Is Ovechkin the 5th best player of all time?

[ITM]

Can't resolve this debate with my highly respected hockey friend. I believe he is, assuming he breaks the record before he retires.

Most people have Gretz #1, and #2 #3 and #4 are some combination of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux. When I think of other players to put in at #5 (Crosby for example), they never measure up to breaking a Gretzky scoring record like Ovechkin. Longevity also factors in. Ovechkin is threatening a rocket Richard trophy at age 39. This is simply unheard of in the modern NHL.

Well, if the debate is focused on sheer output and we're isolating goals from points, then Mike Gartner is the 7th or 8th best player in history.

Assuming he breaks Gretzky's goalscoring record, it's still by necessity an isolated, specialized, almost curated record in a way I can't think of any other organization operating under. Meaning, there seems to have been an operational mandate to help Ovechkin get towards the record - and that's fine. It's just a little odd.

But I argue its a reasonable discussion that begins to compare a grouping of players like Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Jaromir Jagr and Mario Lemieux along any number of metrics, because otherwise you begin to see things in a way that - again - says Mike Gartner's the 7th best player in history, but moreover that he's the 7th/8th best goal scorer of all-time, which I think is different from 7th/8th most prolific, again given certain necessary considerations:

What does the comparison yield when we invoke "all-time" but Richard and Hull couldn't play as many games per season as Ovechkin? Or Lemieux and Bossy and their health issues. Ovechkin's in the conversation and it looks like he'll be the most prolific goal-scorer, but in no way shape or form does that sheer output in one premier category push him past players like Jaromir Jagr or for my money, his direct contemporary opposite: Sidney Crosby as you exampled.

It's actually an argument made in the perennial top 4 you listed: Both Orr and Lemieux are not considered great for sheer output, they are considered great by a totality of consideration.

Otherwise, the Top five kicks out Orr and Lemieux and inserts Messier, Jagr and Ron Francis. But because we don't believe Mike Gartner is comparable by goal output alone and do believe Bobby Orr is a non-negotiable and but for extenuating circumstances and Mario Lemieux, similarly, would have established a likely unattainable degree of greatness for any subsequent defenseman.

To that end, many believe Bobby Orr, with Gretzky following him, is the greatest player of all time. And when you factor in the anomaly at position and with impact on the game, Gretzky's sheer numbers give way to a different, greater standard.

By accepting the standard set forth in the universally endorsed Top 4 players of all time, you accept a standard of greatness that isn't defined by sheer output and as such, don't condition Ovechkin's qualifications for greatness by whether or not he breaks one of Gretzky's records.

But if we simply deferred to sheer output, as if to illuminate how great Gretzky is and could (and is) be considered in a different tier of accepted fact unto its own without comparison because there is none, of the sixty odd records that won't be broken, is Gretzky's all-time PLAYOFFS goals record: 122.

Ovechkin is threatening the regular season record and Ovechkin is presently 15th in playoffs goals scored.

The really scary thing about Gretzky's greatness defined in totality of sheer output is that the all-time top five playoffs goal scoring list is defined by Gretzky's secondary effect:
Mark Messier is 2nd, Jarri Kurri is 3rd, and Glenn Anderson is 5th.

So even then we see how some might slot Crosby ahead of Ovechkin given the former's success in the playoffs as a driving force for championships.

This to say, in any number of ways, I think your friend's respect is well earned.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Hey I didn't say every metric but perhaps you didn't read my post of the quote which has been posted 3 times now and that's on you not me.

It was a bad faith reply, full stop. The kind of response a know it all 12 year old makes. You could make a point on Goal to Assist ratio in good faith. But I'd also note Ovechkin is seriously lacking in all time great teammates. There's no Jagr, Messier, Malkin, Francis type in Washington. A guy like Backstrom is a decent 1st line player that made a career shoveling pucks to Ovechkin.

Charlie Simmer is in fact the guy with the most goals that you mention and he is tied for 160th in goals so pardon me if I don't think that you are making a good faith argument here.

I was, as you may say, "fact-checking"

Also I went and looked at the time frame you presented and a similar pattern is there right?

