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

[quoipourquoi]

Not discounting them at all dude. Literally only talking about best 34-year old season (goalscoring wise). Hence, I don't give a shit about seasons that are not 34-year old seasons, because I was never talking about that.

Jagr turned 34 just before the Olympics in the 2005-06 season where he scored 54 goals. Does that count, or does the player have to be 34-years-old exactly the entire year?

He was 133 days out from his 34th birthday, whereas the following season, he was already 232 days deep into his birthday. Ovechkin started this season 15 days into being 34, so in terms of starting points, 2005-06 Jagr was 148 days younger and 2006-07 Jagr was 217 days older.

I suppose we wouldn’t count 2005-06 Jagr even though he’s technically closer in age to 2019-20 Ovechkin.

 

[Sentinel]

Jagr turned 34 just before the Olympics in the 2005-06 season where he scored 54 goals. Does that count, or does the player have to be 34-years-old exactly the entire year?

He was 133 days out from his 34th birthday, whereas the following season, he was already 232 days deep into his birthday. Ovechkin started this season 15 days into being 34, so in terms of starting points, 2005-06 Jagr was 148 days younger and 2006-07 Jagr was 217 days older.

I suppose we wouldn’t count 2005-06 Jagr even though he’s technically closer in age to 2019-20 Ovechkin.

And Jagr didn't even win the Richard that year. The Thornton-Cheechoo combo did.

 

[daver]

I agree that Ovechkin didn't quite hit Hull's peak. That being said, he wasn't wildly off it either. Early career Ovechkin is pretty far up the ladder.

Ovechkin's argument is going to be more about holding an elite level of production over a stupidly long period. At Ovechkin's age, Hull was several years removed from being the NHL's dominant goal scorer, and he had just moved to the WHA where he would have increasingly uneven performances in an increasingly inferior environment. Of course he was still an elite scorer -- but he had become part of "the pack" rather than the man.

At this same age, Ovechkin just wrapped up his 7th Rocket in 8 years. He had outscored Pastrnak 24-19 since the New Year and was likely robbed by COVID of a clear-cut margin of victory. In any case, the goal titles are now 9 to 7... that's a gap, and the gap stands to grow if Ovechkin somehow maintains this level even longer. The difference in peak is still important, but not as important as it used to be.

Hull's last three seasons: age 30 - 32:

NHL.com Stats

Clearly the 3rd best player, 2nd best goalscorer and some would perhaps take him over Espo.

OV's age 30 to 32:

NHL.com Stats

Best goalscorer, Top 5ish player

 

[Sentinel]

Hull's last three seasons: age 30 - 32:

NHL.com Stats

Clearly the 3rd best player, 2nd best goalscorer and some would perhaps take him over Espo.

OV's age 30 to 32:

NHL.com Stats

Best goalscorer, Top 5ish player

Again, consider the teammates.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Hull's last three seasons: age 30 - 32:

NHL.com Stats

Clearly the 3rd best player, 2nd best goalscorer and some would perhaps take him over Espo.

OV's age 30 to 32:

NHL.com Stats

Best goalscorer, Top 5ish player

You're comparing 4 seasons to 3, and it happens to be placed precisely so that the weakest season of Ovechkin's career is in the middle of the 3.

If you compare 4 seasons to 4 (apples to apples) Ovechkin rises 3 spots on the points list and suddenly has a 21% leading margin in goal scoring. As opposed to being 23% behind the leader.

 

[MadLuke]

Not in terms of domination vs. his peers. These numbers, not surprisingly, do not pass the eye test given adjusting methods are very faulty.

It depend how you define domination, take Ovechkin vs Lemieux 88-89 season

Ovechkin 65 goal
vs Rest of the top 10 scorer
Average: 44.22
Stddev: 4.41

Lemieux 85 goal
vs Rest of the top 10 scorer
Average: 53.67
Stddev: 8.25

Ovechkin scored 4.712 standard deviation above the top 10 average, Lemieux 3.8 times.

Ovechkin had 25% more goal than #2, Lemieux was 21.5% above number 2.

Ovechkin was 47% above their average, Lemieux 58% above their average, Ovechkin did that separation vs the top 10 in a 30 team league, Lemieux in a 21 team league, it is imo certainly in conversation to be has dominant vs is peer.

Hull do look to have been more dominant over is peer is 86 goal season and he is over on that list.

