Is Ovechkin the 5th best player of all time?

[ITM]

Messier scored 40 goals in 102 playoff games without Gretzky in his team, despite that being mostly in his 30s. Surely having Gretzky was better than not having him, but pretending like these players as all-time greats were created by Gretzky is misguided and tiresome.

Well Mark Messier said of Gretzky:

"He was in a completely different state of mind than I was at 18 years old. And I got the luxury of sitting across from the best player on the planet, maybe the best athlete in the last 100 years, and [to] look across at him and watch and learn from him. The way he approached the game, the way he prepared, his focus and dedication.

I would have been a fool not to look at him and take something from him, and he made me a better player. Not only from a skill standpoint, but from a preparation, commitment, focus standpoint as well."

Now that's not a Genesis story by any means, but what's truly tiresome is the now cliche seemingly fashionable take that Gretzky didn't have a primary effect on the players he played with.

He has more regular season assists (i.e. 1963) than Messier has points (i.e. 1887), and what separates the two is having scored more goals than anyone in NHL history. That's the numerical separation. Edited to say: Between all-time greats.

Think of it from a single season standpoint, if the player's personal testimony and career output isn't evidence enough: On his way to 603 goals, when Jari Kurri was on Edmonton (and on Gretzky's line) and in LA (on Gretzky's line), Gretzky had more single season assists than Kurri had points.

Kurri led the Oilers in 88-89 and his season didn't look that much different from when he played with Gretzky. But all we know of Kurri's accomplishments is that he played most of his career with Gretzky. We don't know what his stats would be without Gretzky.

I think their first year together is quite telling:
Combined, Kurri and Messier had 55 goals; So did Gretzky.
Combined, Kurri and Messier had 138 points; Gretzky had a 164.

Their second year together:
Combined, Kurri and Messier had 82 goals; Gretzky scored 92.
Combined, Kurri and Messier had 174 points; Gretzky scored 212 points.

So all-time greats they are, but their development is starkly different to Gretzky's. Almost like they were on a learning curve in their teens and early twenties and heading towards their 30s had gleaned enough from the lessons they learned to lead on their own.

And then there's Messier's testimony.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes well drawing the line at 5 is pretty convenient seeing as how Ovie has two sixes and a seven.

He has one 6th place finish and a 7th in the time frame you mentioned.

I didn't select those seasons. I was responding to a post where the guy was attempting to block off Ovie's best years and claim there was "nothing of note" after that - which is distorted and ridiculous to say about a Conn Smythe (2018) and Hart winner (2013), and Hart finalist (2015), who was #3 in points and #1 in goals by a huge margin. His point is that being #5 in points in the 1960s was somehow significantly better than being top 3 in the 2010s. What can I say, I don't think that's reasonable.

Sure that original comment was misguided even among those that weigh prime and peak extremely heavily and I use the 3 year prime and 7 year peak but of course some players have longer extended peak/primes.

I agree with you - there is no logic to doing slicing up a total career, aside from trying to minimize the positives - which is clearly the agenda here.

^^^It sure seems to me the stats I provided above are much closer to the "whole complete picture" than calling a thousand points, a Hart, a Hart Finalist, and a Conn Smythe "nothing of note."

Sure but I think it's a stretch to call the time period in question greater for Ovi than for Jean although both have seasons in that time period that don't add as much career value as some completely skip over the down years, Jean early 60s playoff resume isn't great considering his team mates and performance and Ovi becoming far less dynamic and more of a volume shooter than in his peak.

I also don't buy the "if he gets the record he must be this high all time ranking mainly because of the chase of the record has overshadowed how other parts of his game have really slipped post peak/prime and the opportunities given for the record are kind of a perfect Team storm and most teams historically haven't given this type of useage and for good reason.

We all know that we disagree heavily on this point but the poll indicates that only a select minority have Ovi in serious consideration for 5th.

 

[Lshap]

so not to derail the thread but Ive often wondered on here how many people actually saw any of the old timers play. Beliveau last played in 71 and hull in 80. I know the history of hockey will tell you eras, and numbers and all kinds of things but how many people on this site actually saw them play at all or even more than a handful of times. My fandom started in the 80s. This is also not to knock any of the older players either.

