Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[Victorias]

05/06 Mario factored in only 8 points. Recchi 20 (one point overlapped so total is 27).
06/07 Recchi factored in 44 points, Malkin 38 (5 points overlapped so total is 77).
Look at Ovechkin stats. He is 39, but still is the best on his team by PPG/GPG.

It was reply to a sad poster dreaming about Sid's Hart in 2010.
You can check the numbers.
Sid is not a trash. Being in Thornton tier is a huge accomplishment.

The fact that Ovi is still such a great goal scorer at 39 is a testament to his ability.

But late thirties Recchi is not an All-Star level linemate, regardless of whether he had a Hall of Fame career. He really didn’t make Sid any better.

If you want to make use of these numbers you’ve derived you need to:
1) Include whether the Hall of Fame linemate was in his prime (which Recchi and Lemieux obviously were not). Surely you realize how important that is; Corey Perry may end up in the Hall of Fame but he doesn’t make McDavid any better.
2) Share these same numbers for Ovi (and any other players) to provide context.

Finally, these are players I’ve actually watched and I don’t think Thornton was ever on Sid’s level, or Ovi’s, or Malkin’s. Especially in the playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

these are players I’ve actually watched

It's really too bad that we have no video evidence of these players, because otherwise there's no way these folks wouldn't be able to get away with these math gymnastics and "nationality cards"...

 

[daver]

The 2010 Hart trophy seems to be good evidence that the media didn't give Crosby preferential treatment (due to his nationality, or any other reason). Both players had essentially the same output (50 goals & 109 points for Ovechkin, 51 goals & 109 for Crosby). If there was a pro-Crosby bias, you'd think that this would have been reflected in the results, during such a close race. Instead, Ovechkin finished higher in voting (he appeared on more ballots in total, and trounced Crosby 40-20 in first place votes). Granted, Ovechkin didn't win the Hart, but he was runner-up to another European player (Sedin) - which, again, is hardly what we'd expect to see if Crosby got a boost for being Canadian.

2013 too.

 

[Plural]

Ovechkin is kind of an oddball. In all ways. He's the player that should not exist. He's too offensive, too physical, too one dimensional, too much so many things. Yet, he's three time Hart Winner and a Conn Smythe winner. He's an all-time great who's puzzling.

However we as fans like to paint it, goals are a big deal. All professional players, coaches and owners alike, they put value on those goals. Of course value is put for playmakers also. But Ovechkin is a goal-scorer who scores goals no matter who he plays with. He's not a playmaker driven scorer.

I think his legacy will improve from on ice efforts. Time goes by and his absolutely bonkers longevity as an elite scorer will be a thing to marvel. It will be in the same breath as Howe's efforts. And honestly, it probably is in the same ballpark.

I still hope he'd get some flack from his off-ice opinions. I understand he probably won't and Bobby Hull is a good example of this. But he should and I hope he would.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I like Ovechkin on the hypothetical all time rosters because he’s pretty low maintenance and scaleable as far as not needing the puck to flow through him too much to be effective, easy guy for any powerplay with great players, a natural Left Wing which is a rare position of strength and can bring a physical element as well. Not sure what that has to do with an all time list or legacy or anything. Just a random musing.

 

[sr edler]

I'll repeat you can't have assists without actual goals.

You don't actually have to repeat this as it's such a mundane point, I promise. Tons of goals wouldn't happen either if someone didn't do proper legwork to set them up. Players who consistently can score bunches of goals at the highest level of competition without any type of assistance are very rare. Young Ovi was such a player, old Ovi is most definitely not even remotely close to such a player.

Somebody has to convert your pass and beat a goaltender (in most cases).

And that somebody a lot of the time doesn't even have to be that special. It could be an Anson Carter, or a Mikael Samuelsson, or a Cheechoo or a Gagné, or even a Victor Olofsson. Doesn't mean these players can't be difference makers, it's just that someone (or a team structure) has to carry them to the fountain.

 

[Gerulaitis]

You don't actually have to repeat this as it's such a mundane point, I promise. Tons of goals wouldn't happen either if someone didn't do proper legwork to set them up. Players who consistently can score bunches of goals at the highest level of competition without any type of assistance are very rare. Young Ovi was such a player, old Ovi is most definitely not even remotely close to such a player.



And that somebody a lot of the time doesn't even have to be that special. It could be an Anson Carter, or a Mikael Samuelsson, or a Cheechoo or a Gagné, or even a Victor Olofsson. Doesn't mean these players can't be difference makers, it's just that someone (or a team structure) has to carry them to the fountain.

