Ovechkin milestone thread - 850 and Beyond!

[SladeWilson23]

And here is a full breakdown on Ovechkin:

0-100 goals | 167 games
100-200 goals | 129 games
200-300 goals | 177 games
300-400 goals | 161 games
400-500 goals | 167 games
500-600 goals | 189 games
600-700 goals | 154 games

This is insane consistency.

 

[um]

1000 would mean averaging over 50 goals for the next 3 seasons. It is not happening and if it does, Ovechkin will have to be like -100 in order to get enough chances.

Obviously it’d require more than 2 more seasons. There’s no max age allowed in the NHL.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Obviously it’d require more than 2 more seasons. There’s no max age allowed in the NHL.

Obviously not, but what would the point of sticking around and being a huge liability be? Get to an arbitrary number that does not really enhance his already top-10 ever legacy?

 

[Arthur Morgan]

OV is the greatest player ever cause goals are the only thing that matter.

People who don’t understand that there are more assists than goals in a game don’t understand the value of goals.

As OV climbs toward 895 we should be on alert for serious debates about a ‘big 5’

Did I miss anything fam?

except it wont be enough to be considered big 5. sorry but u can still make arguments others can be placed above him.
he needs another cup or 2. without it he's atleast top 10 but NOT part of the big 5 sorry

 

[Hanji]

Of course modern Ovechkin would dominate 90s NHL. This is like saying the modern American military would dominate Alexander the Great.

It’s an absurd, obvious observation.

What’s equally absurd is the crowd who claims that athletes in Gretzky’s era wouldn’t respond just as well to modern training/diet/equipment. Mario Lemieux was a f***ing tank. Give him all the amenities of modern players and he would be posting Mcdavid numbers if not higher. Gretzky had to play in a much, MUCH more physical era. Give him the equipment and open ice of the modern NHL, and he’d probably score 200 points again.

This “adjusted for era” comparison is not the one way street people think it is.

The 1980s/early 90s weren't more physical than today. Dirtier perhaps, but it was more wide open. The time and space players were given back then was crazy.

 

[um]

Obviously not, but what would the point of sticking around and being a huge liability be? Get to an arbitrary number that does not really enhance his already top-10 ever legacy?

Why would he be a huge liability?He’s the best player on his team at age 37, it’s not far fetched to think he can still be a good player at 40.

Until Ovie actually declines, I’m not gonna be concerned about his little of play. For now, Russian Machine Never Breaks

except it wont be enough to be considered big 5. sorry but u can still make arguments others can be placed above him.
he needs another cup or 2. without it he's atleast top 10 but NOT part of the big 5 sorry

Agreed he’s not a part of the top 5, but it’s not because of team awards.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Why would he be a huge liability?He’s the best player on his team at age 37, it’s not far fetched to think he can still be a good player at 40.

Until Ovie actually declines, I’m not gonna be concerned about his little of play. For now, Russian Machine Never Breaks


Agreed he’s not a part of the top 5, but it’s not because of team awards.

I mean, you can have him anywhere from like 5th to 15th and it would not be ridiculous.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Why would he be a huge liability?He’s the best player on his team at age 37, it’s not far fetched to think he can still be a good player at 40.

Until Ovie actually declines, I’m not gonna be concerned about his little of play. For now, Russian Machine Never Breaks


Agreed he’s not a part of the top 5, but it’s not because of team awards.

I didnt mean that 2 more cups would 100% put him in the top 5 but it would help his argument if he lead his team to a couple more Cups. without those imo there's just not enough to warrant him being top 5.

 

[andrjusha]

I’m sure he takes other things like testosterone that help balance the negative side effects of that. I feel like everyone is on steroids.

ok, "everyone" is a keyword here, for a moment I thought you comparing OV to Ben Johnson

 

[um]

I didnt mean that 2 more cups would 100% put him in the top 5 but it would help his argument if he lead his team to a couple more Cups. without those imo there's just not enough to warrant him being top 5.

Fair enough.

Really the #5 spot is completely up for grabs. Nobody should say anyone has it locked down.

I mean, you can have him anywhere from like 5th to 15th and it would not be ridiculous.

Agreed. It’s super tight after the big 4.

 

[zappa4ever]

I didnt mean that 2 more cups would 100% put him in the top 5 but it would help his argument if he lead his team to a couple more Cups. without those imo there's just not enough to warrant him being top 5.

Connor McDavid and Raymond Bourque agree!!!

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Fair enough.

Really the #5 spot is completely up for grabs. Nobody should say anyone has it locked down.


Agreed. It’s super tight after the big 4.

problem is right now there are plenty of players that you can make a very good argument why they deserve to be there over the other options. Ovechkin when he breaks the record prob will be part of that tier. chances are we will never see a player good enough to lockdown number 5.