 

[daver]

It depend how you define domination, take Ovechkin vs Lemieux 88-89 season

Ovechkin 65 goal
vs Rest of the top 10 scorer
Average: 44.22
Stddev: 4.41

Lemieux 85 goal
vs Rest of the top 10 scorer
Average: 53.67
Stddev: 8.25

Ovechkin scored 4.712 standard deviation above the top 10 average, Lemieux 3.8 times.

Ovechkin had 25% more goal than #2, Lemieux was 21.5% above number 2.

Ovechkin was 47% above their average, Lemieux 58% above their average, Ovechkin did that separation vs the top 10 in a 30 team league, Lemieux in a 21 team league, it is imo certainly in conversation to be has dominant vs is peer.

Hull do look to have been more dominant over is peer is 86 goal season and he is over on that list.

Best to look at the GPG of the other Top Ten scorers.

Gretzky, Bobby Hull, Richard, Howe? OV's best season is solidly Top Ten. Wayne, and the two Hulls have clearly more dominant seasons.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

Was curious to see how Ovechkin would look compared to Bobby Hull if you remove all non-Canadian players. Take what you will from it but there are definitely similarities. Keep in mind that the size of the league was ~150-200 throughout Hull's career while there were over 800 during Ovechkin's career.

Season	Goals	Assists	Points
05/06	2nd	9th	2nd
06/07	3rd	20th	10th
07/08	1st	16th	1st
08/09	1st	6th	1st
09/10	3rd	4th	1st
10/11	10th	3rd	5th
11/12	3rd	~54th	20th
12/13	1st	23rd	3rd
13/14	1st	~59th	7th
14/15	1st	~50-60	4th
15/16	1st	~90th	6th
16/17	4th	21st	8th
17/18	1st	29th	6th
18/19	1st	34th	9th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

19/20

1st

~90-100

6th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Season	Goals	Assists	Points
57/58	37th	12th	20th
58/59	26th	17th	21st
59/60	1st	5th	1st
60/61	5th	30th	13th
61/62	1st	15th	1st
62/63	6th	16th	9th
63/64	1st	6th	2nd
64/65	2nd	11th	4th
65/66	1st	5th	1st
66/67	1st	18th	2nd
67/68	1st	30th	6th
68/69	1st	6th	2nd
69/70	4th	42nd	15th
70/71	3rd	6th	5th
71/72	2nd	20th	7th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[daver]

You're comparing 4 seasons to 3, and it happens to be placed precisely so that the weakest season of Ovechkin's career is in the middle of the 3.

If you compare 4 seasons to 4 (apples to apples) Ovechkin rises 3 spots on the points list and suddenly has a 21% leading margin in goal scoring. As opposed to being 23% behind the leader.

Sorry meant 69/70 to 71/72 for Hull.

And Hull brought more playmaking to his game than OV did so looking at just goal totals is an incomplete picture.

Hull has the clear best season between the two, and the clear best goalscoring season between the two if that's all you want to consider.

Hull was much more a consistently elite overall point producer than OV in both the regular season and the playoffs. OV reasonable carries a lack of defensive game around his neck for most of his career.

I don't see him among the very best of the 2nd tier forwards.

 

[Sentinel]

Hull has the clear best season between the two, and the clear best goalscoring season between the two if that's all you want to consider.

Hull was much more a consistently elite overall point producer than OV in both the regular season and the playoffs. OV reasonable carries a lack of defensive game around his neck for most of his career.

I don't see him among the very best of the 2nd tier forwards.

Again: how is Hull's best season better than Ovechkin's? In both points and goals.

I suspect the real reason here is that "Ovechkin > Hull" clause makes certain Sidney Crosby look bad.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Sorry meant 69/70 to 71/72 for Hull.

And Hull brought more playmaking to his game than OV did so looking at just goal totals is an incomplete picture.

Hull has the clear best season between the two, and the clear best goalscoring season between the two if that's all you want to consider.

Hull was much more a consistently elite overall point producer than OV in both the regular season and the playoffs. OV reasonable carries a lack of defensive game around his neck for most of his career.

I don't see him among the very best of the 2nd tier forwards.

I would agree that Hull's very best performances were slightly higher than Ovechkin's very best performances. Again, Ovechkin's argument is that he sustained an elite (as in, continuously winning Rockets and ASs) level of play for longer. That gap is just emerging... final rankings are going to depend on just how big the gap gets.

