Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[GreatGonzo]

How many top 50 all time wingers has Ovechkin competed with at LW? Or hell, even at RW? At any point of his career? Jagr? Kane? Who else? How many of these modern goalies will go down as top 50 all-time? Yes, goalies are well schooled nowadays and wear big equipment to swallow pucks, etc. However, we can agree there's not many goalies in Ovechkin's era that will go down as all-time greats. Otherwise, guys like Fleury, Rinne, Rask, and others with impressive save percentages and GAA will get rated higher than great goalies from the 50's through 80's, who didn't put up similar stats. Hell, goalies didn't even wear helmets during Richard's career.

If you're giving Ovechkin an advantage over Richard based on era, you have to do the same with other star players from today's league. Then Doug Harvey is not on the same level as Duncan Keith or Brent Burns, who put up better offensive stats against European players, and top flight goalies. Drew Doughty blows Red Kelly's numbers out of the water. Why stop at Ovechkin? You have to similarly criticize every great player who played in Richard's era, regardless of position.

The one exception is likely Howe, whose scoring numbers still stand today.

Your once again using the shock value of big names to prove your points. There is no denying that Richards played hockey in a golden era of all time greats, BUT...as proven....and what you constantly keep avoiding, playing within the same time frame doesn’t make them “competition.”

The stats show you are wrong, but your just going off of what you think and feel while using names like Howe to get your point across. “How many all time greats has Ovechkin played around?? Richards was playing with Gordie Howe!” Cool...that doesn’t really mean anything and your once again overrating the competition between the two. Just like how you overrated the goalies during a majority of his peak/prime and his all star competition at his position.

Stop with the player era comparisons, you sound silly. You have gone from comparing the two player to player, to who played around them....as if that somehow makes Richards superior. Player to player, Ovechkin was a more dominant player. Taking away Howe, Lindsay, or Kelly, or whoever else you want to name drop, doesn’t suddenly put Richards as the undisputed number one player of the era. Ovechkin is second only to Crosby and at his peak was THE best player in the world of his generation.

Richards wasn’t stifled from Howe, or Kelly, or Lindsay, or whoever else. Naming them only proves how you deliberately are ignoring all the context between their playing time together.

 

[GMR]

you never watched Bossy play. Bossy was a much better goal scorer

The problem with Bossy is several. Ovechkin has more longevity, Bossy played in a way higher scoring era, and Bossy was outscored by Gretzky. Yes, we're talking Gretzky, but he was still soundly outscored by Wayne.

 

[Iapyi]

yes he does do it, but everyone on here acts like Ovechkin is magic in his game. His game is really simple on the whole. A big reason why he won’t win a second Cup.

Naw, there are plenty who see past the sizzle and recognize he is very limited as a hockey player, dude has a great shot though.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Naw, there are plenty who see past the sizzle and recognize he is very limited as a hockey player, dude has a great shot though.

So “limited”, yet so accomplished. Makes you wonder....

 

[GMR]

Your once again using the shock value of big names to prove your points. There is no denying that Richards played hockey in a golden era of all time greats, BUT...as proven....and what you constantly keep avoiding, playing within the same time frame doesn’t make them “competition.”

The stats show you are wrong, but your just going off of what you think and feel while using names like Howe to get your point across. “How many all time greats has Ovechkin played around?? Richards was playing with Gordie Howe!” Cool...that doesn’t really mean anything and your once again overrating the competition between the two. Just like how you overrated the goalies during a majority of his peak/prime and his all star competition at his position.

Stop with the player era comparisons, you sound silly. You have gone from comparing the two player to player, to who played around them....as if that somehow makes Richards superior. Player to player, Ovechkin was a more dominant player. Taking away Howe, Lindsay, or Kelly, or whoever else you want to name drop, doesn’t suddenly put Richards as the undisputed number one player of the era. Ovechkin is second only to Crosby and at his peak was THE best player in the world of his generation.

Richards wasn’t stifled from Howe, or Kelly, or Lindsay, or whoever else. Naming them only proves how you deliberately are ignoring all the context between their playing time together.

