Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[Varan]

It is an interesting question as to why OV could not stay somewhat close to his 06 - 10 level longer. He showed flashes of it in 12/13 and in 14/15 and his Conn Smythe was well earned but he really did morph into a designated shooter earlier than one would have expected.

Was that style of play not sustainable? Did d-men get smarter on how to play him? I have always thought of him as more of an instinctual player than a cerebral one which may explain things.

I wonder if the disappointment of the 2010 Olympics and the loss to Montreal affected his confidence.

The bolded is all true. The hype going into the 2010 Olympics was insane because you have Canada vs. Russia -- Crosby vs. Ovechkin (When it was crazy hot at the time). They get clowned in the Olympics and then as the #1 seed in the NHL, they blew a 3-1 lead to a team that barely made the playoffs. That was the whole reason Bruce went defensive the following season.

Teams found out that OV would love to use defenders as screens to shoot, or cut in the middle of the slot and fire a shot. So it took a while until he found himself in the 12/13 season.

 

[wetcoast]

And working class people are physically stronger than the upper class on average. They also have more character. This is a generalization and plenty of exceptions (both ways) would exist. But chances are, the greatest players would come from a working class background. There is a reason someone becomes an accountant and another becomes a carpenter. Some of it is circumstances, but some of it is natural inclination (like a stronger body and better eye-hand coordination).

Oh boy, I'm drinking and needing to re read this several times but yikes.

Absolutely I would take Ryan Getzlaf over Alex Ovechkin. I believe him to be a better building block. In my own Top 100 list I ranked Ovechkin higher, but I'm sometimes subject to the forces of conformity like everyone else.

Yikes 2.0 and I do get what you are saying as i love 2 way guys but no one is going to say that getzlaf had the ebtter career or was the better player when it's all said and done.

This is especially true now that I have reasons to believe Ovechkin and co. weren't very serious when he was in his prime.

No idea on this but the team did "underperform" in the playoffs sure.

But Bobby Hull only has a single SC and on a much better team probably, just an example.

 

[sr edler]

This new "greatest goal scorer of all time" thing some posters go with now sounds like an inorganic election slogan or catch phrase some sly think tank strategist came up with to push for a certain subject.

No problem with people holding opinions, but stocked phrases tends to annoy you a bit after a little while depending on the scope of the use.

 

[sr edler]

Also no way Ovechkin wins even half of his second half career Rockets against stiffer competition, say Lemieux, prime Bure or early 90s Brett Hull, Selänne, Mogilny or even Cam Neely.

Even his hardest era competitor for goals (Stamkos) stopped specializing in goals because injuries/team dynamics.

According to single award counting late career Ovi would also be a better goalscorer than early career Ovi which doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

 

[Theokritos]

What you're saying would require a lot more study, I think.

Agreed.

Canada today is very different. Hardly anybody farms, the factories are largely gone, the mills are mostly gone, etc. The old lower and lower middle class doesn't really exist any more.

People are a lot richer now, in general. The children of the farmers and mill workers are government workers, lawyers, accountants, administrative workers at large companies.

The farmers of yesterday and the lawyers of today are significantly the same people, they just have more money today.

Where are the millworkers going to come from today, when there are no mills?

This is not to say there is no lower class today. But it looks very different.

True, that's why I said "similar background" instead of "same background". But as you say, there still is a lower income class today. There are still construction workers, there are other unskilled physical occupations, there are plenty of plain salesclerks in stores etc. Are there any star caliber players in the NHL today with a background like that? Genuine question.

 

[Theokritos]

Can we be absolutely certain that Anatoli Firsov or Vyacheslav Starshinov would not give Bobby Hull a run for his money?

I'm very sceptical. I don't see a case for Starshinov. Firsov maybe, but his best years seem to have been 1966-1967 and the following seasons, so even if we were optimistic about him (genuinely or for the sake of the argument), we'd only catch the last season of the O6/pre-expansion era. But yes, the late 1960s are the period one could try to make a case about, at least in hindsight and with the 1972 Summit Series in mind. Early 1960s? The Russian players who came to North America and attended NHL games were still in awe of what they saw, by their own admission.

 

[seventieslord]

Haha, I remember the "shoot only" thing but not who said it. I'm 98% positive it wasn't me though.

You probably remember it not because it was said, but because it's been living rent-free in midnight judges' head ever since.

 

[Staniowski]

Agreed.



