Ovechkin Milestone Thread - Countdown to 894

[DaaaaB's]

Indeed, approximately 42% and falling, as opposed to 96%+ in Hull's day, and that small country has doubled in size since Hull's time in the NHL.

So yeah, Ovechkin is facing far superior competition, while stacking up against said competition equally or better.

There is no rational basis for Hull over Ovechkin.

Well, I'm not arguing that Hull was better than Ovechkin but you can only compare players on how they did in their era. That other stuff you mention is irrelevant. There's obviously way more players now but way more teams too. Plus if Hull trained the way current players do then who knows how many goals he would've scored. That's also irrelevant when comparing players from different era's though.

 

[sr edler]

Indeed, approximately 42% and falling, as opposed to 96%+ in Hull's day, and that small country has doubled in size since Hull's time in the NHL.

Canada's population growing is irrelevant to the question if the numbers of organized hockey players isn't growing. If you can't even understand such a basic thing then it's completely hopeless and futile to even attempt having a discussion with you on said topic.

Plus if Hull trained the way current players do then who knows how many goals he would've scored.

Bobby Hull was ripped beyond belief and in excellent physical shape. Go and watch his forearms on Google image search, they are obscene.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Canada's population growing is irrelevant to the question if the numbers of organized hockey players isn't growing. If you can't even understand such a basic thing then it's completely hopeless and futile to even attempt having a discussion with you on said topic.

The assumption - on your part - is that extremely talented athletes are foregoing the chance of a multi-million dollar career. More than likely, the people not playing are the ones who had lesser talent to begin with.

Any which way, you don't have a point. Even if Canada's hockey participation is flat, and even if you assume high end talent lost is proportionately to the overall numbers (which is absurd), hockey today still encompasses a minimum of twice as much talent as in Hull's day.

 

[sr edler]

The assumption - on your part - is that extremely talented athletes are foregoing the chance of a multi-million dollar career.

There are other sports than hockey. Canada's seen substantial immigration to their country from people who in general are more interested in other sports, such as soccer for instance. If you've noticed their national soccer team's become way better lately.

Also, hockey's become largely a rich man's sport for brats. It doesn't sponge the same amount of talent from the deeper population layers anymore.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Also, hockey's become largely a rich man's sport for brats. It doesn't sponge the same amount of talent from the deeper population layers anymore.

It’s easily the most expensive of the big sports.

 

[wetcoast]

There are other sports than hockey. Canada's seen substantial immigration to their country from people who in general are more interested in other sports, such as soccer for instance. If you've noticed their national soccer team's become way better lately.

Also, hockey's become largely a rich man's sport for brats. It doesn't sponge the same amount of talent from the deeper population layers anymore.

Still there are points to be made here as the 2 coasts, primarily British Columbia and Nova scotia have their best players more recently when in the past they had basically very little to no impact NHL players.

But it's far from a perfect science to indicate what level of talent was playing at certain times it's an educated guess.

 

[Javaman]

There are other sports than hockey. Canada's seen substantial immigration to their country from people who in general are more interested in other sports, such as soccer for instance. If you've noticed their national soccer team's become way better lately.

Also, hockey's become largely a rich man's sport for brats. It doesn't sponge the same amount of talent from the deeper population layers anymore.

1. As someone who is a teacher in metropolitan Vancouver, my observation is that there's little-to-no interest in hockey from the younger generation. The majority of my students couldn't identify the current Stanley Cup champion if their life depended on it.

2. My wife has worked in the hospitality industry for nearly three decades and has dealt with innumerable hockey tournaments during that time. Without a doubt, hockey parents are the absolute worst type of customer to deal with. "Brats" is probably an understatement, but it's definitely exacerbated by parents who have the privilege of spending thousands of dollars per year putting their children through minor hockey in the extremely faint hope they might succeed as a professional.

 

[paracord]

Okay so then Gretzky *only* has twice as many MVPs, and they're still not remotely close.