As a kid, I saw players like Beliveau, Orr, and Hull live at the old Montreal Forum. Beliveau was at the tail-end of his career and Orr was in his prime. I saw the last couple of seasons of Howe.1 and watched the return of Howe.2 a decade later, but only on TV. This was before helmets, so you recognized players by their hair as much as their number.

It's impossible to compare eras, but I can compare individuals to their peers. No question, the greats from 50+ years ago were as dominant then as today's superstars are now. There's a reason the above-mentioned old timers make everyone's list of all-time greats. Orr totally popped versus everyone else on the ice. Howe was an absolute beast. Beliveau was Gretzky-like in his ability to see and control the play. Hull was a bowling ball with a lethal shot.

Where will Ovechkin rank next to the the all-time greats? Rough guess... top-10. His game isn't as 360˚ as Gretzky, Lemieux, or Crosby's (yeah, I have Crosby pencilled in pretty high), nor did Ovechkin pioneer his position like Orr or remain the ultimate power-forward into his 50s like Howe. After them are a handful of players who are a notch lower, but still among the most iconic in NHL history. That's where I see Ovechkin. It's too soon to rank him next to Hasek, Jagr, Beliveau, Richard, but he's somewhere in there. And for those waiting to see McDavid's name, he may very well be there too, but it's impossible to say how high while he's still in his prime.

 

[Dog]

Top 10 but I put about 6 other players ahead of him. So maybe 7-10 range!

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Nope

 

[Albatros]

Now that's not a Genesis story by any means, but what's truly tiresome is the now cliche seemingly fashionable take that Gretzky didn't have a primary effect on the players he played with.

Tertiary sure. Secondary, maybe. But primary? By any reasonable definition not.

And we can easily see how these players did in Edmonton before and after Gretzky's departure in 1988. Kurri lost 3-6 points in a season, which could be explained just as well simply by aging (he was 28 in 1988). You say that we don't know what he would have done without Gretzky, but we very well know that 1988-90 and it's not far off all things considered. The slightly younger Messier had his career year without Gretzky in 1990 so that's not even a question.

Glenn Anderson is the only one of the three to whom one could apply some definition of a primary effect, although to his credit he did lead a very bad Toronto team before Gilmour's arrival.

 

[ITM]

There is a middle ground wherein peak and longevity are both significant factors.

Certainly a concentrated peak is quite valuable. A player elevates his team.

Certainly longevity is quite valuable. Hockey teams go through windows of success and windows of non-competitiveness. A player that can contribute across a larger quantity of years is more likely to be available to contribute to more championships. This is often underrated in hockey circles to a ridiculous and impractical extent.

The peak factor eliminates any further discussion of Mike Gartner. The longevity factor firmly separates Gretzky from Lemieux and Orr.

Ovechkin has both. He was obviously the best player in the world from 2007-2010. He's also scored over 1000 points and almost 600 goals since then.

Not for my money; That was Pavel Datsyuk.

But to the rest of your post, I don't think longevity outside of excellence and conversely, mitigating circumstances (e.g. Health) provides entry into the discussion. It's a supplement to the conversation. Same with peak. It's why if we begin to talk about best peaks in terms of goalscoring output, Brett Hull enters the conversation.

I'm not looking to marshal evidence against Ovechkin, I think he's one of the greats. I just don't think he belongs in the top five conversation. While longevity (with excellence) and peak (with excellence) are valuable, we do have to consider impact on championships, on how the position is played subsequent to the player, and how the game changes as a result of that player having been in the league.

I think Ovechkin is going to be remembered as an example of incredible, singular ability. I don't think there's anything about his game that revolutionized the position or the game. What Brett Hull did over truncated period of time, Ovechkin did better over an extended period of time. Hull scored 741 goals in 1269 games. At 1440 games and 863 goals and counting. Ovechkin and Hull are VERY reasonable comparisons. I have fantastic memories of Brett Hull. In terms of peak Hull vs peak Ovechkin, Hull is better. And equally, in no way shape or form, does Brett Hull meet those other intangibles to be included in the Top 5 All Time Best conversation.

That said, I firmly believe Ovechkin will break the regular scoring season record. Whether he breaks Gretzky's total NHL goals scored record is another matter. And whatever side Ovechkin is in that Top 5 conversation for people, its tremendously exciting to see what he's doing.

Its a record I thought would never be broken.