That's your response? So you're going to diminish Richard's peers, but not do the same with other players of the original six. Seems like a cop out on your part. If you think today's era has better players and competition, you should go beyond just comparing Richard and Ovechkin. You should similarly criticize other players who played in the original six. You don't seem to want to do that.

So if it's just Richard vs. Ovechkin, I'll go back to where we started. I started this Richard discussion by talking about where he and Ovechkin finished respectively in their eras. Both have similar top 10 finishes in even strength and powerplay goals. Both have led the league in goals numerous times. Richard would have a few more top finishes if not for Howe during the 50's. Thus, both players have a similar dominance versus their peers. I know you think Richard's peers were overrated but I disagree.

I think Richard was a better playmaker and a better two-way player. No, he wasn't going to win Selke trophies if they had them back then, but he was better than Ovechkin in that regard. Ovechkin doesn't do anything but float on his end of the ice. Richard was a far superior playoff player. He's widely regarded as a top 5 all-time playoff performer. I've never seen Ovechkin regarded that highly in the postseason. While he's gotten some unfair criticism for his playoff play, which has been good, he's no Richard in the postseason. Not talking about Stanley Cups. Just talking about individual playoff performance in general. You mentioned I was overrating his playoff play, but I disagree. The playoffs are important. That's one of the things Richard is most known for along with goal scoring.

Now if Ovechkin keeps finishing first in goals every season many more times before he retires, I can see him passing Richard and Hull on my list. A few more top playoff runs may also do it. However, I still rank him behind both players. There's nothing wrong with that. The last time we did a list on the history section, he was still ranked behind Richard and Hull. I can see that changing soon, though. He has risen quickly in his all-time ranking, just over the last five seasons.

I don't see him passing Howe all-time, even if he passes Gretzky in goals. Ovechkin's ceiling is likely being the second best winger in NHL history. That's pretty good.

 

[filinski77]

Being on pace to score 50 goals is not the same as actually scoring 50 goals. Crosby was once on pace to score 64 goals. Something he's never come close to doing in a full season. Lemieux was arguably once on pace to score 100 goals in a season in 1993.

Also, did you adjust GAA based on goalies not wearing helmets during the 40's and 50's, let alone giant equipment that swallows up pucks? Or is that too hard to measure?

Why would I adjust based on goalies not wearing helmets? Every generation has a few goalies who are better than the rest of their competition, my GAA stat was showing that the average goalie back then was letting in much more goals, which was to counter your argument that it was "like the DPE"

Liking a certain era of hockey is fine, but it doesn't mean you have to be ignorant to the fact that:
1) the average goalie is much better today
2) the average defenceman is much better today
3) Defensive systems are much stronger and more competitive today
4) 1, 2, & 3 above, along with many other factors have all lead to a decrease in scoring levels throughout Ovechkins Career

This is why his play vs. his peers, plus his all-time numbers (strict goals etc, most rockets) are why he is a top 10 player all time. What Ovechkin has done in his career does not diminish other peoples careers, but it has to be realized that he has accomplished so much, in one of the hardest scoring environments ever to do so.

 

[filinski77]

How many top 50 all time wingers has Ovechkin competed with at LW? Or hell, even at RW? At any point of his career? Jagr? Kane? Who else? How many of these modern goalies will go down as top 50 all-time? Yes, goalies are well schooled nowadays and wear big equipment to swallow pucks, etc. However, we can agree there's not many goalies in Ovechkin's era that will go down as all-time greats. Otherwise, guys like Fleury, Rinne, Rask, and others with impressive save percentages and GAA will get rated higher than great goalies from the 50's through 80's, who didn't put up similar stats. Hell, goalies didn't even wear helmets during Richard's career.

If you're giving Ovechkin an advantage over Richard based on era, you have to do the same with other star players from today's league. Then Doug Harvey is not on the same level as Duncan Keith or Brent Burns, who put up better offensive stats against European players, and top flight goalies. Drew Doughty blows Red Kelly's numbers out of the water. Why stop at Ovechkin? You have to similarly criticize every great player who played in Richard's era, regardless of position.

