Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[Lou Sassole]

Yes obviously, which is why it's balanced out by being a Top 1 Goalscorer or there's no discussion to be had.

And by far the best hitter, physical player of the these elite scorers. Just watching him bully guys at 39 warms my heart. It's even more important in the playoffs.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Man, I have a hard time seeing those guys as top 10 candidates... but they don't look terribly out of place, do they. Especially considering that they are fighting among each other (and McDavid) for these spots.

And then we also have Makar, who I think is a potential top 20 candidate. We are either dramatically overrating contemporary players, or we are living in a great era for talent. Probably a little of column A, a little of column B.

I don't think anyone besides McDavid hits top 20. But Kucherov and Makar have the best shot.

Kucherov has shown remarkable high ends finishes. 5x top 3 in points is an all time level. And he has three very high end playoff runs too.

By contemporary opinion, Makar is the highest we've seen from a defenseman since Lidstrom. The players have now picked him as best defenseman three years in a row.

I do think we're at a talent boom right now. It will likely be remembered in a similar way to the late 50s and early 90s.

 

[MadLuke]

Insane of you to say this. This is not even true of Ovechkin at 39 years old.

Not sure if you followed the conversation, but T ~98, 77, 90th ranked in assists, when there is 90 first liner, obviously some defenseman will make the list but that would be bottom first liner level.

And per minute of 5v5 (where the notion of first liner make more sense), he was often in the 130th-200th type of ranking.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In hockey even rebounded assists are considered equal

I have always wondered about the effect of that on certain player types and styles and with certain team tactics...

 

[The Panther]

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

Speaking of slander, I have most definitely never said any such thing. What are you talking about??

 

[The Panther]

I’ve explained the 1.7 multiplier. Points tend to correlate higher with the big assist guys accordingly. Iginla, Ovechkin, McDavid. That’s the list of players that won both the Rocket Richard and Art Ross trophy in the same season since the rocket became an award. Add in Lemieux retro rocket in ‘96 and that’s the fourth and other time it happened in the globalized league (35 years).

The globalized League goes back to the late 70s.

 

[Fantomas]

Not sure if you followed the conversation, but T ~98, 77, 90th ranked in assists, when there is 90 first liner, obviously some defenseman will make the list but that would be bottom first liner level.

And per minute of 5v5 (where the notion of first liner make more sense), he was often in the 130th-200th type of ranking.

I'm glad I missed the conversation if these are the kinds of insights being shared here.

"Ovechkin barely a first liner," opines very smart guy.

 

[rmartin65]

Maybe just let the guys in their prime play it out a bit more before capping anyone.

Good call

 

[MadLuke]

I'm glad I missed the conversation if these are the kinds of insights being shared here.

"Ovechkin barely a first liner," opines very smart guy.

Ok that answer the question, that was absolutely not the subject and no one ever said barely a first liner (that amount of ridicule should have been a hint)

And the message you quoted had all the needed context...

 

[Fantomas]

Ok that answer the question, that was absolutely not the subject and no one ever said barely a first liner (that amount of ridicule should have been a hint)

And the message you quoted had all the needed context...

I'm just responding to what you wrote, which is this:

Prime Ovechkin was an Art Ross winner/contender with a healthy assists total for sure, but has you see, he was just a boderline bottom of the pack first liner for a long time to get to a big career total.

If you mean something other than what you say that's your problem.

 

[MadLuke]

If you mean something other than what you say that's your problem.

yes like I said, if you followed the conversation it was extremely clear, the message just above state (that you must have read just before mine)
Ovechkin first 5 seasons is 6th in assists
Ovechkin next 5 seasons is T-98th in assists
Ovechkin next 5 seasons is 77th in assists
Ovechkin last 4 seasons i T-95th in assists

It was about Ovechkin assists production, I do not mean anything else than what I wrote, what do you think has you see refer too ? and what are the big career total refer too here ?

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's extremely clear what's being talked about and said. This was just a distraction attempt because we had too good of a run of actually interesting, productive conversation...

