Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Mike8]

What a ridiculously circular argument. Left wings put up more goals and less points because their job is to finish plays on one of two possible wings. Centers put up less goals and more points because their job is to distribute amongst the wings. Do dmen put up less points and goals because there are no elite dmen? Or maybe because their job is to activate less and watch for counterattacks?

That was most definitely not a circular argument.

And, I don't think we're going to be able to have an honest intellectual discussion here, so that's fine.

 

[Mike8]

You are really out to lunch here. REALLY. Ovechkin has already passed both Hull and Richard (one Hart, zero Art Rosses). Even Beliveau has ONE Art Ross and TWO Harts. The only thing Richard and Jean have on Ovy is playoffs, and he is not THAT far behind then, playing on a MUCH weaker team than the Dynasty Habs and 60s Hawks (5 HOFers).

If Ovechkin is even within 50 goals of Gretzky's record, he will be THE GREATEST goalscorer in history and #3 Greatest Forward of All Time. He will be a consensus Top 7 player (and #5 for me).

Why do you presume that he would be a consensus top 7? I see no evidence of that happening.

 

[Sentinel]

Bobby Hull's point finishes are:

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Two of those 2nd place finishes are 1-2 point losses to Stan Mikita, and this is before he went and tore up the WHA to be its 3rd-leading point getter on the back-9 of his career.

Ovechkin's point finishes are:

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8

Yes, his goal-scoring is what puts him without question into the top-10, but we are talking about who deserves to sit under the Big 4. Their resume has to be as close to immaculate as possible. Nevermind that Hull is the goal-scoring mark that Ovechkin needed to beat in order to even get here.

I am assuming he wins another Richard. Also remember that Stan Mikita was Hull's teammate. I know they played on different lines, but on PP they were together, feeding each other points. 60s Hawks boasted five top end HOFers, while 2000s Caps will have one: Ovy himself.

Btw, it warrants mentioning that Ovechkin only needs 8 more assists to surpass Hull's RS assists totals: 560 for Hull, 553 for Ovy. This will likely happen before the end of the season. Another landmark.

 

[Mike8]

I am assuming he wins another Richard. It also warrants to note that Stan Mikita was Hull's teammate. I know they played on different lines, but on PP they were together, feeding each other points. 60s Hawks boasted five top end HOFers, while 2000s Caps will have one: Ovy himself.

There are ways to distinguish top players simply being great players vs very good players on great teams.

Hull in 1960: 81 points, Art Ross win. Mikita had 26 points as a 19 year old. 2nd on the Hawks had 55 points.

 

[Sentinel]

Why do you presume that he would be a consensus top 7? I see no evidence of that happening.

Good luck keeping the greatest goalscorer of all time out of top 7. If he as much as approaches Gretzky's totals, he will dwarf both Richard and Hull. That leaves Beliveau (1 Art Ross, 2 Harts, 2 Richards to 1 Art Ross, 3 Harts, 8-9 Richards), and, again, good luck making that argument (plus, recency bias in Ovy's favor). So he is a consensus Top 4 (possibly Top 3) forward. Then you can make 3 spots for goalies / defensemen from the short list of Orr, Hasek, Roy, and Harvey. I'm having a hard time imagining many people putting Harvey over Beliveau and Richard and equally hard time putting both Hasek AND Roy there. So...

 

[GreatGonzo]

On the second point - Right, so we're presuming 2008-2013 was his peak? Let's be intellectually honest here. I wrote that Ovechkin's peak was his first 5 seasons. Are you disagreeing with that? Let's stick to the point here and not nitpick. I don't get why you went through that whole paragraph only to agree fundamentally with my point at the end (re brief prime). Seems we're not disagreeing here.

Third -- no, it doesn't show his dominance. He's tied for third with three players! And two players are 1 after him who are not remotely close to top-10. And, a whole slew of players in the top-10 or competing for top-10 pre-date the award. So, you're totally disingenuous in offering this up as evidence for Ovechkin's record demonstrating such dominance to be clear-cut top-10. It's good, yes, and puts him in the conversation of being in the top ~20 players, but it doesn't do nearly as much as you're implying.

That last stat is... so obscure and not particularly noteworthy, since we've already established that Ovechkin's (relatively brief) prime is great--the issue is more that it was brief.

