Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[CrosbyMalkin]

he won 2art rosses after leaving Edmonton.

In years when Mario was hurt and didn't play many games. Mario was clearly better wants they played with equal players. Gretzky had the better career but it isn't much of an argument who was the better player in his prime. A healthy Mario in his prime was better than Gretzky. Look at that 199 point season when Mario played on a line with Rob Brown who was a career minor league player in his prime years after the league realized he was a product of Lemieux. Mario 199 points and next closest person Rob Brown literally 84 points behind him. Mario was his team at that time and Gretzky's big numbers team he played with players on his line in the Hall of Fame like Kurri and Anderson.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

As far as OV goes the answer is no. If you have to ask then you know he isn't top 10. Honestly OV was only a factor for debating best player in the league for a very small 4 year window of time when OV won his only scoring title and Crosby and Malkin also won one during those 4 years. Even then the majority believed Crosby was the best in the league. After that 4 year period OV never was close to a top scoring title again and in fact only finished 3rd once after that and next best was 5th despite having almost all near full seasons. OV actually wasn't even top 10 in scoring in 5 of the last 9 years.

Players like Mario, Jagr, and Crosby always had been top 10 and usually much higher in every year they played anything close to a full season. OV equals great goal scorer but not close to top 10 all time. Heck I would take so many players over him because players that could score goals but also great passers are much better overall players. Guys like LaFontaine, Yzerman, Forsberg, Sakic, Jagr, and many more let alone the real all time greats top 5 Lemieux, Gretzky, Crosby, Orr, and Howe.

 

[bobbyking]

In years when Mario was hurt and didn't play many games. Mario was clearly better wants they played with equal players. Gretzky had the better career but it isn't much of an argument who was the better player in his prime. A healthy Mario in his prime was better than Gretzky. Look at that 199 point season when Mario played on a line with Rob Brown who was a career minor league player in his prime years after the league realized he was a product of Lemieux. Mario 199 points and next closest person Rob Brown literally 84 points behind him. Mario was his team at that time and Gretzky's big numbers team he played with players on his line in the Hall of Fame like Kurri and Anderson.

watch the 87 Canada cup finals . Wayne was clearly the best player

 

[koyvoo]

In years when Mario was hurt and didn't play many games. Mario was clearly better wants they played with equal players. Gretzky had the better career but it isn't much of an argument who was the better player in his prime. A healthy Mario in his prime was better than Gretzky. Look at that 199 point season when Mario played on a line with Rob Brown who was a career minor league player in his prime years after the league realized he was a product of Lemieux. Mario 199 points and next closest person Rob Brown literally 84 points behind him. Mario was his team at that time and Gretzky's big numbers team he played with players on his line in the Hall of Fame like Kurri and Anderson.

Gretzky indeed did have better players earlier than Lemieux, but he still out scored those players by the same type of astronomical amounts.

80/81 - outscored 2nd place Kurri by 89 pts
81/82 - out scored 2nd place Anderson by 107 pts
82/83 - outscored 2nd place Messier by 90 pts
83/84 - out scored 2nd place Coffey by 79 pts
84/85 - out scored 2nd place Kurri by 73 pts
85/86 - out scored 2nd place Coffey by 77 pts
86/87 - out scored 2nd place Kurri by 75 pts

 

[GreatGonzo]

Obvious is obvious. Hopefully in the future if we cross paths you will recognize that you can't make false claims about what I am saying. I don't like bullies.

I mean I made a mistake and your acting like I called your mother a mean name. Maybe don’t be so prideful and relax. I said I got the wrong guy, but then openly criticized your post about Ovechkin. Please continue to dwell on how I confused your opinion with another bad one, I’m sure your feelings need a full recover

 

[GreatGonzo]

Mario, Orr, Hasek, Roy & Bourque. Yeah only 1 forward in there, because for value it's hard arguing goalies and d-men.