 

[mrhockey193195]

I don't think anyone besides McDavid hits top 20. But Kucherov and Makar have the best shot.

Kucherov has shown remarkable high ends finishes. 5x top 3 in points is an all time level. And he has three very high end playoff runs too.

By contemporary opinion, Makar is the highest we've seen from a defenseman since Lidstrom. The players have now picked him as best defenseman three years in a row.

I do think we're at a talent boom right now. It will likely be remembered in a similar way to the late 50s and early 90s.

This might be sacrilege to suggest - but is Kucherov's resumé that far off from Jagr's at the same age? That being said, I agree that he hasn't necessarily separated himself from Mackinnon or Draisailtl, so the question becomes - are all three of them trending to be top-25 players of all time? Seems pretty outlandish when put into those terms.

 

[Troubadour]

This might be sacrilege to suggest - but is Kucherov's resumé that far off from Jagr's at the same age? That being said, I agree that he hasn't necessarily separated himself from Mackinnon or Draisailtl, so the question becomes - are all three of them trending to be top-25 players of all time? Seems pretty outlandish when put into those terms.

Not a sacrilege. Kucherov has played 803 rs games so far. Jagr played 806 during his Pit tenure.

Jagr went 439 + 640 for 1079 TP and +207.

Kuch has been at 357 + 637 for 994 TP and +157.

Jagr's upside grows at ES with 320 + 423 to Kucherov's 261 + 369.

It's not a huuuuge difference, but it makes for a couple of Arts. It's kinda remarkable, as Kucherov is peaking (or has already peaked) in a high scoring environment created with the goal of creating a high scoring environment while Jagr peaked in a low scoring environment created with tolerance to reckless play to stop offensive stars from scoring.

Jagr had it easier to win scoring titles relative to his direct competition, but Kucherov has it way easier to amass points. Fair enough, he's had a couple of playoff runs Jagr never had. But fairly said, it's also probably easier to smoke the regular season scoring and have a healthy productive playoff run on top of it now than 25 years ago.

Take from it what you will. I'm very much a Kucherov person, but ranking him close or over Jagr historically as of now feels even weirder than doing the same with Ovi. It may change in a couple of years though. Kucherov and his style could age better than MC, Mack, Ovi, maybe even Sid, and he will probably stick around the scoring lead well into his thirties.

 

[Staniowski]

I think this thread is clearly showing that there isn't a consensus.

Well, I suppose it depends on the definition of the word consensus. It generally means some type of agreement. Does it need to be unanimous or some type of large majority or merely a majority? It depends on the context.

In the case of Ovechkin, I'd say sonething between a majority and a large majority of the hockey world already ranks him as a top 10 player all-time.

What individual people in this thread think has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is a consensus in the hockey world. Your opinion and my opinion don't move the needle. Similarly, the HOH rankings have no bearing whatsoever either. Nobody in the hockey world has ever heard of the HOH rankings.

Your view is myopic.

 

[bobholly39]

This might be sacrilege to suggest - but is Kucherov's resumé that far off from Jagr's at the same age? That being said, I agree that he hasn't necessarily separated himself from Mackinnon or Draisailtl, so the question becomes - are all three of them trending to be top-25 players of all time? Seems pretty outlandish when put into those terms.

I remember during Jagr's prime we entered every season and it was clear he was the best forward, favorite to win the Ross, and nobody else had a chance. (I may be romanticising it a bit, but that's how I remember it after Lemieux).

With Kucherov, you never enter a season thinking he's going to win the Ross....but then he does, unexpectedly.

He lead the league in scoring all of 2017-2018 till the very end when McDavid passed him.
Torched the league in 2019 when no one expected it. And no one saw it coming last year. Even this year - no one was talking about him, McDavid was expected to bounce back, and Mack/Drai were sharing the lead most of the year, yet Kucherov came out of nowhere and won his 3rd Ross.

