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

[wetcoast]

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.


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.

The competition for the Soviets were basically amatuer players from canada and the United states not the NHL and when Starshinov broke out at age 23 Bobby hull already had lead the NHL in goal scoring a couple of times and had 2 Art Ross trophies.....

And then there is the fact that the touring Soviet team in the late 60's could only tie a junior Montreal squad as Canadiens1958 pointed out.

Like I said there is alot of evidence that both guys certainly would not have given Bobby Hull a run for his money at all.

 

[wetcoast]

To point out the obvious, in Maurice Richard’s 50 in 50 season, the second “50” is games played. Which means he had 23 assists in 50 games. In 1947, it was 26 assists in 60 games.

Which would make those 73 points in 50 games and 71 points in 60 games seasons, good for 2nd in league scoring.

Even if you consider this low in spite of the season length, his skewing towards goal-scoring did not preclude Richard from being a top-5 points-per-game scorer on 11 occasions between 1944-1957. Ovechkin’s lack of assists is however affecting his standing each year relative to his contemporaries.

Also, league average assists-per-goal were 1.20, 1.13, and 1.30 from 1945-1947. The league eventually settled into 1.60-1.70 after the 1950s, but there’s a good argument that Richard’s assists are depressed by the era.

Sure what you say is true but richard also played with 2 excellent playmakers (and teams) in a 6 team league where it's frankly only 18 first line players in the entire NHL compared to Ovechkin in a 30 team league with 90 first line players.

The differences between the 2 (in terms of playmaking) aren't as great as the numbers above suggest.

For example in Richards 50 in 50 season sure he was second in points but in a 6 team league he was 15th in assists.

Both guys were known for their goal scoring primarily but as far as overall players and impact there is very little really separating the 2 except that Richard played with a ton of HHOFers in a 6 team league thus has way more SC's while Ovechkin has played in a 30 team NHL with a salary cap.

Quite different situations to be sure.

 

[wetcoast]

If you're making the argument Ovechkin is a one trick pony in 2020 you've lost the plot. He is OBJECTIVELY and DEMONSTRABLY not a one trick player. There is no argument that supports him being that.

Yes Ovechkin shares the Richard trophy this year but he was really quite horrible outside of scoring goals, there are a ton of metrics indicating this and he is sliding fast to father time.

He scores a lot of goals, takes a lot of shots and outside of that is really a very meh player for the ice time and opportunities he gets these days, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise and claim any objectivity.

 

[wetcoast]

In 1985-86 Mario Lemieux scored as many goals as defenseman Paul Coffey (48). Weird things happen.

Bob's point was, if i understand him correctly, that in some seasons Richard's goals accounted for 2/3 of his point totals. Similar to Ovechkin.

Ovechkin's team and Richard's team both benefit when Ovechkin and Richard score goals. Not pass. Not play defense. Score goals.

Here is another comparison point for you: over their NHL RS careers, Richard was 0.431 APG (422 A in 978 GP), Ovechkin 0.496 APG (572 A in 1152 GP), and Hull was 0.526 APG (560 A in 1063 GP). One of these had teammates not like others.

You had me up until the last line, Backstrom is an elite playmaker and has been with Ovechkin for nearly a decade now.

Sure Richard and Bobby Hull had "better" teammates but you are really stretching a pint here that doesn't really make too much of a difference.

All 3 guys where primarily goals scorers who where high volume shooters.

 

[wetcoast]

Because they didn't play in a baby powder environment?

The NHL post lockout is still extremely physical and tight checking, calling it baby powder means exactly what?

You posted upthread that you are primarily a fan or the 90s and pre WWI hockey but you do realize that baby power environment probably better describes the 80s than the 2000s right?

Also the "structure" of pre WWI hokey in terms of teams being able to suppress goal scoring is somewhat different to post lockout hockey as well....just saying.

 

[wetcoast]

That's a big point that has been missed in this discussion.

Does it really matter when comparing Richard to Ovechkin as playmakers though.

In a 6 team league Richard has 4 top 10 finishes is assists with a record of 6,7,9,10 against his peers while Ovechkin in a 30 team league has don so 3 times with a record of 6,6, 10.