The highest compliment I've ever seen about Hull defensively is that he was willing to come back and play defense if the coach explicitly told him to stop floating. Comparing Hull to Ovechkin defensively is like comparing Subban and Karlsson defensively.

 

[abo9]

To me, he is the Cristiano Ronaldo of hockey. One-dimensional players who can score a lot of goals but provide little else especially as they have aged. Now, CR has proven to be a huge winner and leader, moreso than Ovi whose NT record is horrible while CR has a great one, but the parallel is still there. Crosby is still better, and so is Messi.

How is Ovy a one-dimensional hockey player? The guy at the very least is a great physical presence, and arguably an all-around offensive threat. How much more could he contribute to not be regarded as one-dimensional? He's #1 in goals scored, 18th in points.

To me, he's certainly cementing his case as the best goal scorer in the history of the NHL. I value relative position to peers more so than point totals when comparing across generations, because point totals can be indicative of a higher or lower scoring era/season. And Ovy's led his peers 9 times. It's crazy

 

[Michael Farkas]

"All-around offensive threat" relative to the all time greats we are and should be talking about? Or "all-around offensive threat" compared to, say, Tyler Kennedy...?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Between the age of 26 and 34, Ovechkin has exactly 3 out of 9 seasons with +30 assists. (12-13 was a shortened season so that can be excused, but still 3 out of 8...)

 

[Sentinel]

Between the age of 26 and 34, Ovechkin has exactly 3 out of 9 seasons with +30 assists. (12-13 was a shortened season so that can be excused, but still 3 out of 8...)

So what? He still has 600+ assists total.

After 1987-88 Gretzky scored more than 41 goals exactly ONCE in 12 seasons. I guess he was not a great player anymore.

 

[HF007]

It’s adding to the consistency and longevity chapter of his career, further growing his legend

 

[HF007]

Between the age of 26 and 34, Ovechkin has exactly 3 out of 9 seasons with +30 assists. (12-13 was a shortened season so that can be excused, but still 3 out of 8...)

Let’s make the best goal scorer of all time pass more

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Was curious to see how Ovechkin would look compared to Bobby Hull if you remove all non-Canadian players. Take what you will from it but there are definitely similarities. Keep in mind that the size of the league was ~150-200 throughout Hull's career while there were over 800 during Ovechkin's career.

Season	Goals	Assists	Points
05/06	2nd	9th	2nd
06/07	3rd	20th	10th
07/08	1st	16th	1st
08/09	1st	6th	1st
09/10	3rd	4th	1st
10/11	10th	3rd	5th
11/12	3rd	~54th	20th
12/13	1st	23rd	3rd
13/14	1st	~59th	7th
14/15	1st	~50-60	4th
15/16	1st	~90th	6th
16/17	4th	21st	8th
17/18	1st	29th	6th
18/19	1st	34th	9th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

19/20

1st

~90-100

6th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Season	Goals	Assists	Points
57/58	37th	12th	20th
58/59	26th	17th	21st
59/60	1st	5th	1st
60/61	5th	30th	13th
61/62	1st	15th	1st
62/63	6th	16th	9th
63/64	1st	6th	2nd
64/65	2nd	11th	4th
65/66	1st	5th	1st
66/67	1st	18th	2nd
67/68	1st	30th	6th
68/69	1st	6th	2nd
69/70	4th	42nd	15th
70/71	3rd	6th	5th
71/72	2nd	20th	7th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hope the certain clowns in this thread read this. "OV didn't stay near the top scorers for as long as Hull". Yeah no shit, because he was competing against the world and 100x the player pool. The fact that his resume is so close to Hull in this age should push him ahead.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

OV's been a scrub since he fell off his peak! Hart, hart runner up, bunch of top 10 finishes, smythe.

OV can't get it done in the playoffs! 1st in GPG and 3rd in PPG for this era. Season playoff goal record.

Kopitar > OV lmaoooo. Do you people not get embarrassed by the bs you say?

 

[daver]

I would agree that Hull's very best performances were slightly higher than Ovechkin's very best performances. Again, Ovechkin's argument is that he sustained an elite (as in, continuously winning Rockets and ASs) level of play for longer. That gap is just emerging... final rankings are going to depend on just how big the gap gets.

Here is how I would rate their best 11 seasons. I do give some consideration to the fact they played in different league sizes which makes comparing Top 3, 5, 10 finishes a bit tricky.