So goal-scoring is the easiest job in ice hockey? Thanks, I didn't know

 

[Midnight Judges]

The 2010 Hart trophy seems to be good evidence that the media didn't give Crosby preferential treatment (due to his nationality, or any other reason). Both players had essentially the same output (50 goals & 109 points for Ovechkin, 51 goals & 109 for Crosby). If there was a pro-Crosby bias, you'd think that this would have been reflected in the results, during such a close race. Instead, Ovechkin finished higher in voting (he appeared on more ballots in total, and trounced Crosby 40-20 in first place votes). Granted, Ovechkin didn't win the Hart, but he was runner-up to another European player (Sedin) - which, again, is hardly what we'd expect to see if Crosby got a boost for being Canadian.

There is that minor detail that Ovechkin played 9 fewer games.

Also, Ovechkin was far superior defensively. Crosby was on the ice for 75 non PP goals against. For Ovechkin it was 44.

Crosby was on the ice for 57 5v5 goals against (which is fine). Ovechkin for 33 (which is quite excellent). Their total 5v5 minutes weren't actually all that different.

And Crosby was obviously playing in front of a better blue line (Gonchar, Letang, Goligoski, Orpik vs Green, Poti, Schultz, Morrison) and a better goal tender (MAF vs Theodore).

So if not bias, what is the case for Crosby? I'm having a hard time seeing how he should have had any first place votes at all.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So goal-scoring is the easiest job in ice hockey? Thanks, I didn't know

Why do the "goal scorers are the greatest" proponents always have binary thoughts like this? I guess it makes sense, 1 = good, 0 = bad because these players tend to be more incomplete and therefore it justifies their position based on stats...? Maybe just coincidence...?

 

[Michael Farkas]

So goal-scoring is the easiest job in ice hockey? Thanks, I didn't know

Why do the "goal scorers are the greatest" proponents always have binary thoughts like this? I guess it makes sense, 1 = good, 0 = bad because these players tend to be more incomplete and therefore it justifies their position based on stats...? Maybe just coincidence...

Also, Ovechkin was far superior defensively.

I cannot imagine what this looks like on the ice for you...

 

[Midnight Judges]

I cannot imagine what this looks like on the ice for you...

It looks perfectly consistent with the data - that one player was getting far superior defensive results than the other despite playing in front of an inferior defense.

I have no need to be untethered to the facts.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It looks perfectly consistent with the data - that one player was getting far superior defensive results than the other despite playing in front of an inferior defense.

I have no need to be untethered to the facts.

So when you cite that Ovechkin is top 10 in assists in whatever cherry picked way you like, you actually mean he's a top 10 playmaker and passer...?

 

[jigglysquishy]

If you're into the JFresh cards

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQjqFMLXQAAc8X3?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GdHLs9pXwAAu0MN?format=jpg&name=large

TLDR: Crosby and Ovechkin were comparable defensively in 2010. Crosby was bad 2011-2013. Ovechkin has been bad since 2013. Crosby had some very strong years in the late 2010s.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If you're into the JFresh cards

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQjqFMLXQAAc8X3?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GdHLs9pXwAAu0MN?format=jpg&name=large

TLDR: Crosby and Ovechkin were comparable defensively in 2010. Crosby was bad 2011-2013. Ovechkin has been bad since 2013. Crosby had some very strong years in the late 2010s.

The “mythology” of Crosby is maybe another interesting topic. Sometimes i get the sense that people take his overall well roundedness to mean he could score goals like Ovechkin, be a perennial Selke winner ike Bergeron if he just *felt like it* but he was just too busy winning the cup every year (other than every year he didn’t apparently) to even bother.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The “mythology” of Crosby is maybe another interesting topic. Sometimes i get the sense that people take his overall well roundedness to mean he could score goals like Ovechkin, be a perennial Selke winner ike Bergeron if he just *felt like it* but he was just too busy winning the cup every year (other than every year he didn’t apparently) to even bother.

It's interesting that Crosby has "mythology" as a more productive and successful player. But you would never dare say this tone of post towards Ovechkin...

I agree that Crosby should not have gotten almost any of the Selke votes he has gotten in the regular season. But, it's so interesting that Ovechkin - to borrow this tone - hitting players a stride after the puck is gone, losing early in playoffs and international competition, and not having more assists despite their easiness and his all time longevity, he's the ultimate "practice" player...a real do-er... whereas Crosby is "theory" and "myth"...

Maybe some people play the "nationality" card...?