Trying to paint Richard as being a better playmaker or more well rounded using assists just doesn't work.

Any debate for having Richard ahead or close to Ovechkin in an all time sense rests in the playoffs and even that is problematic given the teams/eras they played on.

 

[Zuluss]

With 2019/20 regular season in the books, Ovechkin and Bobby Hull seem more and more joined at the hip and they are now very hard to rank more than a few positions apart (like the recent top100 project somehow did).

Bobby Hull's strongest suite was his goal-scoring. It seems that Ovechkin is currently already ahead in this regard. Consider this: in Bobby Hull's years and the rest of the O6-era, an average winner of the goal-scoring title led #10 in goals by 45%. Bobby Hull cleared that watermark 8 times in his career.
In Ovechkin's era (1996-2020), an average winner of the goal-scoring title led #10 by 27% - Ovechkin cleared that watermark 9 times (the difference being this 2019/20 season, in which Ovechkin led #10 in goals by 41%).
Also, Ovechkin eked out two more goal-scoring titles in addition to that (26% and 24% in 17/18 and 18/19). Hull's 9-th best margin was 32%, a far cry from an average Richard winner of his times, and his 11th-best margin is just 19%. So Ovechkin now leads 11-8 in "Rocket-worthy" seasons.

Similarly, Ovechkin seems to be gaining an edge on Hull in terms of longevity. Both have 15 NHL seasons now, but two first seasons by Hull are nothing to write home about, and in addition to that, he has a 56-in-67 season at the age of 22, a good comparable to Ovechkin's 65-point season in 11/12, and a 62-in-69 season at the age of 24, which would be worse than anything by Ovechkin except for his 69-point season in 16/17. So in the end Ovechkin has two extra elite seasons on Hull.

As for the tired narrative that Bobby Hull was Bobby Hull for a whole decade, and Ovechkin declined a lot after 2010 - Bobby Hull did not start nearly as well as Ovechkin, Hull's dominant years fell between age 25 and age 29. Yes, Hull was winning Art Rosses pre-25, but Hart voters were not too impressed and voted him behind a 37-year-old Harvey.
In fact, Hull's late 20s are very much like Ovechkin's early 20s (an Art Ross, back-to-back Harts, a string of Hart nominations, several goal-scoring titles), and Hull's early 20s are very much like Ovechkin's late 20s (not the same player, but still a Hart-worthy season here and another there, some inexplicable down years).
One can still argue that Hull's peak was longer and maybe higher, but then again, Ovechkin has a meaningful longevity edge already. So they are really close.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That last point takes away from him more than adds to him. The 40s were superweak, and he still managed to win only ONE Hart and ZERO Art Rosses. I hold playoffs in higher esteem than most people, but Ovechkin's accomplishments have clearly left Richard in the dust. Richard is overrated anyway.


By this rationale, Lanny McDonald is even better. He retired, and the Flames never won another Cup.

This was one of the craziest posts in this crazy thread.

You seem to be a bit short on historical perspective.

Comparing Lanny McDonald's retirement to Richard's, now that's crazy.

I never even mentioned Ovechkin in my post. But since you brought him up, he's 15th in goals per game (.508) in the playoffs. Way behind Richard's 4th place (.621).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Does it really matter when comparing Richard to Ovechkin as playmakers though.

In a 6 team league Richard has 4 top 10 finishes is assists with a record of 6,7,9,10 against his peers while Ovechkin in a 30 team league has don so 3 times with a record of 6,6, 10.

Trying to paint Richard as being a better playmaker or more well rounded using assists just doesn't work.

Any debate for having Richard ahead or close to Ovechkin in an all time sense rests in the playoffs and even that is problematic given the teams/eras they played on.

I wasn't trying to paint anything.

Simply stating that the poster who mentioned assists being harder to come by in Richard's era was correct. Not a lot of posters seem to be aware of that.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The NHL post lockout is still extremely physical and tight checking, calling it baby powder means exactly what?

You posted upthread that you are primarily a fan or the 90s and pre WWI hockey but you do realize that baby power environment probably better describes the 80s than the 2000s right?

Also the "structure" of pre WWI hokey in terms of teams being able to suppress goal scoring is somewhat different to post lockout hockey as well....just saying.