 

[ITM]

Tertiary sure. Secondary, maybe. But primary? By any reasonable definition not.

And we can easily see how these players did in Edmonton before and after Gretzky's departure in 1988. Kurri lost 3-6 points in a season, which could be explained just as well simply by aging (he was 28 in 1988). You say that we don't know what he would have done without Gretzky, but we very well know that 1988-90 and it's not far off all things considered. The slightly younger Messier had his career year without Gretzky in 1990 so that's not even a question.

Glenn Anderson is the only one of the three to whom one could apply some definition of a primary effect, although to his credit he did lead a very bad Toronto team before Gilmour's arrival.

But not by Messier's definition. And not that you need it, but for the Reader, Messier is third all-time in points.

Make no mistake, these are all great players. But one look at Messier, Kurri and Anderson's numbers and its evident that where they started and where Gretzky started are as disjunct as any two starting points among greats, can be. Where they meet in their development raises the question as to what the inference to the best explanation is.

And Messier provides that best explanation. He all but confirms that but for exposure to Wayne Gretzky, he's not "Mark Messier".

 

[filinski77]

no I didn't ignore them I brought them up and there is a similar pattern there as I explained so I'm wondering why you are asking and phrasing your question such.

I didn't say any of those thing you are bringing them up the shooting % was in response to the original claim which you seem to be ignoring here when it said EVERY GOAL SCORING METRIC, hopefully it sinks in.

Either way this rabbit hole is done he isn't 5th in most people's books and I've outlined why above.

The shooting % argument is dumb and you need to stop grasping for it as a way to devalue Ovi’s goalscoring.

1) You NEED to consider league wide scoring adjustments if you start comparing shooting% across different eras. I’ve done the analysis before and it shows if you adjust for eras, Ovi for example has a much closer shooting % to Gretzky than it looks raw.

2) Shooting % being analyzed the way you do insinuates that a shot on net is a bad thing. This is a fundamental incorrect way of looking at hockey, and anyone who’s ever played the game knows that a shot in net is a good thing. This isn’t basketball.

3) Similar to #2, you need to understand how HARD it is to generate shots. It’s a huge skill; and ends up creating offensive chances for your team even if you don’t score.

4) You also need to consider where Ovechkin shoots from. Ovi shoots from a significantly further distance away from the net than most goal scorers do. This is why Defenceman have way lower shooting %s than centers do for example. If you don’t factor that in, your whole analysis is useless

 

[Finnen]

No , but he’s deffo top 10

About 2-4 years.

 

[Albatros]

But not by Messier's definition. And not that you need it, but for the Reader, Messier is third all-time in points.

Make no mistake, these are all great players. But one look at Messier, Kurri and Anderson's numbers and its evident that where they started and where Gretzky started are as disjunct as any two starting points among greats, can be. Where they meet in their development raises the question as to what the inference to the best explanation is.

And Messier provides that best explanation. He all but confirms that but for exposure to Wayne Gretzky, he's not "Mark Messier".

If Messier played the same amount of games scoring at his post-peak without-Gretzky pace, he'd still be top 5 all time in playoff goals. And he won both in Edmonton as well as in New York as the team captain without Gretzky, whereas Gretzky went past round two one more time in ten more seasons, without winning anything. Somehow in LA, STL, NY Gretzky didn't have that magical primary effect, and he was a little bit younger than Messier to start with.

Kurri's innate leadership talent without a shade of Gretzky is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that he won the previously lowly Finnish hockey its first ever gold medal, at the '78 EJC over a massively favored Soviet team that included future legends Krutov and Larionov.

 

[winnipegger]

Don Cherry has been yelling at television screens for decades that Orr was better than Gretzky. Why? Probably because Don saw Orr when he was a younger, more impressionable man and it made more of an impact on him. Such is the nature of these lists. Ovechkin is a unique player. Generational goal scorer, physically intimidating, elite player for 2 decades+, great playoff performer, I could go on. So I might not have logic on my side, but neither do the people putting Hasek in the top 5. It's a free country. If you think Hasek is more impressive than Ovechkin I'll defend your right to that opinion. I also will never hire you as a baby sitter because you probably can't operate a fire extinguisher.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You've been doing this for 9 years, how does it not get boring?

That was brutal, see post was deleted.