Era, competition, talent-level, etc. Those numbers require context. Lemieux got 199 in 89. Gretz never eclipsed 190 after 86, his highest point totals after 87 (when he got 183) were 168, 163 and 148. Lemieux registered 160 in 60 games in 93 and 161 in 70 games in 96. Prime for prime value I take Lemieux over Gretzky. Orr is self-explanatory. Gretz dominated his period without question but he was also on a loaded team, perhaps the most loaded in the expansion era aside from the 70s Habs. I think most of us look at Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur through their stacked teams but Gretzky gets more of a pass seemingly.

And he is top 5 forwards. Not for all positions. I take Hasek & Roy for goaltending prime values over Gretzky.

Gretzky never needed a loaded team while Lemieuxs got more and more talent around him by the late 80s, early 90s. Don’t forget he had Paul Coffey in ‘89 who put up 113 points. Gretzky also suffered a pretty bad back injury in 1990 I believe that really stifled his play, it’s an injury that would continue to haunt him the rest of his career. He also still won 3 scoring titles and a Hart after Edmonton.

Gretzky almost always won head to head match ups with Lemieux, and nearly every tournament they were both a part of, Gretzky was the better of the two, this isn’t a knock against Lemieux, only saying that when it came to it, Gretzky usually came out on top.

 

[GreatGonzo]

In years when Mario was hurt and didn't play many games. Mario was clearly better wants they played with equal players. Gretzky had the better career but it isn't much of an argument who was the better player in his prime. A healthy Mario in his prime was better than Gretzky. Look at that 199 point season when Mario played on a line with Rob Brown who was a career minor league player in his prime years after the league realized he was a product of Lemieux. Mario 199 points and next closest person Rob Brown literally 84 points behind him. Mario was his team at that time and Gretzky's big numbers team he played with players on his line in the Hall of Fame like Kurri and Anderson.

I think many consider Lemieux the most naturally talented hockey player of all time, but that was also his downfall. He wasn’t a work horse like Gretzky, and didn’t have any intention of developing a more complete game(not saying Gretzky was some selke Star). In the end he was a freak of nature and wasn’t known for his worth ethic overall, but damn when he was on the ice, it’s amazing what he was able to do, especially after missing considerable time.

You should see Gretzky’s numbers before any of those player came into their own. Also Coffey was with Mario in ‘89.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This is veering off-topic, but let's not ignore the attempt to rewrite Gretzky's history.

He set the all-time record for most points in a season in 1981. That was on a second-year expansion team that only won 29 games. (Excluding his post-retirement comeback, Lemieux only played on a team that won so few games just once).

Let's grant that Rob Brown was a career minor leaguer. Lemieux outscored him by 84 points. Three times, Gretzky outscored a Hall of Fame teammate by a larger margin (Messier, Kurri and Anderson, all by 89+ point margins). What's more impressive, outscoring a career minor leaguer by a large margin once, or outscoring much better players by even larger margins many times?

 

[wetcoast]

That doesnt really address the point I was making at all. I'm not denying that there are good Europeans in the league now, I'm just saying the league is also diluted which makes a big difference as well. Playing against 31 teams that have good Europeans in the mix doesnt mean its harder than playing 6 teams that are almost all Canadian.

This is just such a weak position in that there are now elite NHL players at all positions that simply weren't in the all Canadian 06 NHL.

Like I said, go make 6 teams of all Canadians+ some Americans and match those teams up with some of the top teams out there today with Europeans mixed in. I'll bet you the Canadian teams are stronger overall.

this only means anything if one assumes that Canadian hockey has less talent than the 06 nHL and there is little to no proof to back up such a claim.

Do you think that John Scott would have played in the NHL in 2015 if theres only 6 teams in the league? He definitely wouldnt have, but because teams have to fill out their roster, more bad players are also added in with the good ones coming from Europe.

John Scott was a fringe NHLer who played 286 NHL games and is a really bad example of whatever point you are trying to make here.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I think many consider Lemieux the most naturally talented hockey player of all time, but that was also his downfall. He wasn’t a work horse like Gretzky, and didn’t have any intention of developing a more complete game(not saying Gretzky was some selke Star). In the end he was a freak of nature and wasn’t known for his worth ethic overall, but damn when he was on the ice, it’s amazing what he was able to do, especially after missing considerable time.

