, Kariya and still more than competent Lemieux and in 98 against peak Jagr, Forsberg and Bure. That's an unbelievable feat for a goalie.

 

[MadLuke]

I think it was a commentary on the style of argument made...

 

[The Panther]

I don't stress myself debating about "Top-10's" or whatever (as it's of no great importance), but my feeling is that both Crosby and Ovechkin would be borderline Top-10 for me -- meaning that, I imagine that both would be hovering somewhere around number 9 to 15.

As Ovechkin and wingers go, I don't really see how his best was better than M. Richard or Hull, or maybe even Bossy, and now we can start to add Kucherov. Ovechkin probably gets a bump over those guys (almost certainly over Bossy) because of his insane longevity as a high-end scorer. But Ovechkin is certainly below Howe and Jagr, as wingers. Then, you've got the obvious centers he (and everybody) is behind -- Wayne and Mario. Have to at least consider Béliveau. (MacKinnon looks likely to rank ahead of Ovechkin, too, quite soon.) Then, there's defencemen -- Orr, of course, and probably Harvey and Lidstrom and Bourque are all ahead of Ovi. Then, there's goaltenders -- I would rate Plante and Hasek ahead of Ovechkin, and I would have to think about Tretiak.

Ovechkin's being #1 in goals is, for me, a non-factor in how great he was/is as a player. But his longevity as an elite player is important.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Don't be surprised if he is out of the top 10 in the next top 100.

In a forum where Ovechkin is slandered on a daily basis, nobody will be surprised.

Who cares though. It's your credibility, not mine.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don't stress myself debating about "Top-10's" or whatever (as it's of no great importance), but my feeling is that both Crosby and Ovechkin would be borderline Top-10 for me -- meaning that, I imagine that both would be hovering somewhere around number 9 to 15.

As Ovechkin and wingers go, I don't really see how his best was better than M. Richard or Hull, or maybe even Bossy, and now we can start to add Kucherov.

Yeah no doubt it's impossible for anyone to see the difference between leading a modern international NHL in goals 9 times vs a guy leading the WWII depleted 96% Canadian 1940s/50s NHL in goals 5 times.

Then again you also recently claimed Ovechkin was a "doping" "blob" "compiler."

So maybe, just maybe, Ovie isn't going to get a far shake here.

 

[rmartin65]

In a forum where Ovechkin is slandered on a daily basis, nobody will be surprised.

I know you don't like it, but I think there is a real case to be made for Ovechkin to be outside the top 10 when we are talking about all the hockey players who ever played the game. It has nothing to do with "slander" (which feels a little too strong for what occurs here on a "daily basis", no?), but the fact that there have been a lot of really good players over the last 140+ years of organized hockey.

For my money, he's the all time greatest goal scorer. He has been for a while, in my opinion- I didn't need to see him break the goal record, one goal doesn't/shouldn't shift rankings around. But- and, again, I know you don't like this- he wasn't as versatile as many of the other great forwards were throughout history. He hasn't be in the top 10 in points in, what, 10 years? He's never been top 5 in assists, only top 10 three times. The other wingers Ovechkin is competing against for a spot in my top 10- Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, and Jaromir Jagr- each showed a bit more versatility, which I think enabled them to be greater play drivers for longer than Ovechkin.

Who cares though. It's your credibility, not mine.

I wish you would participate in the projects. For starters, I feel like it is important for people with different perspectives to be included. If you think these projects are dominated by Canadian bias and pro-Penguin agenda, the best way for you to counter that is to be involved. Secondly, I think that it is easy to cast stones while sitting on the outside looking in. If there is one thing I have learned in the two projects I have participated in, it is that a lot of work goes into just making a list, let alone active participation. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I feel like a vast majority of the (active) participants in the two projects were doing their best to not just express their opinions, but to reconsider previously held ideas when presented with new information.

 

[Voight]

Quoting myself from two recent threads on the main board:

"There are at least ten players who have legitimate case for 5-10 all-time:

• Forwards - Beliveau, Hull, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid (and arguably Richard)
• Defensemen - Harvey, Bourque (and arguably Shore and Lidstrom)
• Goalies - Roy and Hasek

At a minimum that's ten names, and maybe as many as 13. There are only six spots. Anybody who makes a list is going to have to make some difficult choices."

"People fixate on "the top ten", because that's the number of fingers we, as a species, have evolved with. But there's nothing magical about being ranked 10th. The difference between 9th place and 11th place is miniscule. Some people get offended if someone has Bourque or Ovechkin on the wrong side of that divide, but it's splitting hairs.

In some ways, it's better to think of it in tiers. You have the big four (Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux). Then you have the next 12-14 names (see above). After that you'd have players like Plante; Fetisov, Robinson, Potvin, Kelly; Makarov, Messier, Mikita, Lafleur, Nighbor, and Clarke. The line between one tier and the next can be blurry, but maybe this would avoid the "you should be banned from HFBoards because you don't have Player X in the top ten" comments."

Its actually because of David Letterman and his famous top ten lists

 

[Randyne]

He's never been top 5 in assists, only top 10 three times. The other wingers Ovechkin is competing against for a spot in my top 10- Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, and Jaromir Jagr- each showed a bit more versatility, which I think enabled them to be greater play drivers for longer than Ovechkin.

Assists =/= "greater play drivers". That's wrong assumption for many players.

Ovechkin is among those guys which drive play by scoring goals.
Here is his goals/assists correlation in W and in L+OTL
W: G=56.8%; A=43.2%
L+OTL: G=51.7%; A=48.3%
His assist ratio drops in wins and rises in losses (L+OTL)

That correlation (in wins G% rises and A% drops) also works with such guys like:

 

[WarriorofTime]

Beating a dead horse, etc. but Ovechkin as a Power Forward is very routinely overlooked. How often do we see teams draft a few nifty skill guys and talk about how they need to add a more physical component into their top six.... Almost 40 and still hitting everything in sight Game 1 in the Playoffs.