What years are you using here I did 4 searches from 57-58 season to the 70-71 to 71-72 season and nowhere does Jean end up in 6th and from 57-58 to 70-71 he is a very solid 3rd behind Howe and Hull but basically on par with PPG over that long period.

Also in each players respective time periods that you mention Jean has 6 top 5 Hart finishes and Ovi has 2.

It was Cumulative, Hull sr was far ahead in that time frame at first.

 

[JPT]

I'm not though.

All jokes have a foundation. In this case, the "one-dimensional" falsehood is his foundation. From there he goes on to claim that Ovechkin fans somehow are merely stretching 1 dimension into 15.

I've got to ask. How often do you find yourself wandering directly into traps?

 

[ITM]

If Messier played the same amount of games scoring at his post-peak without-Gretzky pace, he'd still be top 5 all time in playoff goals. And he won both in Edmonton as well as in New York as the team captain without Gretzky, whereas Gretzky went past round two one more time in ten more seasons, without winning anything. Somehow in LA, STL, NY Gretzky didn't have that magical primary effect, and he was a little bit younger than Messier to start with.

Kurri's innate leadership talent without a shade of Gretzky is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that he won the previously lowly Finnish hockey its first ever gold medal, at the '78 EJC over a massively favored Soviet team that included future legends Krutov and Larionov.

Right but you're excluding the x-factor: Messier scores post-Gretzky by Messier's own implication because of Gretzky, not in spite of him. And you're making a claim that Messier himself doesn't make. It's great that you choose to believe that independent of Gretzky's effect on Messier that Messier would be the player he became. I just don't see the evidence for that and Messier's own testimony disagrees with your preference.

But he wouldn't, mid-stream isn't he condition we're referencing here. The context is career. Nobody argues that Messier isn't an all-time great. But there's no foundation to argue from that says without Wayne Gretzky, Messier's potential isn't realized, even from Messier's own mouth.

I think your primary argument is that you don't like the idea that Gretzky has made the impact he has as voiced in the adulation he receives by fans and some editorial outlets.

But when you read and hear something similar from those within the pantheon, that should shift your focus from a dislike for the masses uninformed zeal and their opinion about Gretzky, to a patient consideration of the same sentiment, but this time, drawn from the singularly best positioned source to determine what kind of effect Gretzky had on him.

Kurri. Yep. Great player, no doubt. I think the increase from '79 to '80 to match Krutov's output was impressive - much more than the year before. And obviously the Finns have a national pride without peer, especially when facing the Soviets. But I wouldn't invoke international competitions as necessarily being an indication of greatness to come.

Then again, while Kurri and Krutov were leading the '80 World Junior Championships at 19 years old, Wayne Gretzky led the '78 World Junior Championship with 17 points at 16 years old. In both the WJC's in which the 18 and 19 year old Kurri played, in '79 and '80, he scored 16 points.

Again...I see a trajectory in which one player is completely dominant and others, while great in their own right, obviously change in proximity.

And to boot, Gretzky, was a year younger than Kurri (and Anderson).

 

[Midnight Judges]

I've got to ask. How often do you find yourself wandering directly into traps?

You think since the guy claims to be anticipating an argument - and then utterly misstates the argument - that somehow excuses his straw man. Yeah nah.

But by all means, feel free to take up his (false) argument:

A player who leads the NHL in goals by a huge margin, is top 40-ish in adjusted assists and top 10 in assists during his own generation, and top 3 in hits, only does 1 thing, because ___________.

Or perhaps you prefer being wrong, while convincing yourself that you've got some sort of "moral" victory.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think Ovechkin is going to be remembered as an example of incredible, singular ability. I don't think there's anything about his game that revolutionized the position or the game. What Brett Hull did over truncated period of time, Ovechkin did better over an extended period of time. Hull scored 741 goals in 1269 games. At 1440 games and 863 goals and counting. Ovechkin and Hull are VERY reasonable comparisons. I have fantastic memories of Brett Hull. In terms of peak Hull vs peak Ovechkin, Hull is better. And equally, in no way shape or form, does Brett Hull meet those other intangibles to be included in the Top 5 All Time Best conversation.

Ah yes, the old Brett Hull insult. You really dusted off a classic here.

So your take is that leading the NHL in goals 3 times is just as good as 9 times - because 3x is a "very reasonable comparison."