At no time has the NHL been less physical.

 

[The Panther]

But here's a few attempts are comparisons for overall scoring at similar age:

Mark Messier. At age 33 - he finished 30th in scoring. At age 32 he finished 31st in scoring. No hart consideration either year.
Ovechkin at age 33 finished 15th in scoring and 7th in hart voting. At age 32 finished 11th in scoring, and 9th in hart voting.

Messier was voted 1 spot ahead of Ovechkin in our top 100 list, so a good comparable.

You missed the part where Messier at age 35 was pacing for 50 goals until a late-season injury and finished 2nd to Mario in Hart voting. Mess was also 7th in PPG at age 36. Mario was 2nd in Hart voting, aged 35, playing half a season.

If you want to go up even higher.
Gretzky - age 34. 19th in scoring. No hart consideration.

And you missed the part where Gretzky was 5th in Hart voting, aged 37, on a bad, low-scoring team.

Howe was 5th in Hart voting at age 39 and age 40, and third in scoring both those years.

Ovechkin's claim to fame as a player in his 30s is not going to be his scoring finishes or his Hart record. It's his exceptional goals totals. Fortunately, that is quite a big thing.

 

[The Panther]

This is a bit off-topic, but can I just point out that every time I see consideration of Maurice Richard's team-strength, it's always "He played on the 50s' Canadiens, the greatest-dynasty, so he had a huge amount of help". He did indeed play on that late-50s' Dynasty and was the captain, but overall Richard was a 1940s' player, not a 1950s' player, and was past his prime during the 5-straight Cups' era Canadiens (though he still produced superbly aged 35-36 in the playoffs).

When the Habs won the first of five straight, Richard was pushing 35 and was by far the oldest regular on his club. In those days, 35 was like 40 today.

In his prime years, Richard played on a few great clubs, a couple of clubs with losing records, and several good-but-nothing-great clubs.

Just sayin'.

 

[Sadekuuro]

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 couldn't care less who's the better player of these two players.

I thought I was the only one

 

[sr edler]

The NHL post lockout is still extremely physical and tight checking, calling it baby powder means exactly what?

You posted upthread that you are primarily a fan or the 90s and pre WWI hockey but you do realize that baby power environment probably better describes the 80s than the 2000s right?

Also the "structure" of pre WWI hokey in terms of teams being able to suppress goal scoring is somewhat different to post lockout hockey as well....just saying.

I didn't say anything about the quality or structure or anything particular about pre-WW1 hockey, and I didn't do any comparison with any other era at all, I just said I was a fan/interested in the era. Just like some people are fans/interested of some particular birds or flowers or mammals.

Tight checking is one thing, but the league post 04–05 lockout is baby powder compared with earlier eras regarding cheap shots and the general nature of hitting. Somewhat physical star players of today aren't in the risk zone of playing 726 (Neely), 655 (Kerr), 702 (Bure), 708 (Forsberg) or 760 (Lindros) games if they want a longer career. Bure, Forsberg & Lindros could all have had longer 1000+ games careers during their own era if they stayed anyway from the net or board battles more and played a more tentative and non-engaging perimeter style like say Peter Bondra or Joe Thornton, but that just proves my point.

 

[Theokritos]

What kind of intellectual debate is enhanced by exaggeration? When is hyperbole ever a preferred path to an equitable outcome?

They are rather common means to make a point, that's all I'm saying. They should be countered. But to get worked up about them and to see them as written untruth (while the average reader probably just views them as hyperbole and reads them with a grain of salt), that's not going to help you convince a lot of people, at least in my opinion.

 

[Theokritos]

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.

I like Starshinov, he was a tireless backchecker, physically strong, knew how to score and to trade passes. He and Firsov were the two Soviet players who David Bauer in 1968 thought could switch to the NHL right away, despite of the different playing styles. But there's a significant gap between Firsov and Starshinov. Firsov dominated the 1967 World Championship and the 1968 Olympics, was still considered the second best forward at the 1969 and 1970 WChs and then again the number one at the 1971 WCh. He's the one his peers and contemporary observers used hyperbole for: better than Kharlamov, best forward in the world in his time, best Russian player ever. Starshinov didn't reach such heights.

