Is Ovechkin the 5th best player of all time?

[ITM]

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

I like potato leek soup.

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

Whats more impressive, scoring 900 goals against guys like Brodeur, Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Rask, Luongo, Markstrom? Or John Garrett, Darren Pang, Alan Bester, Jeff Reese?

 

[Golden_Jet]

I like potato leek soup.

Congrats, whatever that means,
but OV over Hull jr for sure.

 

[Finnen]

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

Curious on this.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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

Ya if Jagr didn’t go to Russia, he wouldn’t have a chance, even healthy.

 

[Video Nasty]

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).

You’re talking to a brick wall. Albatros doesn’t understand the premise or is willingly ignoring it, because his agenda is often tearing down Gretzky and McDavid in comparison to Lemieux and Crosby.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Being top 5 all-time in adjusted points and having a "singular ability" are mutually exclusive.

As is being top 3 in hits and #1 in goals.

As is being top 45 all time in adjusted assists and top 60 in raw assists.

These sentences - each taken alone - decimate your insults. Taken together...

I read you loud and clear.

 

[Crow]

Whats more impressive, scoring 900 goals against guys like Brodeur, Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Rask, Luongo, Markstrom? Or John Garrett, Darren Pang, Alan Bester, Jeff Reese?

Could you be more insincere?

 

[ITM]

Being top 5 all-time in adjusted points and having a "singular ability" are mutually exclusive.

As is being top 3 in hits and #1 in goals.

As is being top 45 all time in adjusted assists and top 60 in raw assists.

These sentences - each taken alone - decimate your insults. Taken together...

I read you loud and clear.

Nah. You don't. You do realize the conversation isn't about Top 5 production, right?

And, those adjusted assists, we're including a ton of rebounds I take it?

Could you provide the formula and the top 20 from that list?

I've read a couple of other curated lists that don't quite pass the smell test.

 

[Voight]

In the same context that I would put Hasek ahead of Ovechkin, I would put Ken Dryden ahead of Hasek. Why?

Well Dryden won a Conn Smythe before he won a Calder. He took a year off, came back. Won six Vezinas (Same as Hasek) but didn't in 8 years. Is tied with Hasek for all-time best sv%. Won six Cups as opposed to two. Sure the team in front of him (i.e. Dryden as it did with Hasek) mattered, but its interesting they (the Canadiens) stopped winning Cups after Dryden left.

But not really sure I'd put either at #5. Top 10 in a mixed Top 10 (the way it probably should be)...I think there's a case, for sure.

FWIW, before 1982, the Vezina was what we call now the Jennings trophy (lowest GAA).


Dryden does have six 1st AST's, so that equates to six Vezinas in most peoples minds so it does even out.

 

[ITM]

Congrats, whatever that means,
but OV over Hull jr for sure.

It's a non-sequitur reply to a non-sequitur reply. But never mind reading the whole thing in context for an accurate exchange - that's so 2015.

I'd probably pick Ovechkin as well, but not without examination and definitely not with the goofball dismissal as some seem inclined towards here. I'd definitely take my time determining that same pick if the first name was Bobby and not Brett.

For the adjusted stats trainspotters lurking, Bobby Hull yields pretty compelling conclusions as well.

 

[ITM]

FWIW, before 1982, the Vezina was what we call now the Jennings trophy (lowest GAA).


Dryden does have six 1st AST's, so that equates to six Vezinas in most peoples minds so it does even out.

True enough. Should have included that distinction. Thanks!

 

[Pablo El Perro]

He's behind Crosby. Great goal scorer to, but not top 4.

 

[RSPens]

Pace is nice and all, but if you’re not available to play, you don’t get any points.

So actually works out to about 2 points a year, when actually available to play.

Since Sid came back from his potential career ending injury Sid has played 802 games and OV has played 825. So 23 more games in 11 seasons or just over 2 games per season. Which would knock Sid's total to 100 pts which is still 10.6 Pts more per season.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Since Sid came back from his potential career ending injury Sid has played 802 games and OV has played 825. So 23 more games in 11 seasons or just over 2 games per season. Which would knock Sid's total to 100 pts which is still 10.6 Pts more per season.

You moved the goalpost from career, to after he was healthy.

 

[TheBeard]

Ovechkin is a top 2 at worst goal scorer of all time but a fringe top ten of all time

 

[Paul4587]

No, Crosby is

 

[Albatros]

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).

Gretzky also said that he was like Mitch Marner and Messier was like Auston Matthews. If you write hockey history based on every compliment the results certainly are interesting. Of course the best always learn from each other and Gretzky's work ethic was exemplary in those days, but there are typically highly influential players along the way that aren't the most obvious. Like Kurri probably wouldn't have had a great NHL career without Matti Hagman who acted as his early mentor and persuaded him to go to Edmonton, that's primary effect if anything.

 

[Voight]

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.

To be fair, the Hart is typically biased towards forwards (in the last 80 years, a defence man has won it only four times- Orr x3 & Pronger x 1) and Bourque lost to Messier in the closest Hart vote ever.

 

[HeadLiceHatty]

NO he isnt even good player hasnt been for long time. Arguably one of worst players atm in NHL its fair to say he isnt NHL calibre player nowadays hasnt been for years. OFC he gets goals because its forced show typic think nowadays, but in pure ability i doubt theres any professional hockey mind who would rank ovechkin as a top 500 hockey player in world atm if being honest valueting overall skill and ability usefulness in ice hockey.