I get the sense that we more or less agree on the facts, and where we differ is on our interpretation of what's most relevant in evaluating top talents. Which is fair.

What are your standards for how long a peak should be? And why isn’t Ovechkins peak distinguishing enough for you? He was literally the best goal scorer, most valued and outstanding, and nearly the top offensive player during that peak. What other peak in the top 10 in your opinion is better or rivals that?

Again, “brief prime?” What is your standard of a brief prime? Scoring nearly 50 goals a year and leading the league in goals nearly every year isn’t “brief” that’s dominant. His peak may have been brief, which is still ridiculous to belittle it with such wording, but he’s been the best goal scorer and one of the best offensive players in the league nearly his entire career. That’s not brief.

 

[Sentinel]

There are ways to distinguish top players simply being great players vs very good players on great teams.

Hull in 1960: 81 points, Art Ross win. Mikita had 26 points as a 19 year old. 2nd on the Hawks had 55 points.

I'm not saying Hull is chopped liver without Mikita. But you can't pretend Mikita did not contribute to Hull's point totals (and Art Rosses) by playing together with him on that lethal power play.

 

[Mike8]

Good luck keeping the greatest goalscorer of all time out of top 7. If he as much as approaches Gretzky's totals, he will dwarf both Richard and Hull. That leaves Beliveau (1 Art Ross, 2 Harts, 2 Richards to 1 Art Ross, 3 Harts, 8-9 Richards), and, again, good luck making that argument (plus, recency bias in Ovy's favor). So he is a consensus Top 4 (possibly Top 3) forward. Then you can include 3 places for goalies / defensemen from the short list of Orr, Hasek, Roy, and Harvey. I'm having a hard time imagining many people putting Harvey over Beliveau and Richard and equally a hard time putting both Hasek AND Roy there. So...

Fair enough. I don't agree, but I can see your perspective here.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The big 4?

Wayne, Mario, Bobby, ..?

Stop

 

[filinski77]

On the second point - Right, so we're presuming 2008-2013 was his peak? Let's be intellectually honest here. I wrote that Ovechkin's peak was his first 5 seasons. Are you disagreeing with that? Let's stick to the point here and not nitpick. I don't get why you went through that whole paragraph only to agree fundamentally with my point at the end (re brief prime). Seems we're not disagreeing here.

Third -- no, it doesn't show his dominance. He's tied for third with three players! And two players are 1 after him who are not remotely close to top-10. And, a whole slew of players in the top-10 or competing for top-10 pre-date the award. So, you're totally disingenuous in offering this up as evidence for Ovechkin's record demonstrating such dominance to be clear-cut top-10. It's good, yes, and puts him in the conversation of being in the top ~20 players, but it doesn't do nearly as much as you're implying.

That last stat is... so obscure and not particularly noteworthy, since we've already established that Ovechkin's (relatively brief) prime is great--the issue is more that it was brief.

I get the sense that we more or less agree on the facts, and where we differ is on our interpretation of what's most relevant in evaluating top talents. Which is fair.

For the second point, I was referring to the people who call his peak his first 5 seasons, since many say he fell off after 2010. Considering his rookie seasons he finished 3rd in points, I would say he came right out of the gate at a peak. Either way.

As far as the 3rd and the last point go, all I am trying to illustrate is that his lindsay finishes, Hart finishes, point/gp finishes etc. all point to a top 10-15 player by themselves, and that's not considering how he already has the most rockets in league history, as well as has a good chance at owning most of the goal records. That is what pushes him from 10-15th -> 5-7th in my opinion.

 

[GreatGonzo]

There are ways to distinguish top players simply being great players vs very good players on great teams.

Hull in 1960: 81 points, Art Ross win. Mikita had 26 points as a 19 year old. 2nd on the Hawks had 55 points.

He then followed that with 56 points in 67 games, then had a 50 goal year with 84 points with Mikita with 77 points in 70 games, finishing 2nd in assists. Mikita then beat out Hull in scoring from 1963-1965, winning two scoring titles, until Hull had his ‘66 97 point/56 goal season with Mikita leading the league in assists while finishing 2nd in points to Hull. Mikita then won back to back scoring titles and Harts in ‘67 and ‘68.