I'm very high on Kucherov (Jagr too), so this isn't meant as a criticism, just meant to show what a stark difference there was to their Art Ross wins during their primes.

I still definitely have Jagr ahead. Where Kucherov has a chance though is that his playoffs are really very impactful (Jagr was good too, but the lack of big, long runs hurts him). Also - longevity.

Jagr has a tremendous career from a longevity standpoint - but if you really break it down, beyond age 28, he only has one season where he was among the league leaders (2006, age 33). So - if Kucherov has another ~2-3 high end seasons at this level, he can definitely still bridge the gap with Jagr.

Also - sticking to OP. I have Jagr/Ovechkin super close in all-time rankings. So everything I say in this post about distance of Kucherov to Jagr all-time, and whether he has a chance to catch him - similarly applies to Ovechkin.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Kucherov late start and Crosby like missed regular season time in his prime will certainly keep him down somewhat. I dunno about top whatever but definitely underrated by media and with an atg (term of art, not putting a rank number on it) prime.

 

[Sentinel]

Dude having a guy who was riding shotgun with Bobby Hull for 2 seasons and a less than Marcel Dionne line of 25-4-4-8 in the playoffs keeps you out of the top 10 all by itself along with lots of other reasons.

In fact there is a reasonable argument that Big Phil isn't even a top 10 center of all time.

The dude who led the league in goals six times, in assists three times, Canada in one of the biggest moments in sports history, and repeatedly beat Orr for Hart is not a "top 10 center of all time"? Yeah, OK. I take him over McDavid ten times out of ten.

 

[Sentinel]

Some folks will value more balanced, versatile attackers. Especially those with a more dynamic skill set.

In other words, they ask "how." I ask "how many."

 

[Sentinel]

Not really- everything is relative, right? For a player in the discussion for top 10 all time, Ovechkin is an abysmal producer of assists.

Also, where are you seeing T-45th in assists? I'm on NHL.com and I see him at T-55.

As an aside- McDavid is just 5 assists behind Ovechkin... in 779 less games. Holy smokes.

It's as if having someone to pass the puck TO matters...

 

[VanIslander]

The dude who led the league in goals six times, in assists three times, Canada in one of the biggest moments in sports history, and repeatedly beat Orr for Hart is not a "top 10 center of all time"? Yeah, OK. I take him over McDavid ten times out of ten.

10?... i'd say 4 times out of ten, but even that number could be reduced given a career ain't done yet.

I think McDavid is already between Esposito and Messier.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's as if having someone to pass the puck TO matters...

What happened to your "doesn't matter how, just how many" philosophy...? Ya know, the thing from the immediate preceding post...

See how quickly that breaks down when you want it to...?

 

[Johnny Engine]

In other words, they ask "how." I ask "how many."

I hate to be picking on you, but you gotta help me out on some HOH lore here.

Wasn't it you you used to keep saying "there's more to life than offensive stats"? Like, to the point where you'd preface it with "you know what I always say..."?

And I don't mean this as a gotcha, because I don't think either position is very helpful, but in this case I'm doubting my memory that it was on fact you who kept saying that.

And by the way, that in itself is a great example of a thought-terminating cliche - as in, I could be arguing something like "Kris Versteeg is better than Alexander Ovechkin", and then drop the "more to life than offensive stats" smoke bomb and leave you wondering, what possibly is there to life that has you thinking that about Mr. Versteeg, because it's certainly not stats... but since I wasn't interested in giving you anything other than "not stats", the conversation rolls to a dead stop and we're done.

But honest question, was that you or a different user?

 

[Sentinel]

10?... i'd say 4 times out of ten, but even that number could be reduced given a career ain't done yet.

I think McDavid is already between Esposito and Messier.

Yes, that's where I have McD too. He is in my 11-15 range.

 

[Sentinel]

What happened to your "doesn't matter how, just how many" philosophy...? Ya know, the thing from the immediate preceding post...

See how quickly that breaks down when you want it to...?

What are you talking about? These two posts in no way contradict each other.