How come the Russians are so low ranked in the all time lists?

[Bluesguru]

The same reason Malkin didn't crack the NHL 100.

That’s crazy. Yet Adam Oates does. Malkin definitely > Oates

 

[Yuri35]

p.s. Forsberg couldn’t carry Messier’s jock strap.

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah post prime krutov playing his entire career on big ice surface, different rules and a different game basically. Go and watch Montreal getting completely humiliated by the red army team that same year despite super biased referees, NHL rink size, NHL rules and home ice. Time to take the purple goggles off. The Russians were on a different level than anyone in that day and age. Their game and skill level were way ahead of their time.

Btw you can even hear the home announcers in that Oiler’s game saying the Russians have a higher skill level.

If that’s really the case that these super serieses were initiated by the soviets for propaganda purposes then that’s very interesting, they must have been well aware of their superiority then thinking they could travel over seas and play against biased referees on a smaller ice surface than they were used to, different rules etc. and still thinking it was a good bet to bank on that they would win against stacked dynasties among others for propaganda purposes.

Man you really need to put your tin foil hat away here.

Red Army was basically the soviet all star team and National team, the soviet system controlled players even more than the NHL at the time and that's not debatable.

also like I mentioned these games where exhibition games for the NHL , not so much for the Russians.

I've always been a fan of the Soviet style of play and they had a huge impact on how the game would be transformed in North america but using these exhibition games to "demonstrate" individual skills is foolhardy.

2 of the Soviet stars, Krutov and Fetisov didn't actually shine in the NHL up to their legendary status and the HOH top 100 players of all time project really gave the benefit of the doubt to Fetisov

 

[Atas2000]

They didn’t play - either enough or at all - in the best league in the world, where they could have proven themselves in a large sample size with statistics and accolades. It’s just that simple. If Gretzky only played in international tournaments and otherwise played in a relatively obscure league, he wouldn’t be remotely close to being considered the best player of all time - probably not even top-10.

The best league in the world at that time was probably the soviet league.

 

[wetcoast]

I've never seen anyone make an all time list based on "best". Award finishes, pt finishes, goal finishes, etc are what makes a career and determine all time rankings. Malkin's individual career is crap compared to OV's. 18-6 individual awards, more pt finishes, way better hart finishes, more PPG wins too so no injury excuse for Malkin. Yes he was injured a lot but that's his problem and too bad. If you want to talk about "best" and without injuries, well Malkin had 2 healthy seasons back to back in 07/08-08/09. Guess who tore him a new hole in hart and lindsay voting and was PPG leader both years? That's right, OV. OV has the best season between them, better extended peak for sure, destroys Malkin in prime and especially longevity. Best is arguable (OV was better but close), but in terms of greatness OV is miles ahead.

While I agree that Ovi is and should be ahead of Malkin all time don't use subjective Hart voting to overstate your case.

The separation of who was the better player in 07-08 and 08-09 wasn't "tearing Malkin a new hole worthy" by any freaking stretch, to claim so is either lazy or just being disingenuous.

There have been many times where they either played on the same team internationally, or in the KHL lockout in 12-13 or even this past season where Malkin was the better player.

Injuries is the biggest separation of these 2 players.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

While I agree that Ovi is and should be ahead of Malkin all time don't use subjective Hart voting to overstate your case.

The separation of who was the better player in 07-08 and 08-09 wasn't "tearing Malkin a new hole worthy" by any freaking stretch, to claim so is either lazy or just being disingenuous.

There have been many times where they either played on the same team internationally, or in the KHL lockout in 12-13 or even this past season where Malkin was the better player.

Injuries is the biggest separation of these 2 players.

1st place hart votes
07/08: 128-1 (lol)
08/09: 115-12

That's tearing a new hole. You can talk about media bias or subjectivity all you'd like, but that's not the reason for 1st place votes being 243-13. 1 player was simply much better than the other. Also, I've seen you mention Crosby's hart record plenty of times so please don't be a hypocrite now and talk about it being subjective.