As amazing as Bobby Hull was, Mikita still was just as, if not more dominant while still being his line mate.

 

[Mike8]

What are your standards for how long a peak should be? And why isn’t Ovechkins peak distinguishing enough for you? He was literally the best goal scorer, most valued and outstanding, and nearly the top offensive player during that peak. What other peak in the top 10 in your opinion is better or rivals that?

Again, “brief prime?” What is your standard of a brief prime? Scoring nearly 50 goals a year and leading the league in goals nearly every year isn’t “brief” that’s dominant. His peak may have been brief, which is still ridiculous to belittle it with such wording, but he’s been the best goal scorer and one of the best offensive players in the league nearly his entire career. That’s not brief.

I don't have specific standards on how long a prime or peak should be -- only when we're comparing players, then that becomes pretty relevant. So for me, Ovechkin's prime was his first ~5 years. After that he became a prolific sniper. Which is to say, his first ~1/3rd of his career, he was a super elite, dominating offensive force, and thereafter he was a really great goal scorer. I think that's a pretty fair assessment (and I hope you'd agree).

Now, for the part that I think you/Sentinel/filinski77 would disagree, is that players like Hull, Richard, Crosby, et al. -- their prime years extended far longer. Crosby's no longer in his peak, but he's still a potential threat for the Art Ross pretty consistently. Richard was too, by the end of his career in his 30s. Hull was as well. That's a long prime -- a long time of being an all-around offensive force that's dominant. Ovechkin's dominated the goal scoring category and that stat line, but he hasn't been nearly the all-around dominant threat he was in his prime. He's not a threat for the Art Ross in any given year. And so he's not generating offense nearly as much as he did, nor nearly as much as those other top-10 players did.

So that's partly what's contentious in this thread. The second contentious issue underlying a lot of this is that some people put more emphasis on goals than assists. I don't agree: I think broadly generating offense is the most important factor to win hockey games. I think Lemieux creating tip-ins and banking shots off of Bob Errey and making future IHL star 20-year old Rob Brown a ~100 point scorer is demonstrated elite, broad offensive skill that dominant players show ... and that's what matters most. If you disagree and think goals in and of themselves are more important than being 1:1 with assists, fair enough. I don't agree.

 

[Pay Carl]

Stop

Never heard of him

It was a serious question, no disrespect intended. Howe? Crosby? Hasek? Jagr? Just asking who you are implying is a given at 4th

 

[pitcher]

Natural hat tricks in less than 5 mins in the last 10 mins of a 3rd period trailing by a goal. This is how you get a cult following

Natural hat trick to tie the game, get the winning goal, and the insurance goal.

But the guy isn't a winner. He's a detriment to his team, specially in the end of the game... or so they said.

 

[Mike8]

He then followed that with 56 points in 67 games, then had a 50 goal year with 84 points with Mikita with 77 points in 70 games, finishing 2nd in assists. Mikita then beat out Hull in scoring from 1963-1965, winning two scoring titles, until Hull had his ‘66 97 point/56 goal season with Mikita leading the league in assists while finishing 2nd in points to Hull. Mikita then won back to back scoring titles and Harts in ‘67 and ‘68.

As amazing as Bobby Hull was, Mikita still was just as, if not more dominant while still being his line mate.

I mean, you're intentionally missing the point here I think. The post I was responding to was saying that Hull had Mikita on his team, so it's hard to say that Hull got those Art Rosses on his own. My point was: hey, he did it on his own. So while it's difficult to differentiate at times, it's possible to see that at 21 years old without Mikita or a HHOF Hawks team, Hull was pretty great.

But I didn't think my post needed this explanation.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I don't have specific standards on how long a prime or peak should be -- only when we're comparing players, then that becomes pretty relevant. So for me, Ovechkin's prime was his first ~5 years. After that he became a prolific sniper. Which is to say, his first ~1/3rd of his career, he was a super elite, dominating offensive force, and thereafter he was a really great goal scorer. I think that's a pretty fair assessment (and I hope you'd agree).