 

[The Panther]

I love this forum (obviously, as I've been posting regularly for, I think, 11+ years... It started, as I recall, when I was in Frankfurt, about to leave for my delayed Honeymoon in Mauritius... so I remember that well!), and I will continue to post and enjoy fun discussions here, no matter what form it takes for the foreseeable future.

That said...

The one aspect of the History of Hockey Forum that kind of confuses me a tad (and I feel I'm probably alone in this, so I'm not going to get on a soap-box about it) is that, consistently, the biggest and longest discussion-topics that invite the most 'excitement' and controversy is... the ranking of individual players.

The ranking of players interests me to a degree, but there are a lot of things that mitigate my ability to take it overly seriously:
— I haven't seen any hockey players prior to c.1987 (i.e., I missed the first 100 years of the organized sport)
— Even from 1987 to 2025, I've missed 98% of the games of almost all NHL players
— Hockey is not fundamentally about individuals (it's about teams)
— Hockey in the USSR / Russia, Sweden, Finland, most Olympics & World Championships, etc. is almost entirely unknown to me (which limits my attempts at rankings to NHL performance alone)
— Like everyone, I have my biases

I'm wary both of 'recency bias' and of 'historical romanticizing' — both are indulged in by various posters too much, I think. I'm very wary of anyone getting entrenced in opinions based on hockey history that they never experienced / witnessed. I'm very wary of people throwing accusations of nationality-bias at others. (I cringe at any poster who writes something like, "You're crazy is you don't rank so-and-so in the top 10!")

At the end of the day, though, I just don't think the ranking of individual players is that important. It's certainly not worth getting worked up about, or insulting other people over. So, I wish we would have more threads discussing historical players and seasons and events and teams, enjoying and appreciating one another's ideas and knowledge, and not obsessing over individual player rankings.

And now, back to Ovechkin's future legacy...

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's interesting that Crosby has "mythology" as a more productive and successful player. But you would never dare say this tone of post towards Ovechkin...

I agree that Crosby should not have gotten almost any of the Selke votes he has gotten in the regular season. But, it's so interesting that Ovechkin - to borrow this tone - hitting players a stride after the puck is gone, losing early in playoffs and international competition, and not having more assists despite their easiness and his all time longevity, he's the ultimate "practice" player...a real do-er... whereas Crosby is "theory" and "myth"...

Maybe some people play the "nationality" card...?

Not sure I understand what this is saying. I agree Ovechkin couldn’t just roll out of bed and get a 70 assist season if he felt like it.

 

[Professor What]

It's interesting that Crosby has "mythology" as a more productive and successful player. But you would never dare say this tone of post towards Ovechkin...

I agree that Crosby should not have gotten almost any of the Selke votes he has gotten in the regular season. But, it's so interesting that Ovechkin - to borrow this tone - hitting players a stride after the puck is gone, losing early in playoffs and international competition, and not having more assists despite their easiness and his all time longevity, he's the ultimate "practice" player...a real do-er... whereas Crosby is "theory" and "myth"...

Maybe some people play the "nationality" card...?

Is it wrong that I think both have fans that "mythologize" them by overinflating them?

 

[Midnight Judges]

So when you cite that Ovechkin is top 10 in assists in whatever cherry picked way you like, you actually mean he's a top 10 playmaker and passer...?

Ovechkin is top 10 in assists during his career.

It is a simple fact.

It isn't cherry-picked, or misleading, or dishonest, or anything like that - although it certainly is incompatible with your narrative.

 

[MeHateHe]

I love this forum (obviously, as I've been posting regularly for, I think, 11+ years... It started, as I recall, when I was in Frankfurt, about to leave for my delayed Honeymoon in Mauritius... so I remember that well!), and I will continue to post and enjoy fun discussions here, no matter what form it takes for the foreseeable future.

That said...

The one aspect of the History of Hockey Forum that kind of confuses me a tad (and I feel I'm probably alone in this, so I'm not going to get on a soap-box about it) is that, consistently, the biggest and longest discussion-topics that invite the most 'excitement' and controversy is... the ranking of individual players.