 

[wetcoast]

Alright now. We’ve let you have your fun but now it’s time to come back to reality. For starters, you are basing your opinion on Soviet era hockey teams playing exhibition games against NHL clubs. If a Russian put in a bad showing in a propaganda exercise like this, there was a very real chance they’d be put on a one-way flight to be mucking pig barns in Siberia. The NHL players didn’t want to be embarrassed, but really didn’t give a sh!t either. Secondly, the Red Army team really was a hand picked team of the best the old USSR had, and they trained and played together constantly. That’s not to say that there were not some outstanding players and teams but this “making the Oilers dynasty team look silly, and Kurri wasn’t in the same ball park as Makarov” stuff is just over the top. If Russian hockey is and was so superior, why do they have so relatively few dominant players over the last nearly 30 years since the doors were flung wide open to the NHL??

p.s. Forsberg couldn’t carry Messier’s jock strap.

Well I agree with all of this except for the last part Forsberg was just as good, if not better than Moose, injuries just plagued his career.

 

[wetcoast]

1st place hart votes
07/08: 128-1 (lol)
08/09: 115-12

That's tearing a new hole. You can talk about media bias or subjectivity all you'd like, but that's not the reason for 1st place votes being 243-13. 1 player was simply much better than the other. Also, I've seen you mention Crosby's hart record plenty of times so please don't be a hypocrite now and talk about it being subjective.

The thing is that I don't rely on Hart voting I look at it then look at what type of seasons players had, the voting spread doesn't mean anything is how much better Ovechkin was in either season period.

In 08 Ovi had a grand total of 6 more points than Malkin, in 09 Malkin won the Art Ross by 3 points and in both years Ovechkin had more TOI than Malkin.

To say that there was any separation between these 2 guys as overall players just doesn't hold up, Hart voting be damned.

 

[Iapyi]

When someone's best argument is a constant replication about which size of ice games are played on etc etc. you just know that said someone is grasping at straws.

 

[Cotton]

We tend to only measure Russians from the last 30 years, so it's a smaller sample size.

Pre nhl Russians are mostly a mystery, and fans here were only interested in rating nhl players for the most part.

Kinda hard to measure them when they were icing professionals against amateurs.

But yeah, the NHL is the top league on the planet by a long shot. Hard to compare if they aren’t playing in the league. Those who stood out have made the HHOF.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Hasek and Lidstrom have cases to be in the top 20 also but yeah at this point in time there's not a whole lot of players not from North America to be ranked up there. But that's too be expected this early into a globally fed league.

(I feel like I'm missing someone major from Europe for the top 20)

If we're including goaltenders Hasek (and Roy) would absolutely be in my top-20 players of all time. For me it's hard to rank goaltenders with skaters but I agree.

Lidstrom I'm not sure about, he'd be on the fence for me personally. I agree he has a case for top-20 even though I personally wouldn't have him there. I'd easily have him top 30 or so.

All time NHLers or all time overall?

It's hard to judge players who never played in the best league in the world (the NHL) and compare their performances that are isolated. However I'd argue it's fair to say using players from the best league in the world is a good way of analysis-even if it's not perfect.

 

[mattihp]

A healthy Forsberg could've held Messier's jockstrap, but with how his career played out, it is a what if.

Amazing player, but didn't get the games played and never surpassed 30 goals.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Did you miss the part of the charts where Ovi has:
-2 more Harts
-2 more Pearson/Lindsays
-5 more top 10 Hart finishes
-2 more times leading the league in points/gp
-4 more top 10 point finishes

And then on top of all that, the nine rockets that ovechkin has should definitely be considered.

Both of which Malkin could have taken from him, by the way. It was very close, IMO.

I would personally have had Ovechkin win it in 2008 and Malkin in 2009. They would then have been tied for Hart trophies. You can easily disagree and that's fine, but there is at least a discussion to be had.

I mean, the raw numbers make it look like a bigger difference than it actually is.

Ovechkin is above Malkin all time, but the gap between them as players is not that big. Results, yeah, Ovechkin by a mile. At their peak, who was the better player? There can be a very good discussion. I would argue that Ovechkin never had as good as season as Malkin had in 2008-2009 (including playoffs, obviously).

 

[Scandale du Jour]

1st place hart votes
07/08: 128-1 (lol)
08/09: 115-12

That's tearing a new hole. You can talk about media bias or subjectivity all you'd like, but that's not the reason for 1st place votes being 243-13. 1 player was simply much better than the other. Also, I've seen you mention Crosby's hart record plenty of times so please don't be a hypocrite now and talk about it being subjective.