Haha, not "remotely close" while Lemieux is literally the only other player in NHL history who IS remotely close to Gretzky's scoring paces for seasons and for per-game numbers in a career.

Lemieux took the mantle of best in the world from Gretzky while Gretzky was still in his prime and his 1992 season with 160 point in 60 games is arguably the best scoring performance in history.

You keep confusing "awards" with actually watching people play.

No sane, rational human being could watch Lemieux and Gretzky play at their peaks and think they aren't AT LEAST equals, and probably with Mario possessing greater physical talents.

 

[Dallas Winston]

Haha, not "remotely close" while Lemieux is literally the only other player in NHL history who IS remotely close to Gretzky's scoring paces for seasons and for per-game numbers in a career.

Lemieux took the mantle of best in the world from Gretzky while Gretzky was still in his prime and his 1992 season with 160 point in 60 games is arguably the best scoring performance in history.

You keep confusing "awards" with actually watching people play.

No sane, rational human being could watch Lemieux and Gretzky play at their peaks and think they aren't AT LEAST equals, and probably with Mario possessing greater physical talents.

Lemieux outscored prime Gretzky by 31 points in 2 less games. That alone shows how damn good Mario was

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Love a good Lemieux vs. Gretzky argument in an Ovechkin thread.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Haha, not "remotely close" while Lemieux is literally the only other player in NHL history who IS remotely close to Gretzky's scoring paces for seasons and for per-game numbers in a career.

Lemieux took the mantle of best in the world from Gretzky while Gretzky was still in his prime and his 1992 season with 160 point in 60 games is arguably the best scoring performance in history.

You keep confusing "awards" with actually watching people play.

No sane, rational human being could watch Lemieux and Gretzky play at their peaks and think they aren't AT LEAST equals, and probably with Mario possessing greater physical talents.

The entire purpose of being the best player is to provide more value to one's team. It's not to prove that you could have, but then not do it.

Lemieux contributed far less to his team than Gretzky. There is no debate to be had on this point. Gretzky has more assists than Lemieux has points, while also being the all-time goals leader. Putting the two of them on the same tier is a disaster of an opinion, but certainly you are entitled to it.

 

[TooManyHumans]

Love a good Lemieux vs. Gretzky argument in an Ovechkin thread.

It is better than the normal argument in these threads.

 

[ottawa]

8g in 19 games won't cut it if he wants to break the record

 

[M2Beezy]

8g in 19 games won't cut it if he wants to break the record

He will be back. The greatests have their slumps too. Imagine a 35 goal pace being a 36 year old players slump

Man I love this player

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Love a good Lemieux vs. Gretzky argument in an Ovechkin thread.

Just shows how fantastic Ovi is

 

[DRW895]

Go Alex, go! It`s time to save Washington from disgrace like Boston had with missing 2 playoffs on a thin ice in 2015 & 2016

 

[paracord]

The entire purpose of being the best player is to provide more value to one's team. It's not to prove that you could have, but then not do it.

Lemieux contributed far less to his team than Gretzky. There is no debate to be had on this point. Gretzky has more assists than Lemieux has points, while also being the all-time goals leader. Putting the two of them on the same tier is a disaster of an opinion, but certainly you are entitled to it.

Okay, so then Emmitt Smith is better than Jim Brown Barry Sanders.

In fact, the person with the most _________ is better than the person with less __________

Don't you think there's a little more nuance?

No one is arguing that Wayne Gretzky had the most productive career of all time. When we talk about "best" though, I'd think most people look at it more in terms of "peak level."

Mario scored more goals per game than Gretzky. He's 2nd all time to him in assists. His peak level of dominance, in my opinion, is greater than Gretzky's peak. He was able to do everything Gretzky did, plus things Gretzky couldn't.

It's hard to figure any logic that would say "Mario is overrated," or that they aren't within a whisker of one another on anything other than career totals in statistics.

 

[Dominance]

Ovie will likely finish 1st in goals, inside the top 50 in assists and close to, if not inside, the top 10 in points. I don’t think it’s “too one dimensional” to be the #1 goal scorer of all time and still inside the top 50 for assists of all time.

