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

[wetcoast]

As I said, Messier's production that year was borderline top-10 and comparable to many other forwards, including Gary Roberts who outscored him by 28 goals.

That's what a weak Hart looks like.

Once again Moose was 5th in the Art Ross Roberts was 17th.

Put another way Moose had 107 points and roberts had 90.

5th in points is 5th in points right?

Moose also played in all situations and his team increased in the standings by 20 points with his arrival.

That's not a weak Hart.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So that gives "defenseman Ovechkin" 6-8 Norris trophies despite us holding him to a higher standard - Bourque had to beat the 2nd-best defenseman to win a Norris, and Ovechkin has to beat the best one.
To put it differently, are we sure that in his worst Norris-winning season Bourque would have beaten Karlsson-2015, or Lidstrom-2008, or Lidstrom-2006, or Keith-2010? If not, Ovechkin deserves extra credit for winning his 6-8 imaginary Norris trophies.
And Bourque won only 5 of those.



1st All-star (being better than 3rd-best defenseman) and "imaginary Norris" (being better than the best defenseman) are not comparable at all.

Ovechkin winning imaginary Norris trophies?

Its over my head I guess.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So that gives "defenseman Ovechkin" 6-8 Norris trophies despite us holding him to a higher standard - Bourque had to beat the 2nd-best defenseman to win a Norris, and Ovechkin has to beat the best one.
To put it differently, are we sure that in his worst Norris-winning season Bourque would have beaten Karlsson-2015, or Lidstrom-2008, or Lidstrom-2006, or Keith-2010? If not, Ovechkin deserves extra credit for winning his 6-8 imaginary Norris trophies.

Okay. One could argue that type of comparison would make more sense if they were direct contemporaries (Bourque vs. Ovechkin’s LW/RW competition; Ovechkin vs. Bourque’s D competition - exclude both from the field). There is no overlap between Ovechkin and Bourque to exclude each other. But we can roll with this too; I have no objection here.

That would turn my guess of 8x 1st Team and 3x 2nd Team to... and optimistic 9x 1st Team (2006, 2008-2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019) and 3x 2nd Team (2007, 2016, 2020). 2012, 2014, and 2017 unrepresented.

I don’t know that too many people would agree that the field of defensemen in Ovechkin’s era were greater than the field of defensemen in Bourque’s era - particularly the mid-80s through mid-90s.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Ovechkin winning imaginary Norris trophies?

Its over my head I guess.

I don’t recall saying “imaginary” so I’m not sure why he put it in quotes.

But essentially, if the value of Ovechkin’s 2019 was held against the value of the 2019 seasons from Giordano, Burns, Carlson, Hedman, and Rielly, where would we rate Ovechkin’s season?

Hart voting wouldn’t necessarily give an accurate reading after the top few players in the league.

Could do the inverse as well (comparing Bourque to LWs), but with Ovechkin changing positions mid-career, there’s an extra variable.

 

[Fantomas]

He also joined a Rangers’ penalty kill unit that finished 13th, 14th, and 15th in the preceding years, and they immediately became the #1 penalty kill in the league. Messier scored 9 shorthanded points, while being on the ice for just 21 powerplay goals against.

Had voting trends been more similar to what we’d see later on, he’d probably get one of those star-player-is-responsible-enough nominations we so often see for 30-year-old Centers.

So... probably not in the category of players Gary Roberts was arguably better than. And probably not a season to be compared too much against 2013 Ovechkin, who was under a point-per-game for literally every day of the first 73% of the season until a hot streak in the final 13 games.

That's predictably the argument for Messier from '92. That in spite of his less-than-stellar offensive production that year, his all-around game made up the difference.

If you feel that it made up the difference that much, you're certainly welcome to it. But I don't think so.

 

[Zuluss]

That would turn my guess of 8x 1st Team and 3x 2nd Team to... and optimistic 9x 1st Team (2006, 2008-2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019) and 3x 2nd Team (2007, 2016, 2020). 2012, 2014, and 2017 unrepresented.

I don’t know that too many people would agree that the field of defensemen in Ovechkin’s era were greater than the field of defensemen in Bourque’s era - particularly the mid-80s through mid-90s.

I would quibble with 2014, because I think the main reason Ovechkin did not get attention in Hart voting was that his team did not make the PO, not his plus-minus, but it does not matter - we arrived at something close to Ovechkin's actual All-star voting record anyway. The bottom line is, he was top4-top6 in his position pretty much in all seasons; same is true about Bourque (he did have years when he was 1st All-star despite being 3rd or 4th in Norris voting, for example). Bourque's career is longer, because Ovechkin is still playing; Ovechkin had more down years in his 15 seasons.