 

[Theokritos]

Midnight kinda hit the nail on the head about most of the folks here. When it comes down to it, this board is 90% (maybe more) middle aged Canadian dudes who grew up strictly on Canadian hockey lore.

As pointed out before, 40% of the voters in the last Top 100 project were Non-Canadians. The last poster here to compare Ovechkin to Richard rather than to Bobby Hull is American. And if you're not aware that plenty of Canadian posters here are willing to revisit and learn and are open to arguments, then you don't know this board all that well. So ironically, your suggestion that this is an almost exclusively Canadian board passing around Canadian lore is just – lore, from the other side of the spectrum.

 

[daver]

Tight checking is one thing, but the league post 04–05 lockout is baby powder compared with earlier eras regarding cheap shots and the general nature of hitting. Somewhat physical star players of today aren't in the risk zone of playing 726 (Neely), 655 (Kerr), 702 (Bure), 708 (Forsberg) or 760 (Lindros) games if they want a longer career. Bure, Forsberg & Lindros could all have had longer 1000+ games careers during their own era if they stayed anyway from the net or board battles more and played a more tentative and non-engaging perimeter style like say Peter Bondra or Joe Thornton, but that just proves my point.

What exactly is your point? Are you handicapping OV's production is some way? I think your original reference was in response to a comment by another poster.

The number of injuries to star players in this era (Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, McDavid) would seem to indicate that there are still plenty of risks in today's game.

 

[bobholly39]

With 2019/20 regular season in the books, Ovechkin and Bobby Hull seem more and more joined at the hip and they are now very hard to rank more than a few positions apart (like the recent top100 project somehow did).

Bobby Hull's strongest suite was his goal-scoring. It seems that Ovechkin is currently already ahead in this regard. Consider this: in Bobby Hull's years and the rest of the O6-era, an average winner of the goal-scoring title led #10 in goals by 45%. Bobby Hull cleared that watermark 8 times in his career.
In Ovechkin's era (1996-2020), an average winner of the goal-scoring title led #10 by 27% - Ovechkin cleared that watermark 9 times (the difference being this 2019/20 season, in which Ovechkin led #10 in goals by 41%).
Also, Ovechkin eked out two more goal-scoring titles in addition to that (26% and 24% in 17/18 and 18/19). Hull's 9-th best margin was 32%, a far cry from an average Richard winner of his times, and his 11th-best margin is just 19%. So Ovechkin now leads 11-8 in "Rocket-worthy" seasons.

Similarly, Ovechkin seems to be gaining an edge on Hull in terms of longevity. Both have 15 NHL seasons now, but two first seasons by Hull are nothing to write home about, and in addition to that, he has a 56-in-67 season at the age of 22, a good comparable to Ovechkin's 65-point season in 11/12, and a 62-in-69 season at the age of 24, which would be worse than anything by Ovechkin except for his 69-point season in 16/17. So in the end Ovechkin has two extra elite seasons on Hull.

As for the tired narrative that Bobby Hull was Bobby Hull for a whole decade, and Ovechkin declined a lot after 2010 - Bobby Hull did not start nearly as well as Ovechkin, Hull's dominant years fell between age 25 and age 29. Yes, Hull was winning Art Rosses pre-25, but Hart voters were not too impressed and voted him behind a 37-year-old Harvey.
In fact, Hull's late 20s are very much like Ovechkin's early 20s (an Art Ross, back-to-back Harts, a string of Hart nominations, several goal-scoring titles), and Hull's early 20s are very much like Ovechkin's late 20s (not the same player, but still a Hart-worthy season here and another there, some inexplicable down years).
One can still argue that Hull's peak was longer and maybe higher, but then again, Ovechkin has a meaningful longevity edge already. So they are really close.

I agree with your overall point that both players are close. I also agree that Bobby Hull had some - let's say "average" seasons at the NHL level that don't get as much criticism or spotlight as Ovechkin's seasons seem to - which isn't unusual for modern players (Crosby similarly gets nitpicked endlessly, while not always doing the same to others across era). A couple of things I wanted to say however:

1. To your first paragraph - just because both players may be close - it doesn't mean they have to be ranked back to back, or even super close. There's a lot of high quality players in the history of hockey - and its not inconceivable for two very close players to be ranked.....20 spots apart, or even 50 spots apart. If it was up to me - i'd have ranked Ovechkin higher than he ended, and Hull lower - so yes closer. I just think people obsess a bit too much at times about how close two players need to be. If me and you stand in a line one meter apart - we're still one meter apart whether there's 1 person in between us, or 20 people crammed in between us.