The one exception is likely Howe, whose scoring numbers still stand today.

It isn't just based on era though. There are a Hart voting, point and point/gp finishes, goal finishes etc. This is all RELATIVE to their peers.

This alone puts him above. Era doesn't even need to be brought up unless someone comes in claiming "Richard played in the most competitive non-watered down league so his accomplishments are better". When in fact, Ovechkins career relative to his peers was better, and when you logically thing about the era difference, Ovechkins dominance becomes even larger (due to scoring levels which are facts, not feelings).

Take your Doug Harvey for ex/ he won SEVEN Norris trophies, his play vs his peers is what separates him from Burns and Keith. You're trying to create arguments that no one has made to try and defend your feelings on the subject.

 

[GreatGonzo]

That's your response? So you're going to diminish Richard's peers, but not do the same with other players of the original six. Seems like a cop out on your part. If you think today's era has better players and competition, you should go beyond just comparing Richard and Ovechkin. You should similarly criticize other players who played in the original six. You don't seem to want to do that.

So if it's just Richard vs. Ovechkin, I'll go back to where we started. I started this Richard discussion by talking about where he and Ovechkin finished respectively in their eras. Both have similar top 10 finishes in even strength and powerplay goals. Both have led the league in goals numerous times. Richard would have a few more top finishes if not for Howe during the 50's. Thus, both players have a similar dominance versus their peers. I know you think Richard's peers were overrated but I disagree.

I think Richard was a better playmaker and a better two-way player. No, he wasn't going to win Selke trophies if they had them back then, but he was better than Ovechkin in that regard. Ovechkin doesn't do anything but float on his end of the ice. Richard was a far superior playoff player. He's widely regarded as a top 5 all-time playoff performer. I've never seen Ovechkin regarded that highly in the postseason. While he's gotten some unfair criticism for his playoff play, which has been good, he's no Richard in the postseason. Not talking about Stanley Cups. Just talking about individual playoff performance in general. You mentioned I was overrating his playoff play, but I disagree. The playoffs are important. That's one of the things Richard is most known for along with goal scoring.

Now if Ovechkin keeps finishing first in goals every season many more times before he retires, I can see him passing Richard and Hull on my list. A few more top playoff runs may also do it. However, I still rank him behind both players. There's nothing wrong with that. The last time we did a list on the history section, he was still ranked behind Richard and Hull. I can see that changing soon, though. He has risen quickly in his all-time ranking, just over the last five seasons.

I don't see him passing Howe all-time, even if he passes Gretzky in goals. Ovechkin's ceiling is likely being the second best winger in NHL history. That's pretty good.

You are so dramatic that it gives me quite the headache.....

Ovechkin has a scoring title and 3 Harts. Richards doesn’t. Ovechkin is easily the better goal scorer. Richards may have been a better all around player, but Ovechkins peak was far superior.

You once again use Howe to boost Richards. From 1951-57, Richards has 6 top 10 finishes. He was out scored by Howe significant margins like 34, 27, 20, and 14 points when both played the same games.....he would even lose a scoring title to his own teammate with Howe injured in ‘55. In ‘58 Howe had 8 more points in 6 less games(79 in 64 compared to 71 in 70).

You once again let your story telling get in the way of the facts. Richards was rarely ever close to Howe in terms of competing for the scoring title. Even when Howe missed time, he was significantly ahead offensively.

Yes he was a great playoff performer while playing on the some of the best teams ever assembled. Those Habs teams were stacked from top to bottom. Not taking anything away from his play, only trying to get you to understand that Richards played with some all time greats, Ovechkin has been the best Capital of all time and still has playoff success regardless. It’s easier to win 8 cups in a 6 team league than 1 in 30.

 

[Ms Maggie]

If he does break Gretzky's record Crosby stans will still find a way to discredit him.

I'm a Crosby fan and don't discredit O one bit. Is Ovi top 10 all time? Can see it, especially if he breaks WG's record. But it's so subjective there is no right answer. Think Crosby is the more "complete" player, but does that trump Ovi's goal scoring? As another poster noted, just delighted I've seen both of these guys play. Both truly remarkable.