 

[wetcoast]

It was a bad faith reply, full stop. The kind of response a know it all 12 year old makes. You could make a point on Goal to Assist ratio in good faith. But I'd also note Ovechkin is seriously lacking in all time great teammates. There's no Jagr, Messier, Malkin, Francis type in Washington. A guy like Backstrom is a decent 1st line player that made a career shoveling pucks to Ovechkin.

I was, as you may say, "fact-checking"

No you weren't fact checking as I said that top 32 in goal scoring then you are bringing up a guy who is 160th and a couple much lower than that.

Just to make it easy for you I will check the 50th guy on the slit then filter for that and here it is 42nd of 46 guys that we have complete data for

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

At least my reply was on something actually presented not so with yours.

Anyways I'm done here and I'm surprised that the poll hasn't been closed he isn't the 5th best of all time according tor 80ish% of all respondents regardless of what I think.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No you weren't fact checking as I said that top 32 in goal scoring then you are bringing up a guy who is 160th and a couple much lower than that.

So you completely ignored the points about League wide SV% and Powerplay deployment despite claiming to understand them?

What is your contention? Ovechkin is the worst shooter amongst those guys? That he's not scoring Goals in an honorable fashion because being 3rd all time amongst Left Wing in career assists is not good enough to be scoring that many goals?

 

[winnipegger]

Well, if the debate is focused on sheer output and we're isolating goals from points, then Mike Gartner is the 7th or 8th best player in history.

Assuming he breaks Gretzky's goalscoring record, it's still by necessity an isolated, specialized, almost curated record in a way I can't think of any other organization operating under. Meaning, there seems to have been an operational mandate to help Ovechkin get towards the record - and that's fine. It's just a little odd.

But I argue its a reasonable discussion that begins to compare a grouping of players like Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Jaromir Jagr and Mario Lemieux along any number of metrics, because otherwise you begin to see things in a way that - again - says Mike Gartner's the 7th best player in history, but moreover that he's the 7th/8th best goal scorer of all-time, which I think is different from 7th/8th most prolific, again given certain necessary considerations:

What does the comparison yield when we invoke "all-time" but Richard and Hull couldn't play as many games per season as Ovechkin? Or Lemieux and Bossy and their health issues. Ovechkin's in the conversation and it looks like he'll be the most prolific goal-scorer, but in no way shape or form does that sheer output in one premier category push him past players like Jaromir Jagr or for my money, his direct contemporary opposite: Sidney Crosby as you exampled.

It's actually an argument made in the perennial top 4 you listed: Both Orr and Lemieux are not considered great for sheer output, they are considered great by a totality of consideration.

Otherwise, the Top five kicks out Orr and Lemieux and inserts Messier, Jagr and Ron Francis. But because we don't believe Mike Gartner is comparable by goal output alone and do believe Bobby Orr is a non-negotiable and but for extenuating circumstances and Mario Lemieux, similarly, would have established a likely unattainable degree of greatness for any subsequent defenseman.

To that end, many believe Bobby Orr, with Gretzky following him, is the greatest player of all time. And when you factor in the anomaly at position and with impact on the game, Gretzky's sheer numbers give way to a different, greater standard.

By accepting the standard set forth in the universally endorsed Top 4 players of all time, you accept a standard of greatness that isn't defined by sheer output and as such, don't condition Ovechkin's qualifications for greatness by whether or not he breaks one of Gretzky's records.

But if we simply deferred to sheer output, as if to illuminate how great Gretzky is and could (and is) be considered in a different tier of accepted fact unto its own without comparison because there is none, of the sixty odd records that won't be broken, is Gretzky's all-time PLAYOFFS goals record: 122.

Ovechkin is threatening the regular season record and Ovechkin is presently 15th in playoffs goals scored.

The really scary thing about Gretzky's greatness defined in totality of sheer output is that the all-time top five playoffs goal scoring list is defined by Gretzky's secondary effect:
Mark Messier is 2nd, Jarri Kurri is 3rd, and Glenn Anderson is 5th.

So even then we see how some might slot Crosby ahead of Ovechkin given the former's success in the playoffs as a driving force for championships.

This to say, in any number of ways, I think your friend's respect is well earned.

Yes you are correct that I am accepting the top 4 based on non-quantifiable traits and impacts. My argument for Ovechkin is primarily based on output. This is logically inconsistent. I will go sit on the swing outside and think about what you told me.