True, that's why I said "similar background" instead of "same background". But as you say, there still is a lower income class today. There are still construction workers, there are other unskilled physical occupations, there are plenty of plain salesclerks in stores etc. Are there any star caliber players in the NHL today with a background like that? Genuine question.

Sidney Crosby's parents are working class, I think. His mother was a grocery store cashier and his father a facilities manager of a building. They didn't have much money.

 

[The Panther]

This new "greatest goal scorer of all time" thing some posters go with now sounds like an inorganic election slogan or catch phrase some sly think tank strategist came up with to push for a certain subject.

No problem with people holding opinions, but stocked phrases tends to annoy you a bit after a little while depending on the scope of the use.

Yep. My pet hate is the acronym GOAT. What's funny is that people typing it (a) often don't bother using capital letters, meaning I keep thinking they're either talking about "goats", the caprinae mammal (e.g., Billy Goats), or I understand their term to be a metaphorical caprinae mammal, i.e., the exact opposite of what they intend to mean. To wit, Professor Calculus, of Tintin fame:

 

[The Panther]

Sidney Crosby's parents are working class, I think. His mother was a grocery store cashier and his father a facilities manager of a building. They didn't have much money.

Well yeah, but his Dad was a QMJHL goalie. If your parent was a semi-pro hockey player, it's not really normal circumstances to grow up in terms of likelihood to commit money to playing hockey...


(By the way, I didn't realize until now that Crosby's Dad was a teammate of Claude Lemieux, Jimmy Carson, and Vincent Riendeau... In fact, it appears that Crosby's Dad's stats were a bit better than Riendeau's in 1984-85, yet it was Riendeau who made the NHL...)

 

[The Panther]

Also no way Ovechkin wins even half of his second half career Rockets against stiffer competition, say Lemieux, prime Bure or early 90s Brett Hull, Selänne, Mogilny or even Cam Neely.

Even his hardest era competitor for goals (Stamkos) stopped specializing in goals because injuries/team dynamics.

This works both ways, though. On the one hand, we can perhaps reasonably argue that the span of Ovechkin's career hasn't seen the toughest competition for goals-leaders in NHL history. But at the same time, the fact that we have a hard time imagining anyone but Ovechkin winning the goals titles speaks to how dominant Ovechkin is.

 

[Staniowski]

Well yeah, but his Dad was a QMJHL goalie. If your parent was a semi-pro hockey player, it's not really normal circumstances to grow up in terms of likelihood to commit money to playing hockey...


(By the way, I didn't realize until now that Crosby's Dad was a teammate of Claude Lemieux, Jimmy Carson, and Vincent Riendeau... In fact, it appears that Crosby's Dad's stats were a bit better than Riendeau's in 1984-85, yet it was Riendeau who made the NHL...)

Yes, I know.

Not only that, but Sidney's uncle (mother's brother) was a teammate of Mario Lemieux in the Q.

 

[daver]

For the last 3-4 years, people care about and talk about Ovechkin after the season, a lot more than Crosby. Like it or not, it's starting to look like that will be the case for after they retire. It's simply too hard to ignore arguably the best goal scorer off all time.

Let's make that 2 seasons with this one still TBD. In 2017, Crosby was clearly still pretty close to his peak and reclaimed his status as the best player in the world (if he ever lost it in the first place), had a regular season that bettered anything OV has done since 2010, and when combined with his playoff performance and the World Cup, had arguably the 2nd best overall season of his era behind Malkin's 2009.

In the last two years, Crosby has the best regular season performance between the two last year while OV has added a significant piece to his career resume with his Conn Smythe win.

 

[bobholly39]

Also no way Ovechkin wins even half of his second half career Rockets against stiffer competition, say Lemieux, prime Bure or early 90s Brett Hull, Selänne, Mogilny or even Cam Neely.

Even his hardest era competitor for goals (Stamkos) stopped specializing in goals because injuries/team dynamics.

According to single award counting late career Ovi would also be a better goalscorer than early career Ovi which doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

How is that different.....from pretty much any award win, in history, ever? He still did it 9x, which is incredible, especially within the context of greatest goal-scorer ever.

Bobby Hull won a bunch of rockets....but he probably doesn't win as many if he's going head to head with Espo's prime. Or even Howe's prime.
Even Wayne Gretzky....probably doesn't win the art ross in 1994 if competition is a bit better (starting with Lemieux).

But he still did it 9x. And much more important than just the rockets - his actual raw goal totals are extremely impressive. He's not winning a rocket with 41 goals in an off year where top goal scorers got injured...he's churning out ~50 goal seasons incredibly consistently. Would that beat Lemieux or Bure's best goal-scoring seasons? Probably not. Would it beat most of the player's normal prime seasons you listed? I'd say yes for sure (Lemieux the only one who likely tops those totals even in off years).