But Sid is better eye candy!

 

[Sentinel]

you never watched Bossy play. Bossy was a much better goal scorer

What does that mean? Because Ovechkin certainly put the puck in the net more times than Bossy did and without the help that Bossy had. Bossy didn't lead the League in goalscoring nearly as many times as Ovechkin and when he did, it was not by the same margin. Bossy never sniffed the Hart or the Art Ross. Bossy was routinely called "3rd best player on his own team". Bossy never scored another goal after he turned 30 (which also had a great positive effect on his GPG). What does it mean "he was a better scorer"?

And I LOVE Mike Bossy.

 

[GMR]

You are so dramatic that it gives me quite the headache.....

Ovechkin has a scoring title and 3 Harts. Richards doesn’t. Ovechkin is easily the better goal scorer. Richards may have been a better all around player, but Ovechkins peak was far superior.

You once again use Howe to boost Richards. From 1951-56, Richards has 6 top 10 finishes. He was out scored by Howe significant margins like 34, 27, 20, and 14 points when both played the same games.....he would even lose a scoring title to his own teammate with Howe injured in ‘55. In ‘58 Howe had 8 more points in 6 less games(79 in 64 compared to 71 in 70).

You once again let your story telling get in the way of the facts. Richards was rarely ever close to Howe in terms of competing for the scoring title. Even when Howe missed time, he was significantly ahead offensively.

Yes he was a great playoff performer while playing on the some of the best teams ever assembled. Those Habs teams were stacked from top to bottom. Not taking anything away from his play, only trying to get you to understand that Richards played with some all time greats, Ovechkin has been the best Capital of all time and still has playoff success regardless. It’s easier to win 8 cups in a 6 team league than 1 in 30.

From memory, Richard finished runner up to Howe in goals in both 1951 and 1957. So yes, Howe did take away a few goal scoring awards from the Rocket. During Richard's career, Montreal had only three Hart trophy winners, including himself. So they had plenty of team success, but the voters weren't as willing to give them that trophy. If playing for such an elite team was an advantage to the voters, they sure didn't show it for the Hart trophy.

You say Ovechkin was "easily" the better scorer, but I'm not sure where you're getting that from. More top 10 goal finishes? More goal scoring awards? I don't see any "easy" advantage for either player in this category. That's why I give Richard the edge. Their goal scoring is similar but he's better at other areas.

Regarding the dynasty Habs, yes they were terrific. I'm not comparing Cups, though. That would be unfair. I'm comparing individual play in the playoffs. Richard was far superior to Ovechkin in the playoffs. He was Montreal's best playoff player during that dynasty. Bar none. You're talking about a player who until his last two seasons, scored 122 points in 121 playoff games. That wasn't normal for that era. He had six OT goals in the playoffs. I can see the argument that he played with players who allowed him to have playoff success. However, he didn't leach off those players during those Cup runs. You keep bringing up Ovechkin's Cups like I'm using that against him. I'm not. I'm not even saying he's bad in the playoffs. He's not. Richard just has a big advantage over him, and just about every forward in that category.

 

[Sentinel]

The only thing Richard has on Ovy is playoff scoring (although Ovy is no slouch) and maybe assists. Ovy has him squarely beaten at everything else.

 

[Ms Maggie]

You are so dramatic that it gives me quite the headache.....

Ovechkin has a scoring title and 3 Harts. Richards doesn’t. Ovechkin is easily the better goal scorer. Richards may have been a better all around player, but Ovechkins peak was far superior.

You once again use Howe to boost Richards. From 1951-57, Richards has 6 top 10 finishes. He was out scored by Howe significant margins like 34, 27, 20, and 14 points when both played the same games.....he would even lose a scoring title to his own teammate with Howe injured in ‘55. In ‘58 Howe had 8 more points in 6 less games(79 in 64 compared to 71 in 70).

You once again let your story telling get in the way of the facts. Richards was rarely ever close to Howe in terms of competing for the scoring title. Even when Howe missed time, he was significantly ahead offensively.