Now, for the part that I think you/Sentinel/filinski77 would disagree, is that players like Hull, Richard, Crosby, et al. -- their prime years extended far longer. Crosby's no longer in his peak, but he's still a potential threat for the Art Ross pretty consistently. Richard was too, by the end of his career in his 30s. Hull was as well. That's a long prime -- a long time of being an all-around offensive force that's dominant. Ovechkin's dominated the goal scoring category and that stat line, but he hasn't been nearly the all-around dominant threat he was in his prime. He's not a threat for the Art Ross in any given year. And so he's not generating offense nearly as much as he did, nor nearly as much as those other top-10 players did.

So that's partly what's contentious in this thread. The second contentious issue underlying a lot of this is that some people put more emphasis on goals than assists. I don't agree: I think broadly generating offense is the most important factor to win hockey games. I think Lemieux creating tip-ins and banking shots off of Bob Errey and making future IHL star 20-year old Rob Brown a ~100 point scorer is demonstrated elite, broad offensive skill that dominant players show ... and that's what matters most. If you disagree and think goals in and of themselves are more important than being 1:1 with assists, fair enough. I don't agree.

I think you mean his peak was his first 5 years, not prime. He’s still in his prime. You aren’t scoring 50 goals and being a PPG player and not be in your prime.

Your comparing Lemieux to Ovechkin, which is nonsense. I mean how many of Crosby’s teammates become elite scorers and PPG players?

 

[Mike8]

I think you mean his peak was his first 5 years, not prime. He’s still in his prime. You aren’t scoring 50 goals and being a PPG player and not be in your prime.

Your comparing Lemieux to Ovechkin, which is nonsense. I mean how many of Crosby’s teammates become elite scorers and PPG players?

Again, you're getting stuck on examples I'm making to illustrate a point, and then you're running with those examples to argue something totally different. Given that this is how you're treating this discussion, I don't think we're going to get anywhere.

 

[ViD]

Stop

If he scores 895, he takes that spot

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

Top 10, maybe. Goals are obviously the "king" record by many but not sure Ovi has shown he can make his teammates better and he isn't much of a playmaker. I would also like to see what he could do on an average team. I'm still not ready to give him 895 yet either.

 

[Sentinel]

As amazing as Bobby Hull was, Mikita still was just as, if not more dominant while still being his line mate.

As much as I agree with your viewpoint, Mikita was never Hull's linemate. They played on separate lines, joining together only on PP.

 

[GreatGonzo]

As much as I agree with your viewpoint, Mikita was never Hull's linemate. They played on separate lines, joining together only on PP.

Did they?? Well damn thank you for the correction. But yes regardless, between the two, Mikita can definitely be seen as the better player.

 

[Sentinel]

Never heard of him

It was a serious question, no disrespect intended. Howe? Crosby? Hasek? Jagr? Just asking who you are implying is a given at 4th

Dude, it's a consensus that The Big 4 is Gretzky, Howe, Orr, and Lemieux. Any other opinion would not find much understanding in the world of hockey.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Top 10, maybe. Goals are obviously the "king" record by many but not sure Ovi has shown he can make his teammates better and he isn't much of a playmaker. I would also like to see what he could do on an average team. I'm still not ready to give him 895 yet either.

Why is “making your teammates better” a must? That has never been a standard up until Ovechkin, where apparently having more assists is required in order to have a certain standards. Like why is him being less of a playmaker being used against him rather than his impact as a goal scorer?

I swear, when it comes to Ovechkin, goal posts are constantly moved.

 

[P10p]

Definitely not.

Greatest goal scorer, yes, but there definitely won't be any consensus on him being #5, nevermind in the same category as the other 4.

Personally, I don't see there being a strong argument for Ovechkin being remotely close to that grouping. We'll have to see what the rest of his career looks like to assess top 10.

Definitely in the top 10 already, goal scoring record would definitely push him towards top 5.

 

[P10p]

Definetly in the top 10 already, goal scoring record would definitely push him towards top 5.

Why is “making your teammates better” a must? That has never been a standard up until Ovechkin, where apparently having more assists is required in order to have a certain standards. Like why is him being less of a playmaker being used against him rather than his impact as a goal scorer?

I swear, when it comes to Ovechkin, goal posts are constantly moved.

Classic HF, trying to find a way to knock down the best scorer to have ever played the game.