According to Hockey-reference's adjusted goals (not necessarily a perfect method - but a good reference point) - Ovechkin is 3rd all-time in careers adjusted goals with 798 (40 more than Gretzky). He's only behind Howe and Jagr....who each have ~600 more games than him.

So - saying he's the 'greatest goal-scorer ever' isn't exactly out of left field. He absolutely has a case - and I expect by the time he retires his case will seem almost unanimous. Sheer raw numbers

 

[Midnight Judges]

You probably remember it not because it was said, but because it's been living rent-free in midnight judges' head ever since.

I remember the falsehoods you guys typed, and the resistance you maintained (yes, specifically you) when being called out on the falsehoods.

No doubt you would prefer that I forget about them and stop bringing it up.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think 100 players is probably too much to ask for, but I would be curious if you could give us a rough idea of your top-25 or top-50. It’s easier to criticize than it is to open oneself up to criticism, but the most important part of HOH projects are not the final list but rather increased knowledge.

That's fair and I promise I will do that. But I won't rush to put out a list.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There is quite some wiggle room between using exaggerations, simplifications and pointed phrasing on one hand and "typing things that are not actually true" on the other.

What kind of intellectual debate is enhanced by exaggeration? When is hyperbole ever a preferred path to an equitable outcome? What is the down side to just saying things that are perfectly accurate?

 

[sr edler]

How is that different.....from pretty much any award win, in history, ever? He still did it 9x, which is incredible, especially within the context of greatest goal-scorer ever.

Bobby Hull won a bunch of rockets....but he probably doesn't win as many if he's going head to head with Espo's prime. Or even Howe's prime.
Even Wayne Gretzky....probably doesn't win the art ross in 1994 if competition is a bit better (starting with Lemieux).

But he still did it 9x. And much more important than just the rockets - his actual raw goal totals are extremely impressive. He's not winning a rocket with 41 goals in an off year where top goal scorers got injured...he's churning out ~50 goal seasons incredibly consistently. Would that beat Lemieux or Bure's best goal-scoring seasons? Probably not. Would it beat most of the player's normal prime seasons you listed? I'd say yes for sure (Lemieux the only one who likely tops those totals even in off years).

According to Hockey-reference's adjusted goals (not necessarily a perfect method - but a good reference point) - Ovechkin is 3rd all-time in careers adjusted goals with 798 (40 more than Gretzky). He's only behind Howe and Jagr....who each have ~600 more games than him.

So - saying he's the 'greatest goal-scorer ever' isn't exactly out of left field. He absolutely has a case - and I expect by the time he retires his case will seem almost unanimous. Sheer raw numbers

Of course there's an impressive aspect of Ovechkin's continued goal scoring, I just think some people exaggerates its value. Just like there was a poster not long ago who started a thread here on the HOH board and exaggerated Crosby's defense calling it "elite" and made it a crucial point/tipping point in a comparison with Gordie Howe, just because he (Crosby) has balanced out his game a bit recently and improved his defense.

It seems a lot of these things happens in the context of the Ovechkin/Crosby rivalry, by the way, which is a debate I'm profoundly disinterested in myself and have zero emotional bagage invested in. I'm mostly a 90s nostalgia guy and a pre-WW1 hockey guy, the rest I don't care that much about. I couldn't care less who's the better player of these two players.

I'm also already familiar with Ovechkin's goal scoring prowess. 2008 called and wants its headlines/shock value back.

Ovechkin is a hell of an athletic specimen, and that, along with a very kind era (the guy didn't play a single game in the rough & wild early 90s or in the late 90s/early 00s DPE where Derian Hatcher type of player were allowed to water ski you, same goes for his contemporaries obviously) and a re-modeled game where he acts almost like a caricature of a designated sniper, makes for these numbers. Yes, his numbers are impressive, but there are some obvious compromising factors, or lets just call it plain context, that needs to be thrown into the equation.

I'll just say though that calling Ovechkin's playoff reputation one of the worsts ever is beyond silly. I've no idea how you can type that with a straight face.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

There are two ways to rank players that mysteriously co-exist within me. The first way is more socially accepted around here, and this is how I "learned" to rank players during my time on this site. It is the "on-paper" way. The counting of accolades and even if those accolades are made very precise (so not simply trophy counting, but sophisticated quantifying methods). "Ovechkin scored X% of goals over his closest competitor". "Ovechkin won X Maurice Richard trophies". "Ovechkin is nth of all-time in playoff GPG". "Ovechkin's Hart record is 1,1,1,2...".