It is more interesting to figure out how their best 6-9 years compare. Were any of the Bourque best 3 years better than any of Ovechkin's best 3? Were there years when Bourque did not win Norris, but was still better than Ovechkin in a certain year when Ovechkin was better than the best defenseman? How many such years can we find?

 

[Fantomas]

Once again Moose was 5th in the Art Ross Roberts was 17th.

Put another way Moose had 107 points and roberts had 90.

5th in points is 5th in points right?

25 goals and 107 points vs. 53 goals and 90 points is roughly comparable productivity.

It's actually becoming clear to me why you're so against Ovechkin's season in 2013. You're just looking at his 56 points, which is giving you an incomplete understanding of his offensive productivity.

 

[Regal]

Ovechkin's 12-13 Hart wasn't weak. Ovechkin led the entire league is major offensive categories. Weak Hart winners don't do that.

Even Gordie Howe won a weak Hart in 1960 (way weaker than Ovechkin) and I don't see anyone knocking him for that.

Actual weak winners would be ones like Ted Kennedy in '55 or Mark Messier in '92. People who won on reputation rather than results. That's not Ovechkin.

It's all relative though. It's doubtful that same season (prorated and relative to the league) wins the Hart in any other year of Ovechkin's career, except maybe over Perry in '11 or Hall in '18, and Hall only won because the clear best player (and better than '13 Ovechkin) didn't make the playoffs. I'd say that if it's one of the worst seasons for a Hart winner of the era, that's a relatively weak Hart. I would agree with you on Messier also being one though.

 

[wetcoast]

That's predictably the argument for Messier from '92. That in spite of his less-than-stellar offensive production that year, his all-around game made up the difference.

If you feel that it made up the difference that much, you're certainly welcome to it. But I don't think so.

Now top 10ish has dropped to this in terms of offensive production?

That's simply an absurd statement to make plain and simple.

 

[wetcoast]

25 goals and 107 points vs. 53 goals and 90 points is roughly comparable productivity.

It's actually becoming clear to me why you're so against Ovechkin's season in 2013. You're just looking at his 56 points, which is giving you an incomplete understanding of his offensive productivity.

No I have detailed why it was a very weak Hart win and it's not just about points.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I would quibble with 2014, because I think the main reason Ovechkin did not get attention in Hart voting was that his team did not make the PO, not his plus-minus, but it does not matter - we arrived at something close to Ovechkin's actual All-star voting record anyway.

I can see that, but to the extent it was held against Karlsson (74 points, -15), I would expect it to be held against Ovechkin (79 points, -35). I just think it would be weird to say Ovechkin had the value of an All-Star defenseman when Karlsson finished 7th in voting. But you’re right that missing the playoffs is also a factor in these things.

Ultimately, I’d take Ovechkin at his best (2006-2010) over Bourque at his best (1987-1991). Beyond those respective windows, I do think Bourque makes up the ground.

Outside of 1987-1991, Bourque has an additional 9x 1st Team, 5x 2nd Team to what I would assess is Ovechkin having the equivalent of 5x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team. Certainly not insurmountable that as he gets older, Ovechkin can match this. But I also don’t think he has to anyway, because like I said, his 2006-2010 is better than Bourque’s 1987-1991.

Is it so much better that I already think he’s better than Bourque? Not just yet.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ovechkin's 12-13 Hart wasn't weak. Ovechkin led the entire league is major offensive categories. Weak Hart winners don't do that.

Even Gordie Howe won a weak Hart in 1960 (way weaker than Ovechkin) and I don't see anyone knocking him for that.

Actual weak winners would be ones like Ted Kennedy in '55 or Mark Messier in '92. People who won on reputation rather than results. That's not Ovechkin.

So you had to go back to 1992 to find an example you could use as another candidate for a weak Hart. And then 1960. If you can't find more than one example from the last 59 years to place below 2013 Ovechkin in the pecking order...well, I don't blame you. They don't appear to exist.

"Led the league in a major statistical category" is the same lazy assessment used by the voters themselves. I suppose if he caught the flu and missed a couple late season games against easy marks in Florida and Tampa (5 goals) and therefore no longer led the league in goals he'd have been objectively worse? What if John Tavares got to trade a few games against the Rangers and Penguins for a few against Carolina and Winnipeg and scored 5 more, should that in any way diminish Ovechkin's performance that year?

In a way, that ties back to the original premise of the thread. Should Ovechkin's legacy be effected by whether or not David Pastrnak scored one extra goal this season? Of course not.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Now top 10ish has dropped to this in terms of offensive production?

That's simply an absurd statement to make plain and simple.

Just like in 1995-96, Messier stayed in the same cluster of players under the Pittsburgh scorers (Lemieux/Stevens in 1992) the entire season.

His rankings throughout the 1st of each month: November (8th), December (7th), January (5th), February (5th), March (6th).