This is a reportable post

 

[ITM]

Gretzky also said that he was like Mitch Marner and Messier was like Auston Matthews. If you write hockey history based on every compliment the results certainly are interesting. Of course the best always learn from each other and Gretzky's work ethic was exemplary in those days, but there are typically highly influential players along the way that aren't the most obvious. Like Kurri probably wouldn't have had a great NHL career without Matti Hagman who acted as his early mentor and persuaded him to go to Edmonton, that's primary effect if anything.

I'm missing the context in the firs statement. Gretzky, while being the (for now) greatest goal-scorer in history says he's like Marner and Matthews is like Messier as evidence of what?

I'd appreciate a quote. But could it be a stylistic and physical comparison perhaps? A comparison that sees Marner like Gretzky driving play and creating chances?

Having watched Gretzky's entire NHL career, I think that's the takeaway, but in disproportionate numbers obviously. It's not Gretzky saying Marner is like him and Messier is like Matthews - and then the next step you appear to be inserting - and that the relationship between Marner and Matthews precisely mirrors Gretzky and Messier's.

The difference between the quote Messier provides about Gretzky and those that Gretzky graciously offers about NHL players, is that Messier's is a description set in time, commensurate with his development that is demonstrated over time by the numbers.

In the second bold paragraph, you're willing to concede one type of causal relationship, but not the one in question. The problem for your preference is that Messier concedes the causal relationship between Gretzky and himself, and his numbers bear out the influence. Gretzky's comparison of Marner and Matthews isn't nearly the same thing.

And what using your junior comparison does, in noting Gretzky was younger but doubly productive over Kurri was to take an example I think you used to prove Kurri's already promising status. But that's NOT what I'm arguing against.

I'm arguing that what greatness was there in those who played with Gretzky was amplified in a singular fashion because of Gretzky's singular talent. I'm not arguing Gretzky single-handedly produced and is responsible for all of their accomplishments.

It's just a matter of fact that the secondary effect of Gretzky's play on the ice (i.e. Assists) and his primary effect exampled in the day-to-day relationship with a few players helped great players to better statistics had he not been a teammate.

What you should do is parse the Messier quote and explain it away.

If you can.

 

[Albatros]

I'm missing the context in the firs statement. Gretzky, while being the (for now) greatest goal-scorer in history says he's like Marner and Matthews is like Messier as evidence of what?

I'd appreciate a quote. But could it be a stylistic and physical comparison perhaps? A comparison that sees Marner like Gretzky driving play and creating chances?

Having watched Gretzky's entire NHL career, I think that's the takeaway, but in disproportionate numbers obviously. It's not Gretzky saying Marner is like him and Messier is like Matthews - and then the next step you appear to be inserting - and that the relationship between Marner and Matthews precisely mirrors Gretzky and Messier's.

The difference between the quote Messier provides about Gretzky and those that Gretzky graciously offers about NHL players, is that Messier's is a description set in time, commensurate with his development that is demonstrated over time by the numbers.

In the second bold paragraph, you're willing to concede one type of causal relationship, but not the one in question. The problem for your preference is that Messier concedes the causal relationship between Gretzky and himself, and his numbers bear out the influence. Gretzky's comparison of Marner and Matthews isn't nearly the same thing.

And what using your junior comparison does, in noting Gretzky was younger but doubly productive over Kurri was to take an example I think you used to prove Kurri's already promising status. But that's NOT what I'm arguing against.

I'm arguing that what greatness was there in those who played with Gretzky was amplified in a singular fashion because of Gretzky's singular talent. I'm not arguing Gretzky single-handedly produced and is responsible for all of their accomplishments.

It's just a matter of fact that the secondary effect of Gretzky's play on the ice (i.e. Assists) and his primary effect exampled in the day-to-day relationship with a few players helped great players to better statistics had he not been a teammate.

What you should do is parse the Messier quote and explain it away.

If you can.

As evidence of how Gretzky saw their relationship: Marner and Matthews reminds him of it.

I don't think anyone would argue that Kurri (or Messier) was the better or more talented player, your argument has been that Gretzky was the primary (as opposed to secondary) reason behind the success of these players and what they did on their own does not at all fit that picture.

Gretzky undoubtedly was the most talented player in the game, but he was also only a player in the game, not the otherworldly demigod you try to insist he was. Besides his immense talent and its implications on team hierarchy he was a teammate like any other, a young one at that.

Many of the greatest mentors were not "singular talents", besides Matti Hagman take Brad McCrimmon from Gretzky's WJC team, he never became more than a solid defenseman in the NHL, but as a veteran he strongly influenced several that went further than that.

Statistics are quite frankly uninteresting, hardly anyone cares whether Messier peaked at 107 or 129 points. It's what he did in '84, '90, '94 that is remembered.

 

[psycat]

Whats more impressive, scoring 900 goals against guys like Brodeur, Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Rask, Luongo, Markstrom? Or John Garrett, Darren Pang, Alan Bester, Jeff Reese?

What's more impressive scoring goals while doing close to nothing else or scoring close to as many goals while also being the obviously best playmaker in the world?

 

[OkimLom]

For me, I have guys like: (not in any particular order)

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Jagr, Lidstrom, Bourque, Crosby, Bergeron, and quite a bit of others that had more complete games, that doesn't even include goaltenders that are among the tops in the league history.

He's one of the best goal scorers of all time for sure, and one of the most exciting players in the league. I'd put his goal scoring ability as a top 3 in league history.

 

[wetcoast]

For me, I have guys like: (not in any particular order)

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Jagr, Lidstrom, Bourque, Crosby, Bergeron, and quite a bit of others that had more complete games, that doesn't even include goaltenders that are among the tops in the league history.

He's one of the best goal scorers of all time for sure, and one of the most exciting players in the league. I'd put his goal scoring ability as a top 3 in league history.

Look I love the guy but he isn't like the other....like at all in an all time sense.