Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Bertuzzzi44]

I see. Is Lindros in your top 10? Or Fedorov?

Forsberg? Bure?

 

[gtrower]

Longevity has nothing to do with talent

I rank players based on which one I'd rather build a team around. That's it. That's my criteria

And using that criteria, McDavid is in my top 10

So you’re essentially ranking players on their peaks. Which is a weird way to do an all-time list. But cool let’s revert back to Ovi’s peak and re-rank.

 

[Herregud]

Ovi is a one trick hockey pony the same way Cristiano Ronaldo is one trick soccer pony. They can only do everything necessary to score more than everybody else. Just coincidence that the “one trick” is the LITERAL PURPOSE OF THE GAME.

Ovechkin's a one trick pony in the same way that a dolphin that knows 10 different tricks and is not actually a pony is a one trick pony.

 

[Vilica]

Why are you using Montreal and Washington-specific goals per game, rather than goals per game league-wide?

Because their individual point totals aren't affected by low-scoring other games? Just because there weren't enough actual good players to go around, and Chicago scored 133 goals in 70 games in 53-54 doesn't mean that Montreal scored less against them because of that - that year Montreal outscored Chicago 57-28 in 14 games, 4.07-2 per game. In those 14 games, Maurice Richard was 13+8=21 points. Using league gpg average just lets you pretend that the league was low-scoring, whereas if you look at team gpg average, you'll see that generally the players we're talking about (your Beliveaus, Howes, Hulls, etc) actually were scoring in-line with the major post-lockout players we talk about.

 

[Mike8]

Because their individual point totals aren't affected by low-scoring other games? Just because there weren't enough actual good players to go around, and Chicago scored 133 goals in 70 games in 53-54 doesn't mean that Montreal scored less against them because of that - that year Montreal outscored Chicago 57-28 in 14 games, 4.07-2 per game. In those 14 games, Maurice Richard was 13+8=21 points. Using league gpg average just lets you pretend that the league was low-scoring, whereas if you look at team gpg average, you'll see that generally the players we're talking about (your Beliveaus, Howes, Hulls, etc) actually were scoring in-line with the major post-lockout players we talk about.

You sort of cherry-picked one season with Chicago there, you realize. That was really the only season that Chicago was such an outlier.

The better metric is, of course, the larger sample, which is league-wide scoring. And the poster you were responding to referred to the era with lower scoring, which is factually correct. You cherry-picked to make it seem as though the scoring between Montreal and Washington were comparable--but Richard did indeed play in a low scoring era, just as that poster had stated.

 

[GMR]

Richard also played on the Habs during their dynasty years. While Ovechkin has a superior regular season resume with playoff success.

Yes in an era with less competition. He also won his Hart in one of the weakest eras in hockey history due to the war. I’m not trying to say he wasn’t an all time great or one of the first of his kind, but in terms of peak, prime, and overall Dominance, it’s Ovechkin.

Given the era he played in with much less overall talent than Ovechkin, with less teams, and less games played, including the playoffs, sure Richards numbers are impressive given the time, but I would argue Ovechkins are clearly superior given HIS time.

Goal scoring even? How do you figure that? Ovechkin is arguably the best goal scorer of all time, he has lead the league in goals more times than any player and is on the verge of hitting 700. He also has Eight 50 or more goal seasons. Is Richards 50 in 50 really hold that much value compared to Ovechkin clear goal scoring dominance?

Ovi has also done all this in an era of hockey that is significantly much more tough to score. Better goalies, better defenses, he also has 3 Harts and 3 Lindsays and a scoring title.

I think you are putting way to much value on his playoffs and his 50 in 50, because Ovechkin has him beat in everything else.

I don't think he has him beat at everything else. If you research, their numbers are very similar in top 10 finishes for both even strength goals and power play goals during their careers. Overall, Richard led the league in goals 5 times, but I'm pretty sure he finished runner up to Howe on at least two other occasions. Ovechkin has never had someone like Howe to compete with for the Richard trophy. Richard also has 11 top ten point finishes to Ovechkin's 8. So he wasn't just a goal scorer. Ovechkin has led the league in shot attempts all but two seasons since he came into the league. That's amazing. I don't think they tracked shots when Richard played, but that's one big factor for Ovechkin scoring so many goals. He's always shooting on net.