Yes he was a great playoff performer while playing on the some of the best teams ever assembled. Those Habs teams were stacked from top to bottom. Not taking anything away from his play, only trying to get you to understand that Richards played with some all time greats, Ovechkin has been the best Capital of all time and still has playoff success regardless. It’s easier to win 8 cups in a 6 team league than 1 in 30.

Strictly from a probability standpoint, it's more difficult to win 8 cups in a 6 team league over 18 yrs than 1 in a 30 team league over 14 yrs. And yes, I did the math. Close though. And yes I totally agree that R had the advantage re team composition.

 

[GMR]

The only thing Richard has on Ovy is playoff scoring (although Ovy is no slouch) and maybe assists. Ovy has him squarely beaten at everything else.

What is "everything else?" We're not talking Bergeron here, but Ovechkin.

 

[Iapyi]

So “limited”, yet so accomplished. Makes you wonder....

Wonder what? The two are not mutually exclusive of one another.

 

[GMR]

Why would I adjust based on goalies not wearing helmets? Every generation has a few goalies who are better than the rest of their competition, my GAA stat was showing that the average goalie back then was letting in much more goals, which was to counter your argument that it was "like the DPE"

Liking a certain era of hockey is fine, but it doesn't mean you have to be ignorant to the fact that:
1) the average goalie is much better today
2) the average defenceman is much better today
3) Defensive systems are much stronger and more competitive today
4) 1, 2, & 3 above, along with many other factors have all lead to a decrease in scoring levels throughout Ovechkins Career

This is why his play vs. his peers, plus his all-time numbers (strict goals etc, most rockets) are why he is a top 10 player all time. What Ovechkin has done in his career does not diminish other peoples careers, but it has to be realized that he has accomplished so much, in one of the hardest scoring environments ever to do so.

The average shooter today is also bigger, stronger, and has better equipment and training than they did in the old days? So it's not just the goalies and defensive systems which have advanced physically. Equipment and training has as well. Ovechkin is facing better trained goalies, but he has competitive advantages as well on his side.

I'm not sure that scoring has decreased that much in Ovechkin's career. His first season was 2006, which was an inflated season offensively in the league. Scoring has gone up each of the last four seasons and is currently approaching 2006 numbers. If you're comparing it to the 80's and early 90's, yes it's gone down.

 

[Sentinel]

What is "everything else?" We're not talking Bergeron here, but Ovechkin.

Harts, Art Rosses, Richards (ha!), levels of support from teammates...

 

[GMR]

Harts, Art Rosses, Richards (ha!), levels of support from teammates...

"Levels of support from teammates" must be a new category when comparing players. I guess Richard could be a miserable prick from some of the stories I've heard.

 

[Sentinel]

"Levels of support from teammates" must be a new category when comparing players. I guess Richard could be a miserable prick from some of the stories I've heard.

it's not new. Richard played with arguably SIX Top 100 players of all time. Ovechkin with zero. Which one of them got more support on ice? Which one should be given more credit for doing the same?

Oh, and feel free to ignore all those other aspects I listed. After all, Ovy is no Bergeron. How many Harts did Bergeron win?

 

[GreatGonzo]

From memory, Richard finished runner up to Howe in goals in both 1951 and 1957. So yes, Howe did take away a few goal scoring awards from the Rocket. During Richard's career, Montreal had only three Hart trophy winners, including himself. So they had plenty of team success, but the voters weren't as willing to give them that trophy. If playing for such an elite team was an advantage to the voters, they sure didn't show it for the Hart trophy.

You say Ovechkin was "easily" the better scorer, but I'm not sure where you're getting that from. More top 10 goal finishes? More goal scoring awards? I don't see any "easy" advantage for either player in this category. That's why I give Richard the edge. Their goal scoring is similar but he's better at other areas.

Regarding the dynasty Habs, yes they were terrific. I'm not comparing Cups, though. That would be unfair. I'm comparing individual play in the playoffs. Richard was far superior to Ovechkin in the playoffs. He was Montreal's best playoff player during that dynasty. Bar none. You're talking about a player who until his last two seasons, scored 122 points in 121 playoff games. That wasn't normal for that era. He had six OT goals in the playoffs. I can see the argument that he played with players who allowed him to have playoff success. However, he didn't leach off those players during those Cup runs. You keep bringing up Ovechkin's Cups like I'm using that against him. I'm not. I'm not even saying he's bad in the playoffs. He's not. Richard just has a big advantage over him, and just about every forward in that category.