You should see Gretzky’s numbers before any of those player came into their own. Also Coffey was with Mario in ‘89.

Don't wanna go too far off topic but I see this brought up a lot and I don't agree with it. It's because Lemieux's talent was visible. We could see him deke people, we could see his size, we could see his highlight goals, etc. Gretzky's greatest asset, his IQ/brain, is something we couldn't see. He thought the game differently, but we couldn't see that so people just say wow Lemieux is the most talented player ever look at those dangles, etc because Gretzky is just some skinny guy skating around. I think Gretzky is the most talented player ever and the proof is in the record books. Everything Lemieux did, Gretzky did better, longer and multiple more times.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Don't wanna go too far off topic but I see this brought up a lot and I don't agree with it. It's because Lemieux's talent was visible. We could see him deke people, we could see his size, we could see his highlight goals, etc. Gretzky's greatest asset, his IQ/brain, is something we couldn't see. He thought the game differently, but we couldn't see that so people just say wow Lemieux is the most talented player ever look at those dangles, etc because Gretzky is just some skinny guy skating around. I think Gretzky is the most talented player ever and the proof is in the record books. Everything Lemieux did, Gretzky did better, longer and multiple more times.

His size definitely made him so talented, but when I say most naturally talented I really mean the most gifted. Gretzky was known for his conditioning and for constantly practicing, he wasn’t big so he relied on his IQ, but what made Mario so insane was that he was a giant and could move and deke like someone’s Gretzky’s size.

it’s fine to disagree, I’m just pointing out what many say. I think it close but personally Lemieux is the freakiest hockey player I’ve ever seen. I have no problem saying what Gretzky did was better, and for a lot longer, only that Lemieuxs talent as an individual was very very unique, and if his size had a lot to do with that, then that’s how it was. I’m just saying both were gifted, but one was obsessed with getting better and practicing constantly, Lemieux was known to be more lazy and reliant on his talent alone, but that alone made him arguably the best player to ever play. And yes I say arguably because as much as Gretzky is the GOAT, Lemieux was still insane and just as special.

 

[GreatGonzo]

This is veering off-topic, but let's not ignore the attempt to rewrite Gretzky's history.

He set the all-time record for most points in a season in 1981. That was on a second-year expansion team that only won 29 games. (Excluding his post-retirement comeback, Lemieux only played on a team that won so few games just once).

Let's grant that Rob Brown was a career minor leaguer. Lemieux outscored him by 84 points. Three times, Gretzky outscored a Hall of Fame teammate by a larger margin (Messier, Kurri and Anderson, all by 89+ point margins). What's more impressive, outscoring a career minor leaguer by a large margin once, or outscoring much better players by even larger margins many times?

Not just that, but at 19 and in his first year in the league when he scored 137 points and came close second in the scoring race, and won the Hart, his line mates were Blair McDonald and Stan Weir.

the following season, when he broke the Record, Messier only had 63 points in 72 games while Anderson had 53 in 58 and McDonald had 43 in 51.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

If we're counting goaltenders, no. If not, then maybe he sneaks in at 10. These are 9 players I definitely put above Ovie, without question. Can't think of a 10th skater who is definitely better than Ovie, though I suspect, in time, McDavid will be that player.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Messier
6. Jagr
7. Sakic
8. Crosby
9. Bourque

10. Probably McDavid when he retires.

The thing about Ovie is that since the late 00s, he's become a one-dimensional goal scorer. He's certainly the greatest goal scorer who ever lived, IMO. But he's not as complete as many other players like Messier, Jagr, Sakic etc. who had more 100 pt seasons, more Cups, and were better defensive players. Being a 50-goal 80-pt scorer every year is phenomenal, but Sakic and Messier for example were still putting together 90-100 pt seasons at Ovie's current age of 33.

But yeah, he could be the 10th best player until McDavid solidifies himself. If Lindros stayed healthy, I'd have put Lindros over Ovie too.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The thing about Ovie is that since the late 00s, he's become a one-dimensional goal scorer.

That's just plain false.

From the 09-10 season to now Ovie is top 6 in hits and top 3 in points. He has way more assists than Crosby or Kane have goals.