Of course, there's the obligatory knock on playing in an original 6 era with worse goalies, etc. Haven't heard that one before. Based off that, Howe should also be ranked below Ovechkin, as would players like Harvey and Beliveau. You can also knock Gretzky and Lemieux for playing against weaker defensive structures back in the 80's and early 90's. Richard played in a lower scoring era. Not in the 80's. The era he played in should only help his all-time ranking, not hurt it.

Also, I never mentioned the 50 in 50. You did.

 

[ImJustJokinen]

Ovechkin most definitely is. Let's stop counting people in from 2000 years ago. It's cute that Richard or Lafleur did so well in an era where MTL was a dynasty with no cap scoring 10 goals a game, or some other player from COL or DET during the 90's and early 00's that mutually benefitted off each other. The cold hard truth is that just from the eye-test and number test, Ovi is a monster. This guy was putting up 65-47-112 during the Washington Ovechkins years.

 

[GMR]

I still have no clue how you have Richards over Ovechkin in terms of goal scoring. That’s confusing.

and again Richards played on dynasty Hab teams. Let’s add that context, shall we? Out of 8 cups, Richards only led 3 of those cup teams in goals and none in points.

Why is it confusing? Richard is frequently ranked, like Ovechkin, as one of the best goal scorers ever. Maybe you think I'm talking about Henri Richard?

One of the knocks on Richard is that he played with great players. That's also a knock on one of my favorite players of all-time, Nicklas Lidstrom. You don't win 8 Cups without having a team full of superstars. I never said Richard was better because of more Stanley Cups. Not once. I mentioned he was a better playoff performer. Of course, having a great team around you will do that. But still, he elevated his game for the playoffs. Who else back then, scored a point per game in the playoffs?

Would you even rank Ovechkin as a top 20 all-time playoff performer?

 

[GMR]

Ovechkin most definitely is. Let's stop counting people in from 2000 years ago. It's cute that Richard or Lafleur did so well in an era where MTL was a dynasty with no cap scoring 10 goals a game, or some other player from COL or DET during the 90's and early 00's that mutually benefitted off each other. The cold hard truth is that just from the eye-test and number test, Ovi is a monster. This guy was putting up 65-47-112 during the Washington Ovechkins years.

Dude, Washington has had a great team for over a decade now. He's not playing for the Buffalo Sabres all this time. They may not be the 70's Canadiens but that doesn't mean he's carrying scrubs out there.

When you say let's stop counting people from 2000 years ago, where should we start counting from? 1980? 1990?

 

[TheAngryHank]

If given a choice, is anyone taking prime Ovechkin over prime Pronger for a best of 7 series?

Prime Feds.

 

[Cotton]

For what it is worth, from 43-44 through 59-60, Montreal scored 3435 goals in 1100 games, or 3.12 goals per game. Coming into this year, Washington had scored 3367 goals in 1114 games, or 3.02 goals per game. So actually, Maurice Richard's Montreal teams were marginally higher-scoring than Alex Ovechkin's Washington teams. Yet Richard's per game numbers - 0.560/0.432/0.992 are lower than Ovechkin's per game numbers - 0.607/0.510/1.117.

Yeah, but Ovechkin didn't do it with a wood stick and a Dman hanging off his back.

 

[Vilica]

You sort of cherry-picked one season with Chicago there, you realize. That was really the only season that Chicago was such an outlier.

The better metric is, of course, the larger sample, which is league-wide scoring. And the poster you were responding to referred to the era with lower scoring, which is factually correct. You cherry-picked to make it seem as though the scoring between Montreal and Washington were comparable--but Richard did indeed play in a low scoring era, just as that poster had stated.