When the NHL went on strike on April 1st, only Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, and Kevin Stevens had outscored Mark Messier on the year.

Obviously, they’re no 37-year-old Martin St. Louis, but people who act like Messier coasted by on his all-around reputation to a near-unanimous Hart and didn’t score a lot of points in 1991-92 in addition to that always raise red flags for me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don’t recall saying “imaginary” so I’m not sure why he put it in quotes.

But essentially, if the value of Ovechkin’s 2019 was held against the value of the 2019 seasons from Giordano, Burns, Carlson, Hedman, and Rielly, where would we rate Ovechkin’s season?

Hart voting wouldn’t necessarily give an accurate reading after the top few players in the league.

Could do the inverse as well (comparing Bourque to LWs), but with Ovechkin changing positions mid-career, there’s an extra variable.

I believe I was responding to a different poster. (Zuluss)

 

[quoipourquoi]

I believe I was responding to a different poster. (Zuluss)

Oh, I know. He was responding to a cross-positional awards comparison, which he was calling “imaginary Norris” analysis - which I don’t think would be a very good way of phrasing it, since obviously Ovechkin cannot win a Norris.

But even though a player is ineligible for a positional based award that a player from a different position can win, looking at their season relative to those ranked seasons in that different positional category can at least help get everyone on the same currency (even if the exchange rate varies from year to year).

Seeing how he had phrased it (and your reaction to his phrasing), I didn’t want the idea of such a comparison to be dismissed right away.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Oh, I know. He was responding to a cross-positional awards comparison, which he was calling “imaginary Norris” analysis - which I don’t think would be a very good way of phrasing it, since obviously Ovechkin cannot win a Norris.

But even though a player is ineligible for a positional based award that a player from a different position can win, looking at their season relative to those ranked seasons in that different positional category can at least help get everyone on the same currency (even if the exchange rate varies from year to year).

Seeing how he had phrased it (and your reaction to his phrasing), I didn’t want the idea of such a comparison to be dismissed right away.

OK, thanks.

Now about those exchange rates.....is that Russian rubles to Canadian dollars?

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's the same as unicorns to leprechauns...

 

[The Panther]

This is circular logic. Your assessment of those players is almost entirely based on their placements relative to each other and the talent that existed at that time.

Except this forum makes leaps to assert that Canada with a population of 11 million people put out just as much talent as today's 36M Canada plus the hockey playing population growth in a bunch of other countries. It defies logic.

Likewise, you keep ignoring the facts that
(a) When Bourque started in the NHL, there were about 240 fewer available NHL jobs than in recent years (thereby eliminating your 'talent pool' argument); and
(b) Bourque's final 1st-team All Star selection was three years before Ovechkin was drafted.

 

[The Panther]

Actual weak winners would be ones like Ted Kennedy in '55 or Mark Messier in '92. People who won on reputation rather than results. That's not Ovechkin.

The hot takes just keep comin' on the History Forum these days!

Messier's almost-unanimous Hart win in '92 was "weak" and "on reputation rather than results". I guess we'll just ignore than the Rangers suddenly leaping 20 points in the standings, over the Cup-champion Penguins, to finish 1st overall for the first time anyone alive could remember.

(I agree that 2013 Ovechkin is not a 'weak' Hart finalist, but your sad attempt to downgrade historical players to make your points is bad karma.)

 

[The Panther]

25 goals and 107 points vs. 53 goals and 90 points is roughly comparable productivity.

Messier scored 35 goals that season.

Again, denigrating historical players is not helping you make your point about Ovechkin (which I otherwise agree with). It is making you look not very knowledgeable about hockey history. (For example, you don't seem to be aware that Hart trophy is not the Art Ross.)

 

[Zuluss]

Ultimately, I’d take Ovechkin at his best (2006-2010) over Bourque at his best (1987-1991). Beyond those respective windows, I do think Bourque makes up the ground.

Outside of 1987-1991, Bourque has an additional 9x 1st Team, 5x 2nd Team to what I would assess is Ovechkin having the equivalent of 5x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team. Certainly not insurmountable that as he gets older, Ovechkin can match this. But I also don’t think he has to anyway, because like I said, his 2006-2010 is better than Bourque’s 1987-1991.

I think the most interesting thing to consider here is that defensemen age better, at least going off the awards they tend to get in their post-30 years. Maybe part of that is that Norris and defensemen All-star votes are based on reputation more than hard numbers; it is also true that the skill set defensemen need is not that age-dependent. But in any case it seems that in this sort of "All-star" comparison forwards are shortchanged just because they are forwards.