So he is indisputably elite in terms of physicality, as well as goal scoring (that's two dimensions right there), and he's also top 30 in assists in that time frame despite being the best trigger man in NHL history.

This "one-dimensional" narrative is pure nonsense. It needs to die.

 

[GMR]

If we're counting goaltenders, no. If not, then maybe he sneaks in at 10. These are 9 players I definitely put above Ovie, without question. Can't think of a 10th skater who is definitely better than Ovie, though I suspect, in time, McDavid will be that player.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Messier
6. Jagr
7. Sakic
8. Crosby
9. Bourque

10. Probably McDavid when he retires.

The thing about Ovie is that since the late 00s, he's become a one-dimensional goal scorer. He's certainly the greatest goal scorer who ever lived, IMO. But he's not as complete as many other players like Messier, Jagr, Sakic etc. who had more 100 pt seasons, more Cups, and were better defensive players. Being a 50-goal 80-pt scorer every year is phenomenal, but Sakic and Messier for example were still putting together 90-100 pt seasons at Ovie's current age of 33.

But yeah, he could be the 10th best player until McDavid solidifies himself. If Lindros stayed healthy, I'd have put Lindros over Ovie too.

Woah. I don't think I've ever seen Messier or Sakic that high on anyone's list before. I can see them both in the top 20 but top 10 is a reach. Then again, Howe is the only player who played pre 60's on your list.

 

[GMR]

That's just plain false.

From the 09-10 season to now Ovie is top 6 in hits and top 3 in points. He has way more assists than Crosby or Kane have goals.

So he is indisputably elite in terms of physicality, as well as goal scoring (that's two dimensions right there), and he's also top 30 in assists in that time frame despite being the best trigger man in NHL history.

This "one-dimensional" narrative is pure nonsense. It needs to die.

Top 30 in assists but easily 1st in goals. For more reference, here are his highest Art Ross finishes early in his career:

2006 - 3rd
2008 - 1st
2009 -2nd
2010 - 2nd

Since 2010, he's only finished top 5 in scoring in 2013 and 2015. So yes, his overall scoring has become more skewed toward goals. Especially in the last several seasons. He's had 3 top ten finishes in assists. None since 2011. Goals by themselves don't result in many Art Ross trophies.

 

[GreatGonzo]

If we're counting goaltenders, no. If not, then maybe he sneaks in at 10. These are 9 players I definitely put above Ovie, without question. Can't think of a 10th skater who is definitely better than Ovie, though I suspect, in time, McDavid will be that player.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Messier
6. Jagr
7. Sakic
8. Crosby
9. Bourque

10. Probably McDavid when he retires.

The thing about Ovie is that since the late 00s, he's become a one-dimensional goal scorer. He's certainly the greatest goal scorer who ever lived, IMO. But he's not as complete as many other players like Messier, Jagr, Sakic etc. who had more 100 pt seasons, more Cups, and were better defensive players. Being a 50-goal 80-pt scorer every year is phenomenal, but Sakic and Messier for example were still putting together 90-100 pt seasons at Ovie's current age of 33.

But yeah, he could be the 10th best player until McDavid solidifies himself. If Lindros stayed healthy, I'd have put Lindros over Ovie too.

Messier over Ovechkin? Please explain....

I’ve also never seen Sakic be considered a top 10 player of all time, if you would prefer Sakic over Ovechkin, then that’s different. But in terms of career, what exactly does Sakic have over Ovechkin besides one more cup?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Top 30 in assists but easily 1st in goals. For more reference, here are his highest Art Ross finishes early in his career:

2006 - 3rd
2008 - 1st
2009 -2nd
2010 - 2nd

Since 2010, he's only finished top 5 in scoring in 2013 and 2015. So yes, his overall scoring has become more skewed toward goals. Especially in the last several seasons. He's had 3 top ten finishes in assists. None since 2011. Goals by themselves don't result in many Art Ross trophies.

