Is Ovechkin the 5th best player of all time?

[Cup or Bust]

Ovechkin is an all time great player and probably the best goal scorer ever but I would choose a number of players historically over him as my teams franchise player. He would probably be top 15 - 20 for me.

 

[SimpleJack]

Did someone really just say they’d rank Bergeron over Ovi?? Lol….

 

[OkimLom]

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

He's a guy I have ahead of Ovie, not necessarily with that group of guys.

Did someone really just say they’d rank Bergeron over Ovi?? Lol….

In terms of overall player, yep.

 

[ITM]

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.

The use of secondary (first) and primary (second) effect is applied as follows: Gretzky's assists are a secondary effect. His primary effect was his day-to-day example as evidenced by Messier. When I made the comment about Gretzky's greatness being so exceptional that his secondary effect (i.e. assists) contributed to the success of players around him, it was isolated in the sense of production.

And the caveat is always going to be: Kurri has to have the ability to read Gretzky and then convert the chances provided. We are in complete agreement that Messier and Kurri were great players and were likely to become great players without Gretzky.

All-time great is a separate category.

When I note Gretzky's primary effect, it's with respect to overall development. But it's not the starting point despite the use of the word primary. Obviously - to repeat - the players were great in their own right.

For lack of a better example, Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins is a pretty resourceful, pretty tough individual before he hikes his way to The League of Shadows. On his way to becoming Batman, which takes trial and error in Gotham, he has to navigate the gauntlet of the League's entailments, and does so, over and over as if to identify himself with distinction from the League, certainly in ethos; But...Theatricality, deception, fighting, even his gloves have their beginnings because of one source: Ras Al Ghul. By the end, Batman's greatness is his own. But Batman will never be Batman had he not come under the wings of Ras Al Ghul; Al Ghul had a primary effect on Bruce Wayne actualizing his potential that without the knowledge and example of the League of Shadows never manifests in the future as it unfolds.

All things Gotham: Mark Messier emerges as the better leader in my estimation. He is a better captain than Gretzky, as only hindsight would provide. But he is not a better leader in spite of Gretzky. He becomes the best better player version he could and in turn a better leader because of Gretzky, as his testimony recounts.

The reason Mark Messier and Jari Kurri are such great players is solely down to their ability and industry meeting opportunity. They are agents of their own destiny. Gretzky's primary effect on their ability and industry falls more into the opportunity category.

They were going to be at the very least, very good players. With Gretzky, they're all-time greats. Without Gretzky, we don't know.

 

[slapKing]

Bergeron over Ovechkin is lol worthy. You can't even use the cup argument as they each won 1 cup. Heck, Ovechkin has a smythe in the caps run.

 

[Slats432]

5 is McDavids spot

McDavid doesn't get a spot until he gets a cup.

 

[My3Sons]

Maybe he isn't the fifth best player but he can be the fifth Beatle. OK, he can't be that either.

 

[TheBeard]

McDavid doesn't get a spot until he gets a cup.

He gets a spot in the top 10, but to be top 5 ya need a cup.

Here’s my list in no real order. Top 4 is set in stone. 5 and 6 are pretty even.
Orr
Gretz
Lemieux
Howe
Richard
Crosby
Mcdavid
Believeau
Ovi
Hull

 

[Slats432]

This list is pretty good.

25 Greatest NHL Players Of All Time, Ranked

There is a long and storied history in the NHL. We take a look at the 25 greatest NHL players of all time and rank them.

clutchpoints.com

 

[jigglysquishy]

This list is pretty good.

25 Greatest NHL Players Of All Time, Ranked

There is a long and storied history in the NHL. We take a look at the 25 greatest NHL players of all time and rank them.

clutchpoints.com

The list is really really bad

 

[Albatros]

The use of secondary (first) and primary (second) effect is applied as follows: Gretzky's assists are a secondary effect. His primary effect was his day-to-day example as evidenced by Messier. When I made the comment about Gretzky's greatness being so exceptional that his secondary effect (i.e. assists) contributed to the success of players around him, it was isolated in the sense of production.

And the caveat is always going to be: Kurri has to have the ability to read Gretzky and then convert the chances provided. We are in complete agreement that Messier and Kurri were great players and were likely to become great players without Gretzky.

All-time great is a separate category.

When I note Gretzky's primary effect, it's with respect to overall development. But it's not the starting point despite the use of the word primary. Obviously - to repeat - the players were great in their own right.

For lack of a better example, Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins is a pretty resourceful, pretty tough individual before he hikes his way to The League of Shadows. On his way to becoming Batman, which takes trial and error in Gotham, he has to navigate the gauntlet of the League's entailments, and does so, over and over as if to identify himself with distinction from the League, certainly in ethos; But...Theatricality, deception, fighting, even his gloves have their beginnings because of one source: Ras Al Ghul. By the end, Batman's greatness is his own. But Batman will never be Batman had he not come under the wings of Ras Al Ghul; Al Ghul had a primary effect on Bruce Wayne actualizing his potential that without the knowledge and example of the League of Shadows never manifests in the future as it unfolds.

All things Gotham: Mark Messier emerges as the better leader in my estimation. He is a better captain than Gretzky, as only hindsight would provide. But he is not a better leader in spite of Gretzky. He becomes the best better player version he could and in turn a better leader because of Gretzky, as his testimony recounts.

The reason Mark Messier and Jari Kurri are such great players is solely down to their ability and industry meeting opportunity. They are agents of their own destiny. Gretzky's primary effect on their ability and industry falls more into the opportunity category.