 

[wetcoast]

So you completely ignored the points about League wide SV% and Powerplay deployment despite claiming to understand them?

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.

What is your contention? Ovechkin is the worst shooter amongst those guys? That he's not scoring Goals in an honorable fashion because being 3rd all time amongst Left Wing in career assists is not good enough to be scoring that many goals?

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.

 

[WarriorofTime]

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.

How does Shooting % speak to "every goal scoring metric"?

You weren't replying to anything. You just threw in a non-sequitur. At least my point about Simpson was on topic about shooting %.

 

[wetcoast]

How does Shooting % speak to "every goal scoring metric"?

I think that most people would consider shooting % a goal scoring metric, what do you call it?

I mean literally iit is a metric of the % of shots on goals that become goals, what is that a goalie metric?

You weren't replying to anything. You just threw in a non-sequitur. At least my point about Simpson was on topic about shooting %.

Yes I actually was when the guy said every goal scoring metric, your point about Simpson is moot as I never presented it, in fact I only looked at the top goal scorers and even refined it to the time frame you brought up and still you are clinging to this strawman, why exactly?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think that most people would consider shooting % a goal scoring metric, what do you call it?

A percentage of goals against shots on goal.

I mean literally iit is a metric of the % of shots on goals that become goals, what is that a goalie metric?

It's a metric alright.

Yes I actually was when the guy said every goal scoring metric, your point about Simpson is moot as I never presented it,

You did indeed bring up Simpson by implication by bringing up shooting %. I sorted every player with over 500 career SOG. By said "goal scoring metric" he would indeed be the best ever.

in fact I only looked at the top goal scorers and even refined it to the time frame you brought up and still you are clinging to this strawman, why exactly?

Broader strawman is taking "best goal scorer" and applying it to say shooting %. That's just being a wise guy. One could say he doesn't have the most shorthanded goals, or Stanley Cup Game 7 Overtime Goals, or goals in the Memorial Cup. All would be technically accurate. But you ignored the substance to be a wise guy with some "fact-checking".

Far be it an honest salt of the earth statistical keeper to promote discussion. You are all over the Ovechkin won't score 20 goal thread from a season ago. We know how you feel about Ovechkin and his pursuit of the all time goal record. No need to convince me that you are an impartial cal it like you see it observer.

 

[Albatros]

The really scary thing about Gretzky's greatness defined in totality of sheer output is that the all-time top five playoffs goal scoring list is defined by Gretzky's secondary effect:
Mark Messier is 2nd, Jarri Kurri is 3rd, and Glenn Anderson is 5th.

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.

 

[ijuka]

No he isn't.

There's more to ice hockey than scoring goals.

What do we have, Hasek, Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Crosby? That's already 6, and Ovechkin would be better than 2 of them? Nahh.

 

[Mulletman]

7th in Goals cumulatively as it stands today, from Ages 35-39 year old seasons is pretty nutty. For instance, Bret Hull and Teemu Selanne were 16th and 18th respectively in the cumulative five years they were those ages, both considered big time old guy scorers.

I know there's a big push towards "nothing Ovie has done in the last five years changes perception" but how can it not? The longevity stuff is rarefied air.

Some context about Selanne is important to remember. Selanne missed 103 games during those years while Ovechkin has only missed 28 games during the same stretch, 54 games if you take into account the shortened covid season. Selanne had a few bad luck injuries during those years like a puck to the face that cost him games so it wasn't all wear and tear injuries. But the big thing was his lazyness after winning the cup were he sat out 56 of those games in 2007-08. With the pace he had that year he basically lost 25 goals because of lazyness. That would put Selanne at 8th in goals for the same timeperiod, 1 goal behing the Michael Jordan of Hockey if he just returned to hockey straight away. Also worth mentioning is that while Selanne was 18th in goals from age 35 to 39, he was 17th in goals from age 35 to 42.

 

[Mulletman]

Once Ovechkin gets the goal record it will be very hard to put him as low as some here have suggested. McDavid seems like a sure bet for the top 5 at the moment so anything lower than 6th all time after Ovechkin gets the goal record and surpasses 900 career goals will be a hard thing to argue, especially if he compiles his way to 1000 career goals!