Why are you limiting it to top 5? He finished 7th and 8th in scoring in 2011 and 2014 while being a second team AS both years, while leading the league in goals in 2014 with 51. He was also well over a PPG player in 2018 and 2019 while still leading the league in goals. Even in 2016, he had 71 points in 79 games with 51 goals(first in league) and still finished 6th in Hart voting despite finishing 15th in scoring.

those seasons should count for something regardless. Sure he doesn’t have a lot of top 10 finishes since 2010, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been overall more productive than most of the league.

 

[GMR]

Why are you limiting it to top 5? He finished 7th and 8th in scoring in 2011 and 2014 while being a second team AS both years, while leading the league in goals in 2014 with 51. He was also well over a PPG player in 2018 and 2019 while still leading the league in goals.

those seasons should count for something regardless. Sure he doesn’t have a lot of top 10 finishes since 2010, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been overall more productive than most of the league.

Well, he hasn't finished top 10 in scoring since 2015. Keep in mind, he's won 3 Richard trophies since then. So yeah, his assist and point finishes have gone down considerably over his career, despite the goal scoring being constant. He's become more one-dimensional in that sense.

Also, I know +/- can be overrated at times, but he's a -12 this season, despite being on the top line of a division leading team. How is that possible? He was a +16 combined from 2017 through 2019. Considering the Capitals record during that span, that looks pretty underwhelming.

I know he still hits people on every shift (he has since he came into the league) but I wouldn't say he's gotten better overall as a player. He's stayed remarkably consistent in goals, but in other areas not so much.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Well, he hasn't finished top 10 in scoring since 2015. Keep in mind, he's won 3 Richard trophies since then. So yeah, his assist and point finishes have gone down considerably over his career, despite the goal scoring being constant. He's become more one-dimensional in that sense.

Also, I know +/- can be overrated at times, but he's a -12 this season, despite being on the top line of a division leading team. How is that possible? He was a +16 combined from 2017 through 2019. Considering the Capitals record during that span, that looks pretty underwhelming.

I know he still hits people on every shift (he has since he came into the league) but I wouldn't say he's gotten better overall as a player. He's stayed remarkably consistent in goals, but in other areas not so much.

Why not just count his top 10 finishes since 2010 instead of only top five, or since 2015. Pick one and stick with it.

Ok? And from 2016-19, he sits 9th in points and a 0.98 PPG and sits 1st in goals. I really don’t understand why your changing the standards so much. And that’s your opinion, but ultimately his “one dimensional” play won him a smythe and helped his team win a cup....why not bring that up?

If you know plus/minus is a silly stat, then don’t use it? You openly acknowledge that it’s silly to use against players....but then use it against Ovechkin? Why does it matter what his plus/minus is? Why does that suddenly mean something?

 

[deepthoughtsleafs]

He's not even an all-time top ten Russian let alone the entire history of Hockey. This is why no one respects HF with claims like these.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Messier
6. Jagr
7. Sakic
8. Crosby
9. Bourque

10. Probably McDavid when he retires.

I'm going to ignore Ovechkin for a second here and ask how the hell you can have Messier and Sakic over Hull, Richard, Beliveau, Mikita, and Shore?

 

[GMR]

Why not just count his top 10 finishes since 2010 instead of only top five, or since 2015. Pick one and stick with it.

Ok? And from 2016-19, he sits 9th in points and a 0.98 PPG and sits 1st in goals. I really don’t understand why your changing the standards so much. And that’s your opinion, but ultimately his “one dimensional” play won him a smythe and helped his team win a cup....why not bring that up?

If you know plus/minus is a silly stat, then don’t use it? You openly acknowledge that it’s silly to use against players....but then use it against Ovechkin? Why does it matter what his plus/minus is? Why does that suddenly mean something?

What do you care whether I pick top 10 or top 5 finishes? I'm just saying his assist numbers and where he's finished relative to others have gone down over the years, while his goal scoring has remained constant. I picked top 5 scoring finishes because he used to finish higher in the top 5. Now he doesn't. Largely because he's not finishing as high in assists as before. Hence not as many runs at the Art Ross Trophy. What's your problem with that analysis?