I'm not disputing that the era might've been lower scoring, the point I'm making is that a 0-0 tie between Boston and Toronto has exactly zero bearing on Maurice Richard's point totals, in the same fashion that a 1-0 shootout win between Arizona and New Jersey has zero bearing on Alex Ovechkin's point totals. The number that drives the biggest correlation to point totals is team goals for, because normal top line forwards garner points on between 35-45% of team goals for. Let's take this hypothetical - 70 game season, player receives point on 35% of goals, team scores 2.5, 3, and 3.5 goals per game - in the first case, the player scores 61.25 points in 70 games, the second case, 73.5, the third case, 85.75. The player's output as a percentage of team goals is unchanged, but his actual point totals fluctuate from 0.875 PPG to 1.225 PPG because of how many goals his team scored.

Also, the Montreal/Chicago numbers aren't really cherry-picked, these are the seasonal numbers from the advent of the 70 game season:
Montreal/Chicago H2H:
49-50: 38-30
50-51: 50-36
51-52: 56-29
52-53: 34-29
53-54: 57-28
54-55: 64-34
55-56: 58-19
56-57: 49-29
57-58: 48-27
58-59: 50-28
59-60: 40-27
Total: 544-316 in 156 games (3.48/2.02)

 

[Demandedace]

No, no, and no. Why has he definitely passed Richard? Richard is one of the best playoff performers of all time. Ovechkin has a good playoff career, but nothing like Richard's. He was a 1st or 2nd team all star fourteen times in his career! His offensive numbers are staggering when you consider he played in a lower scoring era.

Yes, for the reasons outlined above. Ovechkin is a bigger guy physically, but Richard was certainly not afraid of physical play. On the contrary. He has the edge in skating and team play. Goal scoring is pretty even, but like stated, Richard played in a lower scoring era and still put up impressive numbers.

You realize there were like six teams back then and a much lower quality of average player, right? This is not as impressive as I think you believe it is.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

How the heck did this turn into a Richard vs Ovechkin thread?

 

[GMR]

You realize there were like six teams back then and a much lower quality of average player, right? This is not as impressive as I think you believe it is.

That's a weak argument. Here's a list of the best wingers during Richard's era (1942-1960).

Gordie Howe
Maurice Richard
Ted Lindsay
Bernie Geoffrion
Andy Bathgate
Frank Mahovlich
Dickie Moore


Please give me a list of the best wingers who have played in Ovechkin's 30 team, watered down league? I guarantee you it won't have as many all-time greats on it. Richard had to compete with better player to be regarded as the top winger in the league.

 

[GMR]

How the heck did this turn into a Richard vs Ovechkin thread?

I listed all the players I'd rank above Ovechkin right now, and people overreacted as if Richard is a slightly better version of Phil Kessel. Interestingly enough, nobody seems to have any issue with me putting Bobby Hull above Ovechkin also.

 

[Mike8]

I listed all the players I'd rank above Ovechkin right now, and people overreacted as if Richard is a slightly better version of Phil Kessel. Interestingly enough, nobody seems to have any issue with me putting Bobby Hull above Ovechkin also.

People have issue with that too. I went through it a few pages ago.

 

[Neutrinos]

I see. Is Lindros in your top 10? Or Fedorov?

I should've clarified

I ignore injuries when ranking players

I ask, which player would I rather build around if I was guaranteed 1000 games of injury-free hockey?

So, yes, I probably have Lindros in my top 10

 

[Neutrinos]

So you’re essentially ranking players on their peaks. Which is a weird way to do an all-time list. But cool let’s revert back to Ovi’s peak and re-rank.

No, it's not entirely about peak

A player like Bernie Nichols, for example, wouldn't be among my top players despite his 70 goal, 150 point season

A player's career arc still has to be taken into account

So, someone like Naslund isn't a Hart candidate right out of the gate

The only exception is injury

If a player's career is altered significantly because of injury (Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Orr, etc), I don't hold that against them

 

[Neutrinos]

Let's backtrack a little. Are we presuming both players were trained in the same era, with similar equipment, nutrition, etc.

Yes, I'd take Richard. What does Ovechkin do better than Richard? Skate? Score goals? Play defense? Play a physical game? Elevate his game in the playoffs? I have Richard as higher in all those categories. Yes, Ovechkin could still pass him presumably if he keeps scoring 40 goals per season until he overtakes Gretzky. He'll never match Richard in the postseason but I can see him finishing with a higher ranking overall.