2. Your overall argument seems to be "through 15 NHL seasons, Hull and Ovechkin are close". I think I agree. If we agree - doesn't that put Hull ahead overall, and likely by a somewhat decent gap still - because you have to also consider WHA years? I know they aren't exactly worth as much as the NHL seasons - but they were still some great seasons that should get him some consideration. Which is my conclusion today. Hull ahead overall, mostly due to WHA. Maybe by the time Ovechkin retires, that changes - we'll see.

 

[sr edler]

What exactly is your point? Are you handicapping OV's production is some way?

Handicapping? I'm just pointing out not everything is harder in the league today, which some people in this thread seems to claim it is, and not everything was harder in the league in the 80s or 90s either. It's called nuances and context and goes both ways and in different ways. I'm also saying Ovechkin in 19–20 is a player throwing all of his eggs in the goal scoring basket, which is a factor to consider while looking at the whole picture.

Henrik Sedin led the league in assists three years in a row with 83, 75 and 67 assists. Sidney Crosby led the league in assists once with 68 assists.

This would mean, if we had an award for assists, The Gretzky, and followed strict award counting, that Sedin was simply a better passer or playmaker than Crosby, no questions asked. And quite handily too. But, if we're trying to scratch a bit more on the surface we recognize that Sedin, when he put up those seasons, had 166, 157 and 113 shots on goals respectively, i.e. he tilted way more heavily to and through line-mates for offensive production (most notably his brother and Alexandre Burrows). When his brother was injured for 19 games during the 09–10 season he was forced to re-model his game to stay effective and instead had more goals (10) than assists. As soon as Daniel came back, roles were back in place, and Henrik's assists spiked again like crazy.

I think personally, if Crosby put all of his focus on playmaking and disregarded goal scoring more or less fully, he could have pushed 80 assists in a season just like Henrik Sedin, or perhaps even 90 assists like one Joe Thornton did (who stepped away from an earlier career more balanced game with 30+ goals in Boston). And his goal scoring would have dipped a bit instead. But he didn't play like that. When he had 68 assists he also threw 259 pucks on the net.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Ovechkin is still a strong/good goal scorer, just that its value is overstated by some people and that it comes within a role related context, especially when it comes to award counting. For example, I agree Ovechkin had a strong and inspiring 2018 playoffs (after Holtby and Eller bailed the team out of game 3 against CBJ in the 1st round), I just don't think it was worthy of an (MVP) award as I think his line-mate had an even stronger performance through those playoffs.

Same way I agree there is some relative value in a 9th Rocket, but also that both Draisaitl and Pastrnak (and perhaps even Matthews) most likely would have edged out Ovechkin with a few goals if they played just like him (perhaps to the detriment of their own teams too, but that's another story).

 

[bobholly39]

You missed the part where Messier at age 35 was pacing for 50 goals until a late-season injury and finished 2nd to Mario in Hart voting. Mess was also 7th in PPG at age 36. Mario was 2nd in Hart voting, aged 35, playing half a season.
And you missed the part where Gretzky was 5th in Hart voting, aged 37, on a bad, low-scoring team.

Howe was 5th in Hart voting at age 39 and age 40, and third in scoring both those years.

Ovechkin's claim to fame as a player in his 30s is not going to be his scoring finishes or his Hart record. It's his exceptional goals totals. Fortunately, that is quite a big thing.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Ovechkin's season is the best ever for a 34 year old. I'm fully aware that i cherry picked bad seasons for Messier and Gretzky (that are hard to find) around that age, and that they have better years surrounding them.