So now we are taking about goal scoring titles or just scoring titles? Pick one and stick with it please.

Your all about era yet don’t even mention how Richards hart came at one of the weakest points in professional hockey. Why isn’t that being mentioned yet everything else about that era seems to tickle your fancy? He also lost Harts and Hart voting to his own teammates multiple times.

Leading the league in scoring more times than anyone? That isn’t enough? Having more high end goal seasons? Having more goals? Being a better goal scorer? How exactly is Richard the better goal scorer? Because the Goalies were more HOF worthy?

And Ovechkin has by far been the Caps best playoff performer. The difference is Richards was surrounded by HOFers. Ovechkin didn’t benefit from a dynasty, he still has great playoff numbers and playoff success regardless. Richards playoff resume shouldn’t be the deciding factor while Ovechkins regular season resume is far superior.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Strictly from a probability standpoint, it's more difficult to win 8 cups in a 6 team league over 18 yrs than 1 in a 30 team league over 14 yrs. And yes, I did the math. Close though. And yes I totally agree that R had the advantage re team composition.

Not when you have one of the most talented team a year after year. Those Habs teams were some of the best of the decade. Sure other teams had a lot of talent, while Montreal just ran through everyone. I understand the talent being so high though and a lot of those teams were pratically full All Star caliber Talent. I just feel the competition was less based on the number of teams and the pool of talent alone.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Wonder what? The two are not mutually exclusive of one another.

You say his style is to simple and almost to obvious, yet it’s been one of the most successful of all time. So what’s your point? You talk like it hasn’t gotten him anywhere or anything...

 

[GreatGonzo]

"Levels of support from teammates" must be a new category when comparing players. I guess Richard could be a miserable prick from some of the stories I've heard.

Once again, don’t start ignoring the amount of HOF talent that surrounded Richard on his own team when that’s all you have been using as evidence of how and why the original 6 era was so competitive.....

how about the amount of HOFers on his own line? The Punch line? Blake and Lach were all time greats. So why is it All time greats get to be mentioned in terms level of competition, but it gets hushed when comparing teammates and the talent that surrounded them?

 

[GMR]

it's not new. Richard played with arguably SIX Top 100 players of all time. Ovechkin with zero. Which one of them got more support on ice? Which one should be given more credit for doing the same?

Oh, and feel free to ignore all those other aspects I listed. After all, Ovy is no Bergeron. How many Harts did Bergeron win?

Ovechkin has not played with six top 100 players. How many players have in the last 25 years? That said, the Capitals have surrounded him with lots of all stars and great players. There's a reason they've been one of the top teams in the league for over a decade. He's their best player, but far from their only good player. Let's not make it sound like he's playing for the Oilers all this time. He's had Backstrom feeding him pucks for years. He's had teammates willing to let him lead the league in shots every season. He's had great offensive defensemen like Green and now Carlson. Kuznetsov was amazing during their Cup run. He's had goalies that have at least had good regular seasons (not always in the playoffs). The Capitals are loaded. No they don't have Plante, Harvey, and Beliveau, but why criticize Richard for that? How many dynasty players weren't surrounded by Hall of Famers? Like I said, Richard wasn't leaching off anybody.

 

[GMR]

Once again, don’t start ignoring the amount of HOF talent that surrounded Richard on his own team when that’s all you have been using as evidence of how and why the original 6 era was so competitive.....

how about the amount of HOFers on his own line? The Punch line? Blake and Lach were all time greats. So why is it All time greats get to be mentioned in terms level of competition, but it gets hushed when comparing teammates and the talent that surrounded them?

Read my post above. You could use this same argument to knock any player who played on a dynasty team. Ovechkin has played on a pretty good team the last 10 years. There is no comparable to the 50's Habs and never will be in the modern era.