They were going to be at the very least, very good players. With Gretzky, they're all-time greats. Without Gretzky, we don't know.

Kurri was a ppg player from the very beginning, game one, despite initially playing a lot with Hagman instead of Gretzky and knowing little English. He finished his rookie season with over ten times more points than all other European-trained players under 21 in league history combined. Not that there had been all too many, but that says something about how exceptional he was. To this day the only Europeans to score ppg in their rookie season as young are Kurri, Malkin, Ovechkin. Nobody else. Jágr only matched it in his third season.

Was Kurri better off eventually getting to play more with Gretzky? Sure. But if he wasn't destined to be an all-time great, no European ever was. Gretzky's biggest favor might have been to embrace his new linemate in a room that was still largely xenophobic and hostile to the Finns in team.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Yeah that’s right. Top 5 once the record is his. Maybe tied with Hasek at 5. He’s a beauty.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

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

Odd part is Howe isn't listed but Patrice is.

 

[bobholly39]

Yeah that’s right. Top 5 once the record is his. Maybe tied with Hasek at 5. He’s a beauty.

893 goals? 11th player all-time. No record, you suck...
+1 goal to 894? + 6 spots, top 5 player all-time.
+ 10 years, when Matthews hits 895? Ovechkin -6, back to 11th.

Cool ranking system...

 

[missionAvs]

Greatest goal scorer of all time no doubt but not top 5 player all time.

 

[Caps8112]

its also perfectly ok if he isnt in the top 5 all time. Greatest goal scorer ever will take a really long time to be contested and also will have Ovis name mentioned a few hundred times a season after he retires. Not hating on Matthews but so far I doubt he will pass Ovi. Injuries alone will likely keep him from getting there but even if he were healthy there is nothing that says Matthews will automatically have the 30s that Ovi has had.

 

[bobholly39]

its also perfectly ok if he isnt in the top 5 all time. Greatest goal scorer ever will take a really long time to be contested and also will have Ovis name mentioned a few hundred times a season after he retires. Not hating on Matthews but so far I doubt he will pass Ovi. Injuries alone will likely keep him from getting there but even if he were healthy there is nothing that says Matthews will automatically have the 30s that Ovi has had.

I agree it's a lot more likely Matthews doesn't surpass Ovechkin (it's such a high bar). But a couple of important things Matthews has going for him:

1. Higher scoring league. This is key. The league was pretty low scoring from ~2010 to 2018. Matthews' equivalent age seasons are likely to continue in higher scoring league in comparison

2. Matthews is ahead, age for age for raw goals. I think he'll be around ~50 goals ahead age for age by end of this year. That's not insignificant

What this means is - Matthews can age worst than Ovechkin as a goal-scorer, and still end up with more goals.

 

[Video Nasty]

Winning only one Art Ross disqualifies him.

 

[WarriorofTime]

893 goals? 11th player all-time. No record, you suck...
+1 goal to 894? + 6 spots, top 5 player all-time.
+ 10 years, when Matthews hits 895? Ovechkin -6, back to 11th.

Cool ranking system...

Everyone wants to be a wise guy here, but it's not like it's not a normal thing.

Guy wins the Art Ross by 1 point, we look at this differently than the guy who lost the Art Ross by 1 point. Team loses in Game 7 Triple Overtime of the Playoffs. We look at the season differently than if they had won in Game 7 Triple Overtime.

But Ovechkin being on the verge of breaking one of the biggest records in all of Hockey is scoffed at based on only the incrementalist impact.

 

[bobholly39]

Everyone wants to be a wise guy here, but it's not like it's not a normal thing.

Guy wins the Art Ross by 1 point, we look at this differently than the guy who lost the Art Ross by 1 point. Team loses in Game 7 Triple Overtime of the Playoffs. We look at the season differently than if they had won in Game 7 Triple Overtime.

But Ovechkin being on the verge of breaking one of the biggest records in all of Hockey is scoffed at based on only the incrementalist impact.

You're just re-enforcing bad logic/player assessment though.

Your "guy wins art ross by 1 point vs loses by 1 point" argument....well, let's look no further then last season.

For me - both Kucherov and MacKinnon had historic peak seasons last year. Kucherov 140 and 144 points - tremendous. MacKinnon's season isn't worthless because he lost the Ross by 4, even ignoring the hart. To me - both seasons are very comparable, and add an ~ equal amount to each player's resume. They're both great seasons because they outscored the pack, guys like Panarin, Pastrnak etc by very big margins.

Ignoring the hart - MacKinnon's season last year is >>> Jamie Benn's season where he won the Ross.

So no - +/- 1 goal for Ovechkin, or +/- 1 point in a season shouldn't be a big deal.

Ovechkin's resume is extremely strong overall. I don't personally think he's #5 all time (I have him around 10th), but if someone values goal-scoring and longevity a lot, they might have him 5th. Scoring an extra career goal or two or 20 career-wise shouldn't affect his rank.

 

[nowhereman]

This list is pretty good.

25 Greatest NHL Players Of All Time, Ranked

There is a long and storied history in the NHL. We take a look at the 25 greatest NHL players of all time and rank them.

clutchpoints.com

It's a really poor list that completely ignores top 25 locks like Harvey, Shore and Morenz. Also, Messier shouldn't be ahead of Bobby Hull, Brett Hull isn't close to top 25, Jagr really isn't a good option for #5 (Crosby or Beliveau are better options) and Dryden shouldn't be ahead of guys like Kelly, Potvin, or Plante.