My point was simply that - Ovechkin's season as a 34 year old is pretty great, and people shouldn't be so harsh against it because he's 18th in scoring as if that's a bad thing. I didn't see anyone criticizing Gretzky or Messier because of their off years. This isn't an off year for Ovechkin - it's a very high quality season, especially for a 34 year old - that likely earns him another top ~10 hart placement. Does it add to his legacy? Yes it does. If we're looking at goal-scoring alone, the rocket and goal total are very meaningful. If we're looking overall in an all-time sense - this season is probably worth a ~top 8-10th hart finish is my guess.

 

[sr edler]

I think personally, if Crosby put all of his focus on playmaking and disregarded goal scoring more or less fully, he could have pushed 80 assists in a season just like Henrik Sedin, or perhaps even 90 assists like one Joe Thornton did (who stepped away from an earlier career more balanced game with 30+ goals in Boston).

Uh, like 06–07 when he had 84 assists. Then when he potted 50+ goals he had less than 60 assists. Probably not because his playmaking vision magically got worsened within a couple seasons...

 

[sr edler]

I didn't see anyone criticizing Gretzky or Messier because of their off years.

Messier was bad as an overall player in Vancouver. Put up some decent point totals for his age but his overall game, and especially his famous intensity, was left behind in a locked coffin in Manhattan.

 

[daver]

Handicapping? I'm just pointing out not everything is harder in the league today, which some people in this thread seems to claim it is, and not everything was harder in the league in the 80s or 90s either. It's called nuances and context and goes both ways and in different ways. I'm also saying Ovechkin in 19–20 is a player throwing all of his eggs in the goal scoring basket, which is a factor to consider while looking at the whole picture.

Henrik Sedin led the league in assists three years in a row with 83, 75 and 67 assists. Sidney Crosby led the league in assists once with 68 assists.

This would mean, if we had an award for assists, The Gretzky, and followed strict award counting, that Sedin was simply a better passer or playmaker than Crosby, no questions asked. And quite handily too. But, if we're trying to scratch a bit more on the surface we recognize that Sedin, when he put up those seasons, had 166, 157 and 113 shots on goals respectively, i.e. he tilted way more heavily to and through line-mates for offensive production (most notably his brother and Alexandre Burrows). When his brother was injured for 19 games during the 09–10 season he was forced to re-model his game to stay effective and instead had more goals (10) than assists. As soon as Daniel came back, roles were back in place, and Henrik's assists spiked again like crazy.

I think personally, if Crosby put all of his focus on playmaking and disregarded goal scoring more or less fully, he could have pushed 80 assists in a season just like Henrik Sedin, or perhaps even 90 assists like one Joe Thornton did (who stepped away from an earlier career more balanced game with 30+ goals in Boston). And his goal scoring would have dipped a bit instead. But he didn't play like that. When he had 68 assists he also threw 259 pucks on the net.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Ovechkin is still a strong/good goal scorer, just that its value is overstated by some people and that it comes within a role related context, especially when it comes to award counting. For example, I agree Ovechkin had a strong and inspiring 2018 playoffs (after Holtby and Eller bailed the team out of game 3 against CBJ in the 1st round), I just don't think it was worthy of an (MVP) award as I think his line-mate had an even stronger performance through those playoffs.

Same way I agree there is some relative value in a 9th Rocket, but also that both Draisaitl and Pastrnak (and perhaps even Matthews) most likely would have edged out Ovechkin with a few goals if they played just like him (perhaps to the detriment of their own teams too, but that's another story).

That's what I thought. I agree with all this.

There is no denying that OV's goalscoring closes the gap between him and most other players who put up a few more points, or separates him offensively from players who put up the same points but score less goals. I say most players as I would not put Crosby, Malkin, McDavid and maybe Kane in that category; players who have proven to be great all around offensive players under different conditions. Hart voting in the 2010s seems to reflect this as he has gotten Top Ten placements over players with more points. There is also a clear example in 13/14 where his notable lack of contribution besides goalscoring placed him outside the Top 20 in Hart voting.

In an all-time sense, this edge becomes a lot less significant, if not non-existent. He gets into the Top 20 based on his goalscoring ability while others are there for other overwhelmingly impressive accomplishments.

 

[bobholly39]

Messier was bad as an overall player in Vancouver. Put up some decent point totals for his age but his overall game, and especially his famous intensity, was left behind in a locked coffin in Manhattan.

Yeah, at tail end of his career. Talking about earlier prime years though.