Take Jagr and Lidstrom as an example: Lidstrom has 10x 1st All-star team, 2x 2nd All-star team; Jagr, as a winger, has 7x 1st All-star team, 1x 2nd All-star team, and I do not think he ever came 3rd or 4th in voting, so it is likely that if we scramble for additional seasons when Jagr was better than 4th-best defenseman, we will come back with nothing. When would that be - 1993/94? 2001/02? 2006/07?

I think you said on the previous page that you think Sakic was better than Lidstrom - can you find 10 seasons when Sakic was better than the best defenseman in the league? Even if we dig deep and take all the years when Sakic finished top4 in All-star voting as a C, we have 9 such seasons (and no, it is not about Sakic losing to Lemieux and Gretzky: he finished behind Zhamnov, Modano, Oates, Francis in different years).

And then Chelios sticks around forever and gets on 1st All-star team as a 40-year-old (and as a 33-year-old, and as a 34-year-old).

So it seems like counting All-star team appearances overvalues defensemen as compared to forwards, and probably by a lot.

There are smaller points to make as well: for example, "9 1st All-star teams outside of the peak years" sounds like overselling Bourque, because in two years early on Norris voters dissented and once did not even nominate him. Also, Ovechkin's off-peak 2014/15 and probably 2012/13 can well be better than any of those off-peak all-star team finishes by Bourque.

 

[sr edler]

Just like in 1995-96, Messier stayed in the same cluster of players under the Pittsburgh scorers (Lemieux/Stevens in 1992) the entire season.

His rankings throughout the 1st of each month: November (8th), December (7th), January (5th), February (5th), March (6th).

When the NHL went on strike on April 1st, only Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, and Kevin Stevens had outscored Mark Messier on the year.

Obviously, they’re no 37-year-old Martin St. Louis, but people who act like Messier coasted by on his all-around reputation to a near-unanimous Hart and didn’t score a lot of points in 1991-92 in addition to that always raise red flags for me.

Messier still only had 5 more points on the season than his own defenseman. I'm not trying to diminish his season, it was strong, but I think Messier's reputation certainly helped him to not split votes with Leetch. Messier dated Madonna and his ego filled a pop cultural hole in New York after the deaths of Andy Warhol & Jean-Michel Basquiat. If you had another less reputable player with less of a media love affair senior edler suspects some kind of vote splitting might have occurred. I don't think Ovi's that player though, who would have necessarily split votes with Leetch, because Ovi's also popular with the media & Hart voters.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Ovechkin should have three Harts given his level of play, but it should be 2008, 2009, and 2010. He wins the 2010 Hart if not for poor luck and he doesn't win the 2013 Hart without a lot of good luck. The number of Ovechkin's Harts turned out right but the 2013 Hart was clearly quite weak.

Let's look at all of Ovechkin's Hart top-3 finishes.

2008: Malkin led Crosby-less Penguins to a 2nd place finish. Ovechkin scored 65 goals and won the AS as well. He would have had my vote, but it is not the slam dunk many people think it was. Malkin would have been a very deserving winning too.

2009: Malkin wins the Art Ross, leads the league in scoring in the playoffs and wins the CS. The Hart is a regular season award, but 2009 was the Malkin show from start to finish. He would have had my vote for the RS only.

2010: Three-man race that Ovechkin could easily have won without the suspension, sure. But he was not alone in the race either.

2013: Brooks Orpik won him that Hart trophy. Crosby was on his way to sweeping all of the awards when Orpik hurt him. Crosby should still have won it, IMO. I understand why he did not though.

2015: Price won in a landslide as he should have.

He has 3 Harts and as you said, it seems like the "right" number.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier still only had 5 more points on the season than his own defenseman. I'm not trying to diminish his season, it was strong, but I think Messier's reputation certainly helped him to not split votes with Leetch. Messier dated Madonna and his ego filled a pop cultural hole in New York after the deaths of Andy Warhol & Jean-Michel Basquiat. If you had another less reputable player with less of a media love affair senior edler suspects some kind of vote splitting might have occurred. I don't think Ovi's that player though, who would have necessarily split votes with Leetch, because Ovi's also popular with the media & Hart voters.

Lemieux and Stevens (8 points; 9 primary points), Gretzky and Robitaille (14 points; 6 primary points), Hull and Oates (10 points; 10 primary points) weren’t far off from each other either. Messier had 82 primary points to Leetch’s 62, and while Leetch was down from his 1991 numbers where more than half of his point totals were powerplay assists, they still were a huge chunk of his points. I don’t exactly think the voters made a mistake in recognizing Messier over Leetch.

I’m sure the voters could have gone with a player who didn’t have an also-totally-great complimentary player, and with Patrick Roy and Brett Hull (who lost Oates later in the season to a trade) picking up the other nominations, I don’t know that they didn’t do that to an extent.

 

[K Fleur]

It's the same as unicorns to leprechauns...