He and Crosby will likely both finish top-5 all-time in adjusted point scoring. They will end their careers as indisputable top-10 players of all time.

 

[daver]

He and Crosby will likely both finish top-5 all-time in adjusted point scoring. They will end their careers as indisputable top-10 players of all time.

Crosby is there already, if OV isn't there now, he likely will never be. Too many seasons where he wasn't a Top 10 player for the season despite his goal totals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Okay, so then Emmitt Smith is better than Jim Brown Barry Sanders.

In fact, the person with the most _________ is better than the person with less __________

Don't you think there's a little more nuance?

No one is arguing that Wayne Gretzky had the most productive career of all time. When we talk about "best" though, I'd think most people look at it more in terms of "peak level."

Mario scored more goals per game than Gretzky. He's 2nd all time to him in assists. His peak level of dominance, in my opinion, is greater than Gretzky's peak. He was able to do everything Gretzky did, plus things Gretzky couldn't.

It's hard to figure any logic that would say "Mario is overrated," or that they aren't within a whisker of one another on anything other than career totals in statistics.

Mario had 1 peak season that is on par with Gretzky's 5 best seasons. Maybe 2. But then the best 3 seasons after that are also Gretzky's. Put another way, if we ranked their combined 13 best seasons, 9 of them would be Gretzky's. It would be something like this:

1. Lemieux '89
2. Gretzky '82
3. Gretzky '84
4. Gretzky '85
5. Lemieux '96
6. Gretzky '86
7. Gretzky '83
8. Gretzky '87
9. Lemieux '88
10. Lemieux '93
11. Gretzky '91
12. Gretzky '89
13. Gretzky '81

Peak Mario is arguably equal to peak Gretzky in terms of per-game offensive output, and only for stints of 1 season at a time, but mostly less than that. Gretzky sustained those totals many more times. Sustaining peak totals in hockey is frigging hard! It's tremendously valuable to a team. And that's the huge gaping inescapable gap in your logic that utterly disconnects it from reality.

Emmitt Smith never touched the peak of Barry Sanders. Like, not even close, so that comparison is very bad. Smith's longevity vs Sanders's peak is a good argument because there is a trade off. The discrepancy in both metrics is large.

With Lemieux and Gretzky, there is no trade off. Peaks are, at best (for Lemieux) basically equal, while Gretzky achieved far superior results in the long run.

There is simply no rational basis to have Lemieux equal.

 

[ZenOil]

There are other sports than hockey. Canada's seen substantial immigration to their country from people who in general are more interested in other sports, such as soccer for instance. If you've noticed their national soccer team's become way better lately.

Also, hockey's become largely a rich man's sport for brats. It doesn't sponge the same amount of talent from the deeper population layers anymore.

Winter sports are all a rich mans game.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Winter sports are all a rich mans game.

Is that why nobody ever asked me to go luging? Is that also why a fairly chubby white dude can prevail at the skeleton?

 

[paracord]

Mario had 1 peak season that is on par with Gretzky's 5 best seasons. Maybe 2. But then the best 3 seasons after that are also Gretzky's. Put another way, if we ranked their combined 13 best seasons, 9 of them would be Gretzky's. It would be something like this:

1. Lemieux '89
2. Gretzky '82
3. Gretzky '84
4. Gretzky '85
5. Lemieux '96
6. Gretzky '86
7. Gretzky '83
8. Gretzky '87
9. Lemieux '88
10. Lemieux '93
11. Gretzky '91
12. Gretzky '89
13. Gretzky '81

Peak Mario is arguably equal to peak Gretzky in terms of per-game offensive output, and only for stints of 1 season at a time, but mostly less than that. Gretzky sustained those totals many more times. Sustaining peak totals in hockey is frigging hard! It's tremendously valuable to a team. And that's the huge gaping inescapable gap in your logic that utterly disconnects it from reality.