I would have voted for Ovechkin in 2008... does not mean I did not think it was close. Probably the case for many voters.

The result for 08-09 is very surprising to me. I would have thought it would have been MUCH closer. I personally had Malkin winning that one. I guess Sid also getting 100 points hurt Geno.

Either way, that's not an indication of HUGE separation between the two.

 

[filinski77]

Both of which Malkin could have taken from him, by the way. It was very close, IMO.

I would personally have had Ovechkin win it in 2008 and Malkin in 2009. They would then have been tied for Hart trophies. You can easily disagree and that's fine, but there is at least a discussion to be had.

I mean, the raw numbers make it look like a bigger difference than it actually is.

Ovechkin is above Malkin all time, but the gap between them as players is not that big. Results, yeah, Ovechkin by a mile. At their peak, who was the better player? There can be a very good discussion. I would argue that Ovechkin never had as good as season as Malkin had in 2008-2009 (including playoffs, obviously).

I don't really see much of an argument for Malkin over Ovi in 2009 for the Hart. Sure Malkin had 3 more points, but Ovechkin had 21 more goals. And without getting into a goal vs assist debate, 21 goals is a substantial margin. Crosby also had a great season, finishing 3rd in points in the league as well.

I agree that at their best they were fairly close (I still think Ovi's peak was better than Malkins), but when looking at an all-time ranking, Malkin gets hurt a lot by having substantially less individual success compared to players like Crosby and even more-so Ovechkin.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I don't really see much of an argument for Malkin over Ovi in 2009 for the Hart. Sure Malkin had 3 more points, but Ovechkin had 21 more goals. And without getting into a goal vs assist debate, 21 goals is a substantial margin. Crosby also had a great season, finishing 3rd in points in the league as well.

I agree that at their best they were fairly close (I still think Ovi's peak was better than Malkins), but when looking at an all-time ranking, Malkin gets hurt a lot by having substantially less individual success compared to players like Crosby and even more-so Ovechkin.

Well, my case is a very subjective one. I am a Penguins fan and a Malkin fan. I have watched pretty much all of the games Malkin played that season. Obviously, I have not seen Ovechkin as much. However, Ovechkin never "impressed" me. I never liked his style. Cannot argue with the results, but I always felt that playing like that (chasing hits, not really giving a shit about defense and shooting a million times a game) was not the best way to win hockey games. Once again, cannot argue with the Caps results. So, yeah, my bias is two-fold: Ovechkin is on a rival team and he plays a style I do not value much.

In 2008-09, Malkin was a beast all around the ice. Yes, Crosby had 103 points, but the next best scorer on the team was Jordan Staal with 49. Kunitz and Guerin joined late. Pens were a mess under Therrien and turned it around when he was fired (a little like the 08 Caps). Malkin is probably the biggest catalyst of this turn around.

One other bias I have is that I have the benefit of knowing how the playoffs would unfold. Malkin was a BEAST in the playoffs and had the strongest CS since perhaps 1992 Lemieux. I guess that plays in my view of that season when, for the Hart, it should not.

So basically, it comes down to me thinking Malkin has a bigger overall impact while Ovechkin is more of a specialist. Ovechkin being a specialist was not as true as it is today back then though, so that might also play into my perception. I do not care about goals vs assists, I care about impact on the play... and that's rather difficult to correctly quantify. Some goals are tap-ins, some assists have no effect on the play, etc.

I mean, you cannot go wrong with either in 09... same in 08. Both were incredible and their overall impacts were similar. 08, Malkin steps up when Crosby is injured and leads the Pens to a 2nd place finish.... but Ovechkin had the best goal scoring season since the early 1990s... so you cannot really NOT give it to him, especially when he ALSO gets the AR. It is like the CS. Ovechkin (2018) and Crosby (2016) were both deserving winners... but perhaps not the most deserving on their teams and got them because of narratives. If Kuznetsov and Kessel/Letang win the CS, does it mean Ovechkin and Crosby had lesser runs? No! Both were excellent and deserving of the praise they got.