The ranking of players interests me to a degree, but there are a lot of things that mitigate my ability to take it overly seriously:
— I haven't seen any hockey players prior to c.1987 (i.e., I missed the first 100 years of the organized sport)
— Even from 1987 to 2025, I've missed 98% of the games of almost all NHL players
— Hockey is not fundamentally about individuals (it's about teams)
— Hockey in the USSR / Russia, Sweden, Finland, most Olympics & World Championships, etc. is almost entirely unknown to me (which limits my attempts at rankings to NHL performance alone)
— Like everyone, I have my biases

I'm wary both of 'recency bias' and of 'historical romanticizing' — both are indulged in by various posters too much, I think. I'm very wary of anyone getting entrenced in opinions based on hockey history that they never experienced / witnessed. I'm very wary of people throwing accusations of nationality-bias at others. (I cringe at any poster who writes something like, "You're crazy is you don't rank so-and-so in the top 10!")

At the end of the day, though, I just don't think the ranking of individual players is that important. It's certainly not worth getting worked up about, or insulting other people over. So, I wish we would have more threads discussing historical players and seasons and events and teams, enjoying and appreciating one another's ideas and knowledge, and not obsessing over individual player rankings.

And now, back to Ovechkin's future legacy...

All of this and the inconsistent definition of “greatest” or “greatest.” Mario Lemieux was more skilled than Wayne Gretzky in just about every aspect of the physical game, but Gretzky’s vision and awareness made him the greatest in spite of that difference. Gordie Howe was more well-rounded, in that he brought a physical game and that quiet leadership. Would Orr be the runaway “greatest” if he played forward, or would that actually diminish his legacy?

And finally, it’s hockey and not at all important to anything. Ken Dryden will always be my favourite player because he’s a decent human being.

 

[Victorias]

I love this forum (obviously, as I've been posting regularly for, I think, 11+ years... It started, as I recall, when I was in Frankfurt, about to leave for my delayed Honeymoon in Mauritius... so I remember that well!), and I will continue to post and enjoy fun discussions here, no matter what form it takes for the foreseeable future.

That said...

The one aspect of the History of Hockey Forum that kind of confuses me a tad (and I feel I'm probably alone in this, so I'm not going to get on a soap-box about it) is that, consistently, the biggest and longest discussion-topics that invite the most 'excitement' and controversy is... the ranking of individual players.

The ranking of players interests me to a degree, but there are a lot of things that mitigate my ability to take it overly seriously:
— I haven't seen any hockey players prior to c.1987 (i.e., I missed the first 100 years of the organized sport)
— Even from 1987 to 2025, I've missed 98% of the games of almost all NHL players
— Hockey is not fundamentally about individuals (it's about teams)
— Hockey in the USSR / Russia, Sweden, Finland, most Olympics & World Championships, etc. is almost entirely unknown to me (which limits my attempts at rankings to NHL performance alone)
— Like everyone, I have my biases

I'm wary both of 'recency bias' and of 'historical romanticizing' — both are indulged in by various posters too much, I think. I'm very wary of anyone getting entrenced in opinions based on hockey history that they never experienced / witnessed. I'm very wary of people throwing accusations of nationality-bias at others. (I cringe at any poster who writes something like, "You're crazy is you don't rank so-and-so in the top 10!")

At the end of the day, though, I just don't think the ranking of individual players is that important. It's certainly not worth getting worked up about, or insulting other people over. So, I wish we would have more threads discussing historical players and seasons and events and teams, enjoying and appreciating one another's ideas and knowledge, and not obsessing over individual player rankings.

And now, back to Ovechkin's future legacy...

Very well said. I do think that - although the rankings themselves are necessarily subjective - they can generate some interesting discussion of historical players.

Specifically, you have to understand the game at the time as well as things like how trophy voting and stats differed in order to rank a player.

That being said, I don’t think a Crosby vs Ovechkin debate has ever yielded any insight into the game or its history.

 

[MeHateHe]

That being said, I don’t think a Crosby vs Ovechkin debate has ever yielded any insight into the game or its history.

It’s almost like you should wait until a few years’ after a player has retired before talking about legacy

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ovechkin is top 10 in assists during his career.

It is a simple fact.

It isn't cherry-picked, or misleading, or dishonest, or anything like that - although it certainly is incompatible with your narrative.

I keep asking you very direct questions. You continue to not answer them. That is your right, of course, but it's telling and unsurprising to your stance...

"Simple", again, really over-sells it...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is it wrong that I think both have fans that "mythologize" them by overinflating them?

No, of course not. Everyone has their nuts. Some congregate here and say things in this thread, some exist in the ether...(but are also real, to be fair)

 

[Sentinel]

I mean Crosby has 2 Art Rosses to Esposito’s 5 and is viewed as better so Art Ross results aren’t everything.

Not in my book. To me, Crosby is squarely below Esposito, even if by a hair (6 vs. 9)