Then there is another way who has been increasingly insistent within myself, refusing to shut up. It's the "the goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and the relation between usual accolades (even precise ones created by us) and winning is not as clear as it usually implicitly assumed" way. It is the Skin in the Game way. It is whether, if my life was on the line and I was coaching some team, I really but really would pick Ovechkin over Getzlaf. Would I? I don't think I would. It is the way of asking myself whether it's really true that, because Ovechkin scores more goals and has more accolades, that in a very complicated and fluid game like hockey his "God all seeing" contributions are really superior than someone like Getzlaf, whom my intuition tells me does a lot of little things that might be more valuable than I give them credit for, and not picked up by the accolades.

Those two phenomenons co-exist paradoxally within me, and so their co-existence would explain some wide discrepancies between some of my posts. Clearly, in the Top 100 project I wasn't ready to make a radical stand on Ovechkin.

I understand this is almost taboo, maybe even more in the anglosphere (but that's just an impression reading english philosophers), to have two co-existing systems both insisting on their priority, inside the mind of a single person. People prefer when everything is clear, when we have our axioms solidly in place so we can go on and finally prove some theorems ! But that's not just the truth for me whether I like it or not. I keep going back to the axioms.

Very cool!

I'd love to see your top 100 list from the goal to win the Cup persona.

Even a top 10. That would really blow away a lot of posters.

 

[filinski77]

Also no way Ovechkin wins even half of his second half career Rockets against stiffer competition, say Lemieux, prime Bure or early 90s Brett Hull, Selänne, Mogilny or even Cam Neely.

Even his hardest era competitor for goals (Stamkos) stopped specializing in goals because injuries/team dynamics.

According to single award counting late career Ovi would also be a better goalscorer than early career Ovi which doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

Or, just maybe, goalscoring has been harder the last 20 years than it ever has been, and the fact that Ovechkin is so dominant just goes to show why he is widely considered as one of the best (if not the best) goalscorers in history.

 

[Troubadour]

I don't think another Richard changes how most people view Ovi. I think another Richard cements how most people view him: the guy who cracked the code to winning Richards without bringing anything much beside goals and hitting to the table. But at the same time, scoring goals is not a small thing in this game. So yeah, he actually is pretty awesome.

The thing that's gonna hurt him in the all time rankings is the short peak.It's sad, because I believe he saved the league from being a total bore for at least a couple of years. He was the main hockey entertainment since he landed in the NHL up until 2010 or so. Ever since then, he has been sorta meh from the fun perspective.

Another thing that hurts him is that his international stats look pretty disastrous. For a guy who never turned his NT down and was always at least seemingly willing to help at the international stage, his numbers look pretty non-all-time-great-worthy.

All in all, he will probably go down as a fixture between 10 and 20 on most all time lists. If he breaks Gretzky's goal record, top 15 is probably guaranteed, although some people will moan and groan.

 

[bobholly39]

Of course there's an impressive aspect of Ovechkin's continued goal scoring, I just think some people exaggerates its value. Just like there was a poster not long ago who started a thread here on the HOH board and exaggerated Crosby's defense calling it "elite" and made it a crucial point/tipping point in a comparison with Gordie Howe, just because he (Crosby) has balanced out his game a bit recently and improved his defense.

It seems a lot of these things happens in the context of the Ovechkin/Crosby rivalry, by the way, which is a debate I'm profoundly disinterested in myself and have zero emotional bagage invested in. I'm mostly a 90s nostalgia guy and a pre-WW1 hockey guy, the rest I don't care that much about. I couldn't care less who's the better player of these two players.

I'm also already familiar with Ovechkin's goal scoring prowess. 2008 called and wants its headlines/shock value back.

Ovechkin is a hell of an athletic specimen, and that, along with a very kind era (the guy didn't play a single game in the rough & wild early 90s or in the late 90s/early 00s DPE where Derian Hatcher type of player were allowed to water ski you, same goes for his contemporaries obviously) and a re-modeled game where he acts almost like a caricature of a designated sniper, makes for these numbers. Yes, his numbers are impressive, but there are some obvious compromising factors, or lets just call it plain context, that needs to be thrown into the equation.

I'll just say though that calling Ovechkin's playoff reputation one of the worsts ever is beyond silly. I've no idea how you can type that with a straight face.