Plus minus can be overrated at times, but that doesn't mean it should be completely ignored. When did I say otherwise? Reading comprehension is not your strength. I just find his plus/minus totals the last few years to be interesting when compared to where the Capitals finished in the standings. You'd think he'd finish higher with them having really good records. In his best offensive seasons, 2008, 2009, and 2010, he was a +28, +8, and +45. If you don't want to look deeper into it, that's fine.

The decrease in assists and low plus/minus seem to support that he's become less focused on other aspects of the game besides goals. There's definitely room for some posters to argue he's become more one-dimensional. Nobody said anything against his goal scoring. Just other aspects of his game.

We already talked about his Stanley Cup and his playoff performances. I've never said anything against him on that point. You keep arguing with yourself too much.

 

[GreatGonzo]

What do you care whether I pick top 10 or top 5 finishes? I'm just saying his assist numbers and where he's finished relative to others have gone down over the years, while his goal scoring has remained constant. I picked top 5 scoring finishes because he used to finish higher in the top 5. Now he doesn't. Largely because he's not finishing as high in assists as before. Hence not as many runs at the Art Ross Trophy. What's your problem with that analysis?

Plus minus can be overrated at times, but that doesn't mean it should be completely ignored. When did I say otherwise? Reading comprehension is not your strength. I just find his plus/minus totals the last few years to be interesting when compared to where the Capitals finished in the standings. You'd think he'd finish higher with them having really good records. In his best offensive seasons, 2008, 2009, and 2010, he was a +28, +8, and +45. If you don't want to look deeper into it, that's fine.

The decrease in assists and low plus/minus seem to support that he's become less focused on other aspects of the game besides goals. There's definitely room for some posters to argue he's become more one-dimensional. Nobody said anything against his goal scoring. Just other aspects of his game.

We already talked about his Stanley Cup and his playoff performances. I've never said anything against him on that point. You keep arguing with yourself too much.

Because holding it to only top 5 takes away 2 of his top 10 finishes, which in many ways refutes your original point. By all means, if you want to set the standard at top 5, then so be it. It’s just arbitrary.

I mean his last 2 seasons have been strong ones regardless compared to the recent 2 before that. Sure, he didn’t finish top 10, but they have still been some of his strongest since 2015. I don’t understand this sudden fascination with assists. He’s leading the league in goals, but ya he doesn’t have a lot of assists, which overall affect his point totals, but are you implying that someone who stacks up assists and ends up top 10 is better? I don’t understand the reasoning behind the focus on his assists totals. He isn’t a playmaker, and has never known to be one....so what is it?

Plus/minus has already been explained and has been proven to be overall faulty in numerous other threads. Maybe look into those for more deeper meaning.

No my point is in 2018, he finished first in goals, 11th in points, with 87 points....but he went on to win a cup and smythe. For most star players, his playoffs alone would see him as a valuable player, despite his assists totals and plus/minus. You claim his lack of both is some for sure evidence of his lack of interest in other parts of the game, but in all it really isn’t, that’s just your claim...but it’s a very bias claim in a lot of ways.

Your main focus has been assists, and how it has negatively affected his numbers and point finishes, but he’s arguably still doing the most important thing in hockey and the most valuable offensive stat, and that’s scoring.

“one dimensional” insist that one is lacking depth, has no other trait but a single one. It’s a very big term that likes to get thrown around now a days because apparently if you aren’t stacking up assists, your “one dimensional” and it’s pretty silly. Ovechkin can skate, he can hit, he can handle the puck very well, he’s got one...if not the best shot in the league. He can pass and has shown to be able to defend, although those two aren’t exactly his strongest contributions. But just because he’s the best at one single thing doesn’t mean he’s “one dimensional”, only that he highlights and delivers on the one thing that not only is he there to do, but he’s there to do better than anyone else.

he wasn’t less of a goal scorer during his peak, he just had players around him that could score more. He acted very much like a PP QB too, and had guys like Semin and Green who were scoring 30-40+ goals. It’s easy to be a great playmaker, or have a lot of assists when you have players able to put the puck in the net. Ovechkin happens to be THE best at that.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

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

Is this a serious question? Anyone that takes Pronger over Ovechkin here is delusional.