Emmitt Smith never touched the peak of Barry Sanders. Like, not even close, so that comparison is very bad. Smith's longevity vs Sanders's peak is a good argument because there is a trade off. The discrepancy in both metrics is large.

With Lemieux and Gretzky, there is no trade off. Peaks are, at best (for Lemieux) basically equal, while Gretzky achieved far superior results in the long run.

There is simply no rational basis to have Lemieux equal.

And herein lies your problem. You have Lemieux's 1993 season as TENTH on this list, and during that year he won the scoring title while missing 24 games with cancer! It's arguably the greatest season in NHL history, scoring 160 points in 60 games while missing a quarter of the year in the middle with radiation treatments. He chased down Pat LaFontaine after being down 25 points. He scored 2.66 points per game that season which is a 224 point pace, the highest points per-game mark for a season ever seen in NHL history. In the 90s! When goalies actually wore pads and started to butterfly.

And you have it TENTH! HAHA. In terms of difficulty it's got to be first on your list. This shows that you're just going down the list and counting up points.

Also, Lemieux's 1996 season was absurd at that time. Comparing the Smythe division in 1982 to the Northeast division 1996 in terms of ability to score is a little crazy, and all of Gretzky's top seasons are those blowout early 80s years. Even in Gretzky's monster year of 1985, Lemieux's 2nd year, Gretzky scored 52 goals and Lemieux 48 that year. The difference was an absurd 163 assists for Gretzky vs. "only" 90 something for Mario. Mario was playing on an absolute trash team that year while Gretzky played on the eventual cup champs. Do you not think Mario would have scored a massive amount more if he was on that 85 Oilers team? Gretzky basically never played with a bad team in any year of his peak except his very first year, and that team was no cellar dweller like the mid-80s Pens.

Anyone can look at pure numbers and say that number is greater than that number. There's so much more nuance that you're missing man.

And it's good that you admit peaks matter. Emmitt Smith has way more yards than Barry Sanders, way more touchdowns, also he's up 3-0 in championships. Really the only thing that Sanders has on Smith is the highlight reel (just like Mario), and the better single seasons (Just like Mario). I'd argue, just like I've been, that Mario has the top two seasons on your list, and three of the top 5. Wayne has more total top seasons. Just like I've said, Mario's peak is higher, Wayne's full career is better.

 

[McFlash97]

Haha, not "remotely close" while Lemieux is literally the only other player in NHL history who IS remotely close to Gretzky's scoring paces for seasons and for per-game numbers in a career.

Lemieux took the mantle of best in the world from Gretzky while Gretzky was still in his prime and his 1992 season with 160 point in 60 games is arguably the best scoring performance in history.

You keep confusing "awards" with actually watching people play.

No sane, rational human being could watch Lemieux and Gretzky play at their peaks and think they aren't AT LEAST equals, and probably with Mario possessing greater physical talents.

Stop with the bullshi! Mario took the mantle away when Gretz was in his prime. Prime Gretzky was scoring 163 assist seasons. Mario took the title away when Wayne was just past his absolute prime playing less games during 1988 then on a new team in 1989.

Mario did not possess greater talent .. greatest size and reach is what he possessed, Gretzky was faster, and more agile.

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

Okay, so then Emmitt Smith is better than Jim Brown Barry Sanders.

In fact, the person with the most _________ is better than the person with less __________

Don't you think there's a little more nuance?

No one is arguing that Wayne Gretzky had the most productive career of all time. When we talk about "best" though, I'd think most people look at it more in terms of "peak level."

Mario scored more goals per game than Gretzky. He's 2nd all time to him in assists. His peak level of dominance, in my opinion, is greater than Gretzky's peak. He was able to do everything Gretzky did, plus things Gretzky couldn't.

It's hard to figure any logic that would say "Mario is overrated," or that they aren't within a whisker of one another on anything other than career totals in statistics.

Had Mario played a full career, no doubt his GPG would have came down, but then again, I don't think many argue against Mario being a better goal scorer than Wayne.