1. Hull 65-66
2. OV 07-08/Hull 61-62
3. OV 08-09/OV 09-10/Hull 63-64/Hull 66-67, Hull 68-69
4. Hull 59-60
5. Hull 64-65/OV 05-06/OV 12-13
6. Hull 67-68/OV 14-15
7. Hull 70-71/Hull 69-70/Hull 71-72/OV 15-16/OV 17-18/OV 18-19/OV 19-20
8. OV 05/06

Add these up placings: Hull - 48, OV - 60

Hull has a clear edge in their high end seasons and a clear edge in their respective playoff resumes.

Hull was a better all around offensive talent than OV was and has enough significant accomplishments to offset any closing of that gap by OV compiling NHL goals.

 

[daver]

Let’s make the best goal scorer of all time pass more

So how was Hull able to rack up higher assist placings while also being the league's most dominant goalscorer?

Nothing wrong with acknowledging OV has been a designated triggerman for quite awhile now. Nothing wrong with placing value on his contribution but clearly a number of players bring more value with a better all around offensive game.

Look no further than OV's Hart and Lindsay showings since 2013/14 to see how much value is placed on his goalscoring.

 

[danincanada]

Hope the certain clowns in this thread read this. "OV didn't stay near the top scorers for as long as Hull". Yeah no shit, because he was competing against the world and 100x the player pool. The fact that his resume is so close to Hull in this age should push him ahead.

100x is a big exaggeration but I agree with your point. One guy played his prime in what was essentially a 6 team all Canadian league, with that Canadian talent coming from pre-baby boom Canada with its small population and birth rate. The other guy played in a 30+ team NHL with all the nations we have now feeding the league.

...and some are still doing peer to peer comparisons as if it’s apples to apples? Makes no sense.

If a fan of Soviet hockey came into this section and told everyone a Soviet great who only played in the RSL was better than an NHL great simply because he dominated his peers more at the time, how would that go over? Why is it okay to do it with the O6 guys? Cause of the NHL name? Cause they are Canadian? I don’t get it.

Someone show me another example where a domestic league is valued just as much, and more by some, as an international league like it is now. Forget the NHL name, it’s two very different leagues. One has far more talent overall and more opportunities for guys to stand out because of all the rosters spots. The other has 6 teams with a top line each and is really only composed of Canadians.

If it’s close for a peer to peer comparison how could Hull possibly eek out the win here?

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

100x is a big exaggeration but I agree with your point. One guy played his prime in what was essentially a 6 team all Canadian league, with that Canadian talent coming from pre-baby boom Canada with its small population and birth rate. The other guy played in a 30+ team NHL with all the nations we have now feeding the league.

...and some are still doing peer to peer comparisons as if it’s apples to apples? Makes no sense.

If a fan of Soviet hockey came into this section and told everyone a Soviet great who only played in the RSL was better than an NHL great simply because he dominated his peers more at the time, how would that go over? Why is it okay to do it with the O6 guys? Cause of the NHL name? Cause they are Canadian? I don’t get it.

Someone show me another example where a domestic league is valued just as much, and more by some, as an international league like it is now. Forget the NHL name, it’s two very different leagues. One has far more talent overall and more opportunities for guys to stand out because of all the rosters spots. The other has 6 teams with a top line each and is really only composed of Canadians.

If it’s close for a peer to peer comparison how could Hull possibly eek out the win here?

Although there are some reasonable posters, the majority of the HoH is so ridiculously biased towards O6 and pre O6 players. I mean they put a guy like Frank Nighbor top 20 all time. Has anyone seen him play? No. His career ended in 1930, before anyone on here was even born. Just going off of random newspaper articles and stuff. Yeah some dude from 1900 playing 20 games a year that no one alive ever saw play, he's definitely above OV, Messier, etc because the newspaper said so.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Although there are some reasonable posters, the majority of the HoH is so ridiculously biased towards O6 and pre O6 players. I mean they put a guy like Frank Nighbor top 20 all time. Has anyone seen him play? No. His career ended in 1930, before anyone on here was even born. Just going off of random newspaper articles and stuff. Yeah some dude from 1900 playing 20 games a year that no one alive ever saw play, he's definitely above OV, Messier, etc because the newspaper said so.

This post is nearly a perfect illustration of how recency bias works. Thank you for posting it on a board devoted to history.

 

[NyQuil]

This post is nearly a perfect illustration of how recency bias works. Thank you for posting it on a board devoted to history.

Don’t worry, 90 years from now, Ovechkin will get the respect afforded someone who is old.