I guess, at the end of the day, it does not really matter to me that people would go one way or another, there is a part of subjectivity in this debate. A huge part. I guess what triggers me is that the 3-1 Hart advantage for Ovechkin is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between Malkin and Ovechkin as players when both of Ovechkin "extra" trophies could have gone to Malkin. Like 2013, Ovechkin does not get that Hart trophy if Brooks Orpik does not break Crosby's jaw... but it happened and Ovechkin was a deserving winner. But, without context, counting trophies is pretty meaningless. Like Ovechkin has 9 Rockets... it proves he is an incredibly consistent goal scorer. But him having 9 versus 7 does not really change anything to who he is as a player. Just like Malkin not winning in 08 does not mean the gap is sooooooooooooo huge.

I guess we quantify what we can quantify to make our points, but at the end of the day, when discussing the elite of the elite, guys tend to be pretty close and it tends to get VERY subjective. Someone wants to argue Ovechkin has had better results than Malkin, I cannot disagree. Someone wants to argue that Malkin at his very best was a better player than Ovechkin, we can have a discussion and both sides would have good arguments. You want to have the most objective all-time ranking possible... Ovechkin has to be over Malkin because he does not have any "would could have been", he played pretty much every game he could play. Geno has as high a peak, but he missed a lot of time. That's on him.

 

[Kshahdoo]

It's hard to judge players who never played in the best league in the world (the NHL) and compare their performances that are isolated. However I'd argue it's fair to say using players from the best league in the world is a good way of analysis-even if it's not perfect.

Super Series - Wikipedia

I think this statistics will help to judge some of those players a little bit.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Are Russians historically ranked too low on all-time lists made in NA?
Yea, probably.

But, since they started playing in the NHL more we've had many great Russian players receive their due recognition.
Bure, Ovechkin, Fedorov, Malkin, Mogilny, Datsyuk, Zubov, Gonchar, Old-Man Fetisov, Konstantinov, Tarasenko, Kucherov, Panarin, etc.
So many great players.

Not many all-time lists in the future will have Ovechkin left off.

 

[Yuri35]

The thing is that I don't rely on Hart voting I look at it then look at what type of seasons players had, the voting spread doesn't mean anything is how much better Ovechkin was in either season period.

In 08 Ovi had a grand total of 6 more points than Malkin, in 09 Malkin won the Art Ross by 3 points and in both years Ovechkin had more TOI than Malkin.

To say that there was any separation between these 2 guys as overall players just doesn't hold up, Hart voting be damned.

Hart votes were always going to be biased toward Ovie considering his very North American style of hockey (big power, crunching hits, destructive shot) so....
Not to mention we all know Malkin is criminally underrated by NA médias and pundits, you just have to see his farcical exclusion from the 100 best NHL players of all time list to understand that.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

This thread is starting to break down into an Ovi vs. Malkin thread....


In general, there is a clear NA - Russian bias, not sure this is even really up for debate. I think any geographical region is going to be biased toward their "own" players.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I don't think it has anything to do with nationality, it's more an argument about more modern players vs. players from the past. With players not defecting until the very late 80s, the first Russians to make an impact that garnered an all-time ranking were guys like Fedorov, Bure and Mogilny. That's extremely recent in NHL history all things considered.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Super Series - Wikipedia

I think this statistics will help to judge some of those players a little bit.

Handful of games? Talk about an incredibly small sample size.

 

[ScaredStreit]

I don't think it has anything to do with nationality, it's more an argument about more modern players vs. players from the past. With players not defecting until the very late 80s, the first Russians to make an impact that garnered an all-time ranking were guys like Fedorov, Bure and Mogilny. That's extremely recent in NHL history all things considered.

Absolutely. The NHL is over 100 years old and Russians have really only been in the league for what 30 years or so?

 

[BruinsBtn]

C'mon, people think Makarov is in the discussion? He was 31 when he came over, not 40. He never finished higher than 4th in scoring on the Flames. He was outscored by Al MacInnis every year he was there.

He barely outscored Todd Elik (who?) on San Jose and had less PPG.

The reality is that Makarov doesn't have a case for top-200 players of all time, let alone top-20.

 

[shtorm2005]

Can't belive how smart ppl become. There are, probably hundreds factors that impact player's look in a team game, still they can easily take them all in consideration, and in matter of minuts give you his objective rank.