There are pro's and cons to every era though. The worst players in the league are better today then they were in the 90s even - so that inherently makes it harder to score goals. Goalies and defensive systems have gotten better as well. At most a lot of that is a tradeoff - and even so, you can only judge based on era and against his peers - speculating how good or not a player would do in another era isn't necessarily relevant. If we all agreed Gretzky was tailor-made for the 80s only and would be destroyed in the 50s (i don't - just an example) - that changes absolutely nothing, he's still the best ever.

Yes lots of Ovechkin and Crosby threads and yes active players are always given all kinds of credit for certain things. However - the opposite is absolutely, absolutely true too. They get nitpicked on to ridiculous extents, moreso than past players do. Since you brought up Crosby - you'll still see many posters on this section refuse to acknowledge his great playoff resume because "Boston 2013 series"...while ignoring that every great playoff player probably has bad performances too. Same idea with focusing a bit too much on Ovechkin's assist totals in some years.

Maurice Richard in his famous 50 in 50 season.....had 23 assists. In his hart winning year in 47, he has 45 goals....and 26 assists.

And Richard is always in conversation for #5 best player ever.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm very sceptical. I don't see a case for Starshinov. Firsov maybe, but his best years seem to have been 1966-1967 and the following seasons, so even if we were optimistic about him (genuinely or for the sake of the argument), we'd only catch the last season of the O6/pre-expansion era. But yes, the late 1960s are the period one could try to make a case about, at least in hindsight and with the 1972 Summit Series in mind. Early 1960s? The Russian players who came to North America and attended NHL games were still in awe of what they saw, by their own admission.

Why not Starshinov? He lead the Soviet league in goals three times in a row (all -- in Firsov's prime, mind you). He killed penalties and was a great leader. 405 G in 540 Soviet league GP and 149 G in 182 international GP.

Nothing is absolute but it is extremely unlikely plain and simple.

There is simply little or no evidence that either player could have given Bobby Hull a run for his money.

Also what in the world does this have to do with the thread?

The conversation was about Ovechkin competing against the whole world and Bobby Hull -- only against Canadians. In the 60s, the two best players outside of Canada were Starshinov and Firsov. Hence my question.

 

[filinski77]

There are pro's and cons to every era though. The worst players in the league are better today then they were in the 90s even - so that inherently makes it harder to score goals. Goalies and defensive systems have gotten better as well. At most a lot of that is a tradeoff - and even so, you can only judge based on era and against his peers - speculating how good or not a player would do in another era isn't necessarily relevant. If we all agreed Gretzky was tailor-made for the 80s only and would be destroyed in the 50s (i don't - just an example) - that changes absolutely nothing, he's still the best ever.

Yes lots of Ovechkin and Crosby threads and yes active players are always given all kinds of credit for certain things. However - the opposite is absolutely, absolutely true too. They get nitpicked on to ridiculous extents, moreso than past players do. Since you brought up Crosby - you'll still see many posters on this section refuse to acknowledge his great playoff resume because "Boston 2013 series"...while ignoring that every great playoff player probably has bad performances too. Same idea with focusing a bit too much on Ovechkin's assist totals in some years.

Maurice Richard in his famous 50 in 50 season.....had 23 assists. In his hart winning year in 47, he has 45 goals....and 26 assists.

And Richard is always in conversation for #5 best player ever.

Completely agree with this. Yes a lot of people talk very highly about todays players, but that's because the last 20-25 years have all been played in an environment where the average goals have been below 3.00 mostly. To find long periods of time where scoring was that low, you have to go back to the 60's and earlier, where so many other factors such as Canadian-only players etc etc coming into play.

If in 20 years from now, scoring averages go back up to 4.00 or whatever, any reasonable person will still value 50 goals today more than 50 goals in 20 years in a higher scoring environment. People claim it's recency bias, where the reality is that the recent environment has just been so hard to score in, that proper context is needed regardless.

 

[daver]

Yes lots of Ovechkin and Crosby threads and yes active players are always given all kinds of credit for certain things. However - the opposite is absolutely, absolutely true too. They get nitpicked on to ridiculous extents, moreso than past players do. Since you brought up Crosby - you'll still see many posters on this section refuse to acknowledge his great playoff resume because "Boston 2013 series"...while ignoring that every great playoff player probably has bad performances too. Same idea with focusing a bit too much on Ovechkin's assist totals in some years.

This is mainly in response to any context being placed on his Rocket wins, namely his overall scoring finishes and Hart placings.