Or 1 Hart is just as good as 3? Or 1 Art Ross is just as good as none? Or 1 Pearson is just as good as three? 0 Conn Smythes are just as good as 1?

And of course, the implied assertion that GPG in the 80s and 90s requires no context or adjustment relative to the 2010s.

There is no other player in history who could be top 5 in adjusted points all time and then insulted as having "a singular ability."

 

[ITM]

Ah yes, the old Brett Hull insult. You really dusted off a classic here.

So your take is that leading the NHL in goals 3 times is just as good as 9 times - because 3x is a "very reasonable comparison."

Or 1 Hart is just as good as 3? Or 1 Art Ross is just as good as none? Or 1 Pearson is just as good as three? 0 Conn Smythes are just as good as 1?

And of course, the implied assertion that GPG in the 80s and 90s requires no context or adjustment relative to the 2010s.

There is no other player in history who could be top 5 in adjusted points all time and then insulted as having "a singular ability."

You taking insult to the comparison is as wrong an inference as taking my point out of context.

The context is All-Time Top 5 consideration, which itself excludes "singular ability" players.

I'm happy to do a thorough audit of the larger picture if that helps you assuage your trigger against missing the larger argument for your apparent bias (i.e. "...the old Brett Hull insult.") against Hull with respect to a comparison to Ovechkin.

 

[JPT]

You think since the guy claims to be anticipating an argument - and then utterly misstates the argument - that somehow excuses his straw man. Yeah nah.

But by all means, feel free to take up his (false) argument:

A player who leads the NHL in goals by a huge margin, is top 40-ish in adjusted assists and top 10 in assists during his own generation, and top 3 in hits, only does 1 thing, because ___________.

Or perhaps you prefer being wrong, while convincing yourself that you've got some sort of "moral" victory.

That's a lot of words when you could have just said "frequently"

 

[Finnen]

The battle Ovechkin and Crosby is close.

Ovechkin has more goal production.

Both evenly point production in both NHL story.

Both approaching top.

 

[Gnome17]

I like Ovechkin more than Crosby, but Crosby to me is the better hockey player, the more complete player.
Crosby probably takes the nr5 spot over Ovechkin. Though if we're just talking skill and completely disregard longevity and winning, its McDavid.
Unfortunate for Crosby that he got injured, im fairly positive he would have added 2-3 art ross and 2-3 hart between 2010-2013 if he wasn't and he'd have cemented that top 5 placement.

 

[SkinsFan09]

What Brett Hull did over truncated period of time, Ovechkin did better over an extended period of time. Hull scored 741 goals in 1269 games. At 1440 games and 863 goals and counting. Ovechkin and Hull are VERY reasonable comparisons. I have fantastic memories of Brett Hull. In terms of peak Hull vs peak Ovechkin, Hull is better. And equally, in no way shape or form, does Brett Hull meet those other intangibles to be included in the Top 5 All Time Best conversation.

That said, I firmly believe Ovechkin will break the regular scoring season record. Whether he breaks Gretzky's total NHL goals scored record is another matter. And whatever side Ovechkin is in that Top 5 conversation for people, its tremendously exciting to see what he's doing.

Its a record I thought would never be broken.

There is no GM in the league that would draft Hull over Ovechkin.

 

[Crow]

Bourque was so good he could never win MVP. Gotta have at least one to be a top ten player of all time.

Being consistently good isn’t as impressive as being the best for several seasons.

Consistently good is a ridiculous understatement made in bad faith and you really aren’t worth this reply let alone a continued discourse.

 

[hockey20000]

I like Ovechkin more than Crosby, but Crosby to me is the better hockey player, the more complete player.
Crosby probably takes the nr5 spot over Ovechkin. Though if we're just talking skill and completely disregard longevity and winning, its McDavid.
Unfortunate for Crosby that he got injured, im fairly positive he would have added 2-3 art ross and 2-3 hart between 2010-2013 if he wasn't and he'd have cemented that top 5 placement.

if crosby didnt get injured he would be finishing his career #2 in points behind wayne tbh

 

[um]

Consistently good is a ridiculous understatement made in bad faith and you really aren’t worth this reply let alone a continued discourse.

What a bs semantics response.

But thanks for responding despite my lack of worthiness, oh wise Crow.