 

[daver]

I have Crosby at #5. But OV is in my top 10. I don't see how you can rank Hull and Richard ahead of him, at this point.

Hull had a superior prime. Ovechkin was Hull-like for part of his prime then morphed into Brett Hull. Richard's playoff scoring is legendary.

As much as the Big 4 is "untouchable", the #5 player discussion should also hold a level of prominence.

I think Ovechkin is best described as Top 10ish like Jagr, an offensive-minded forward with some minor flaws and holes in their resumes.

It should be clear that he is behind Crosby, and likely McDavid at some point, among his post Wayne/Mario era peers.

 

[Caps8112]

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.

 

[mr figgles]

Short answer: no
Long answer: LMFAO no

 

[bobholly39]

Just for context, here are the (in my opinion) 14 players who are in the mix for #5 all time:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Total
Jean Beliveau	2	4	1	2		9
Sidney Crosby	2	4	1	1	1	9
Bobby Hull	2	2	4		1	9
Eddie Shore	4	1	2		1	8
Connor McDavid	3	1	2		2	8
Jaromir Jagr	1	4	1	1		7
Maurice Richard	1	2	3			6
Alexander Ovechkin	3	2				5
Dominik Hasek	2	1	2			5
Patrick Roy		1	1	1​	2	5
Doug Harvey		1	1		3	5
Howie Morenz	3	1				4
Ray Bourque		2			2	4
Nicklas Lidstrom				1​		1

To be clear, this is just raw data. It doesn't take into account the size of the league, the level of competition, or positional biases.

(If you want to apply a weighting to the results, say 10-7-5-3-1 points like the real life Hart trophy voting, the results would be - Beliveau 59, Shore 58, Crosby 57, Hull 55, McDavid 49, Jagr 46, Ovechkin 44, Richard 39, Hasek 37, Morenz 37, Roy 17, Bourque 16, Harvey 15, Lidstrom 3 - same disclaimers still apply).

I think you definitely need to take into account league size when talking award finishes. There are less players to compete against in Beliveau's era, and so it's easier for a less good season to finish 2nd in hart. Extrpolate that season into ~2018, and maybe he still finishes 2nd...or maybe 4th or 5th or less.

I think two players whose hart records really jump out to me are always:

1. Crosby. I like that he was so often a top finishes in a big league (and it doesn't even include his injuries at his peak, where he'd clearly have more wins/top finishes otherwise).

2. Jagr. Even moreso than Crosby, and probably anyone else on this list - so many of his #2 finishes probably should have/could have been outright wins. He was unlucky in voting. Like Crosby - he also did it in a big league.

I'd probably have Beliveau #3 for strength of prime/hart record.

McDavid? Not sure yet, his story is still being written. We'll see in a few years, but good chance he'll end up #1.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think you definitely need to take into account league size when talking award finishes. There are less players to compete against in Beliveau's era, and so it's easier for a less good season to finish 2nd in hart. Extrpolate that season into ~2018, and maybe he still finishes 2nd...or maybe 4th or 5th or less.

Smaller leagues and wildly inbalanced rosters as well. All players initially allocated via a Draft and Salary Cap/Floor really spreads the talent and opportunity out far and wide.

 

[WarriorofTime]

2. Jagr. Even moreso than Crosby, and probably anyone else on this list - so many of his #2 finishes probably should have/could have been outright wins. He was unlucky in voting. Like Crosby - he also did it in a big league.

Jagr's 5 Rosses to 1 Hart do stand out. I guess one could debate the merits of it.

Looking at others, (even if the Hart/Ross weren't in same years):

Gretzky - 10 Ross, 9 Hart
Howe - 6 Ross, 6 Hart
Lemieux - 6 Ross, 3 Hart
Esposito - 5 Ross, 2 Hart
McDavid - 5 Ross, 3 Hart
Mikita - 4 Ross, 2 Hart
Bobby Hull - 3 Ross, 2 Hart

 

[Mrb1p]

There is no universe in which Ovechkin is better than Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and Crosby.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

No , but he’s deffo top 10

 

[um]

No one in NHL history (outside of Howe) has had Bourque’s combination of consistently elite offense, defense, and longevity. From his rookie year to his 22nd and last year he was a top d man in the league with Norris finishes of:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, and more (I give up)

Over 400 goals, 1579 points good for 12th all time though ovi will pass him this year.