Connor McDavid and Raymond Bourque agree!!!

when has Bourque been ranked 5th overall? and it's too early for McDavid. guy hasn't even played 10 seasons yet.....

Im not trying to sound like a dick but I really cant think of a single time Ive ever seen Bourque ranked that high

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I get your overall point, but disagree with the last part. The physicality, wooden sticks, etc. are already baked into the numbers for that era. What we see is that in spite of these things, over a sample of thousands of games and tens of thousands of goals, overall scoring was more than 30% higher back then. Whatever disadvantages those skaters had compared to the current era were outweighed by how much worse goaltending was back then. The puck went in the net more often back then, in spite of whatever factors were working against skaters, and there's not much reason to believe Gretzky could score 200 points today. He'd still be the GOAT, though.

I just have a difficult time accepting the common claim that “new NHL better old NHL.” It’s simplistic and trivializes history. Are human beings fundamentally stronger or smarter now than they were 30 years ago? No. It’s the surrounding environment that allows human beings to play the game at a stronger, smarter pace. Therefore, it’s foolish to assume that - accounting for environment - great player X wouldn’t succeed in era Y. To what degree is an exercise in pure subjectivity.

I generally agree with the claim that Ovechkin is the greatest goal scorer of all time. But to discount Lemieux or Gretzky as goal scorers simply because “unga bunga goalie bad” is a gross oversimplification.

We’re comparing two different eras of time. Nothing is that simple.

 

[hockeykicker]

 

[innitfam]

WHAT lol

your saying OVIE dominated more than a guy who scored 200 points 5 TIMES???????????

LOL

Gretzky didnt just score goals he created them

THAT IS the dumbest thing ive ever seen posted on this forum lol

Scoring GOALS specifically, obviously.

 

[therocket9]

Gretzky has 1016 goals counting playoffs.

 

[SensFan4lyfe]

Scoring GOALS specifically, obviously

Yes but Gretzky was still better at it, so was Mario

 

[zappa4ever]

when has Bourque been ranked 5th overall? and it's too early for McDavid. guy hasn't even played 10 seasons yet.....

Im not trying to sound like a dick but I really cant think of a single time Ive ever seen Bourque ranked that high

C'mon now, [mod]
Stanley Cups are a TEAM trophy, not individual

Bourque who is arguably a Top 5/Top 3 Dman ever took 20 years and changing to a loaded TEAM to finally win the Cup,
your logic would argue against his legendary status

Everyone knows McDavid's story and how many Cups he has, what if he never gets a Cup? will he be just another Top20 fwd?

 

[innitfam]

Yes but Gretzky was still better at it, so was Mario

Ovechkin will probably beat Gretzkys goal record in fewer games, despite Gretzky playing in a much higher scoring era for the vast majority of his career.

Lemieux will still have a superior GPG to anyone in history, so I could see that argument.

 

[WarriorofTime]

he’d probably score 200 points again.

no, he wouldn't. His highest single season adjusted point total is 170, which is still amazing, but not 200.

 

[SensFan4lyfe]

Ovechkin will probably beat Gretzkys goal record in fewer games, despite Gretzky playing in a much higher scoring era for the vast majority of his career.

Lemieux will still have a superior GPG to anyone in history, so I could see that argument.

I've seen all 3 players play so i feel like i can be unbiased

Gretzky was magic he wasnt

Mario was just pure skill and amazing to watch

Ovie has a level of consistency no one will ever touch

for me he's number 3

 

[norrisnick]

except it wont be enough to be considered big 5. sorry but u can still make arguments others can be placed above him.
he needs another cup or 2. without it he's atleast top 10 but NOT part of the big 5 sorry

Bobby Hull.

 

[SensFan4lyfe]

no, he wouldn't. His highest single season adjusted point total is 170, which is still amazing, but not 200.

I mean adjusted totals mean nothing he scored 200 points 5 times

If it was so easy to do in a high scoring era every one would have done it

but they didn't

If scoring 90 goals was easy everyone would have done it

but they didnt

Gretzky did

He would find a way in this era to hit 200 points i fully believe he was that good

 

[Arthur Morgan]

C'mon now, [mod]
Stanley Cups are a TEAM trophy, not individual

Bourque who is arguably a Top 5/Top 3 Dman ever took 20 years and changing to a loaded TEAM to finally win the Cup,
your logic would argue against his legendary status

Everyone knows McDavid's story and how many Cups he has, what if he never gets a Cup? will he be just another Top20 fwd?

It matters for joining the big 4 or 5, I dunno on McDavid right now he's likely not even half way through his NHL career. he has a long way to go but if he leads his teams to multiple cups it will help his argument. as for his point totals we will have to wait and see how far he gets.

as for Bourque, legendary status or not I dont think anyone has ever argued he should be part of the big 5.

leading teams to cups matters

 

[WarriorofTime]

If scoring 90 goals was easy everyone would have done it

but they didnt

Gretzky did

what a strawman lol