No, since your argument is that Richard was the better player, you take him as he was during his prime, only he gets to use modern equipment

 

[wetcoast]

Absolutely hilarious trying to compare anything Kerr did to Ovechkin.

His top goal finishes: 3/6/3/2/9

His top point finishes: 9

What a joke of a take.

It's kind of sad how more than one person is still misrepresenting this quote even after clarification.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I don't think he has him beat at everything else. If you research, their numbers are very similar in top 10 finishes for both even strength goals and power play goals during their careers. Overall, Richard led the league in goals 5 times, but I'm pretty sure he finished runner up to Howe on at least two other occasions. Ovechkin has never had someone like Howe to compete with for the Richard trophy. Richard also has 11 top ten point finishes to Ovechkin's 8. So he wasn't just a goal scorer. Ovechkin has led the league in shot attempts all but two seasons since he came into the league. That's amazing. I don't think they tracked shots when Richard played, but that's one big factor for Ovechkin scoring so many goals. He's always shooting on net.

Of course, there's the obligatory knock on playing in an original 6 era with worse goalies, etc. Haven't heard that one before. Based off that, Howe should also be ranked below Ovechkin, as would players like Harvey and Beliveau. You can also knock Gretzky and Lemieux for playing against weaker defensive structures back in the 80's and early 90's. Richard played in a lower scoring era. Not in the 80's. The era he played in should only help his all-time ranking, not hurt it.

Also, I never mentioned the 50 in 50. You did.

Again all this should be taken into context of era. Unless your suggesting that Richards era was significantly more difficult to not just score, but competition wise.

I listed all the players I'd rank above Ovechkin right now, and people overreacted as if Richard is a slightly better version of Phil Kessel. Interestingly enough, nobody seems to have any issue with me putting Bobby Hull above Ovechkin also.

That’s a cute strawman

Why is it confusing? Richard is frequently ranked, like Ovechkin, as one of the best goal scorers ever. Maybe you think I'm talking about Henri Richard?

One of the knocks on Richard is that he played with great players. That's also a knock on one of my favorite players of all-time, Nicklas Lidstrom. You don't win 8 Cups without having a team full of superstars. I never said Richard was better because of more Stanley Cups. Not once. I mentioned he was a better playoff performer. Of course, having a great team around you will do that. But still, he elevated his game for the playoffs. Who else back then, scored a point per game in the playoffs?

Would you even rank Ovechkin as a top 20 all-time playoff performer?

because Ovechkin is clearly the better goal scorer. That really shouldn’t be all that debatable.

you really have a problem with being in eras and the significant differences between them. For example, winning 8 cups on a stacked team is obviously much easier in a 6 team league than a 30 team league. That it’s easier to score more points and be near the top with less competition

 

[GMR]

Again all this should be taken into context of era. Unless your suggesting that Richards era was significantly more difficult to not just score, but competition wise.

That’s a cute strawman

because Ovechkin is clearly the better goal scorer. That really shouldn’t be all that debatable.

you really have a problem with being in eras and the significant differences between them. For example, winning 8 cups on a stacked team is obviously much easier in a 6 team league than a 30 team league. That it’s easier to score more points and be near the top with less competition

But there wasn't less competition. There was less parity in Cup winners, but there were so many great players back then. Just look at all the elite wingers who played in Richard's era, as I quoted above. More competition at his position than Ovechkin has had. Doesn't matter how few teams they were spread out over. Ovechkin doesn't have a Howe, Lindsay, or Bathgate in his era to compare him to.

 

[GreatGonzo]

But there wasn't less competition. There was less parity in Cup winners, but there were so many great players back then. Just look at all the elite wingers who played in Richard's era, as I quoted above. More competition at his position than Ovechkin has had. Doesn't matter how few teams they were spread out over. Ovechkin doesn't have a Howe, Lindsay, or Bathgate in his era to compare him to.

Based on what exactly?

sure there were a ton of great players while the talent pool was nowhere near deep. Goaltending and defenses were no where near the same level. All things you choose to ignore.

Being in the era as many greats doesn’t take away how Ovechkin dominated his era. Richard wasn’t a victim of over stacked talent.

 

[ovechkinbottom10]

-4 tonight.. have we seen his last goal in the nhl?