To me he is quite clearly the 2nd best d man of all time though others are close behind (Harvey and Lidstrom).

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.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is an all time argument not some selective seasons and like I noted games played comes into play here as well and I noticed that you totally glossed over each player top 5 Hart finishes over that same epriod of time.

People making these rankings don't just look at cherry picked metrics but the whole complete picture.

Yes well drawing the line at 5 is not particularly indicative seeing as how Ovie has two sixes and a seven.

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 to spin being #5 in points in the 1960s into being somehow significantly better than top 3 in the 2010s. What can I say, I don't think that's reasonable.

I agree with you - there is no logic to 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."

 

[Midnight Judges]

Well, if the debate is focused on sheer output and we're isolating goals from points, then Mike Gartner is the 7th or 8th best player in history.

Assuming he breaks Gretzky's goalscoring record, it's still by necessity an isolated, specialized, almost curated record in a way I can't think of any other organization operating under. Meaning, there seems to have been an operational mandate to help Ovechkin get towards the record - and that's fine. It's just a little odd.

Well, if the debate is focused on sheer output and we're isolating goals from points, then Mike Gartner is the 7th or 8th best player in history.

Assuming he breaks Gretzky's goalscoring record, it's still by necessity an isolated, specialized, almost curated record in a way I can't think of any other organization operating under. Meaning, there seems to have been an operational mandate to help Ovechkin get towards the record - and that's fine. It's just a little odd.

But I argue its a reasonable discussion that begins to compare a grouping of players like Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Jaromir Jagr and Mario Lemieux along any number of metrics, because otherwise you begin to see things in a way that - again - says Mike Gartner's the 7th best player in history, but moreover that he's the 7th/8th best goal scorer of all-time, which I think is different from 7th/8th most prolific, again given certain necessary considerations:

What does the comparison yield when we invoke "all-time" but Richard and Hull couldn't play as many games per season as Ovechkin? Or Lemieux and Bossy and their health issues. Ovechkin's in the conversation and it looks like he'll be the most prolific goal-scorer, but in no way shape or form does that sheer output in one premier category push him past players like Jaromir Jagr or for my money, his direct contemporary opposite: Sidney Crosby as you exampled.

It's actually an argument made in the perennial top 4 you listed: Both Orr and Lemieux are not considered great for sheer output, they are considered great by a totality of consideration.

Otherwise, the Top five kicks out Orr and Lemieux and inserts Messier, Jagr and Ron Francis. But because we don't believe Mike Gartner is comparable by goal output alone and do believe Bobby Orr is a non-negotiable and but for extenuating circumstances and Mario Lemieux, similarly, would have established a likely unattainable degree of greatness for any subsequent defenseman.

To that end, many believe Bobby Orr, with Gretzky following him, is the greatest player of all time. And when you factor in the anomaly at position and with impact on the game, Gretzky's sheer numbers give way to a different, greater standard.

By accepting the standard set forth in the universally endorsed Top 4 players of all time, you accept a standard of greatness that isn't defined by sheer output and as such, don't condition Ovechkin's qualifications for greatness by whether or not he breaks one of Gretzky's records.

But if we simply deferred to sheer output, as if to illuminate how great Gretzky is and could (and is) be considered in a different tier of accepted fact unto its own without comparison because there is none, of the sixty odd records that won't be broken, is Gretzky's all-time PLAYOFFS goals record: 122.

Ovechkin is threatening the regular season record and Ovechkin is presently 15th in playoffs goals scored.

The really scary thing about Gretzky's greatness defined in totality of sheer output is that the all-time top five playoffs goal scoring list is defined by Gretzky's secondary effect:
Mark Messier is 2nd, Jarri Kurri is 3rd, and Glenn Anderson is 5th.

So even then we see how some might slot Crosby ahead of Ovechkin given the former's success in the playoffs as a driving force for championships.

This to say, in any number of ways, I think your friend's respect is well earned.

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.

 

[Finnen]

Wayne
Mario
Orr
Howe
Jagr

I don't see Oevchkin cracking that top 5.
Greatest goal scorer of all time though.

Ovechkin and Crosby are two upcoming in the top 10 in NHL history.

Ovechkin and Crosby have more years to set.