Your logic continues to fail.
What does Ovechkin being "one of the best playoff performer of his era" matter in an all time sense? You realize hockey spans 100+ years. Is this thread about Ovi being top 10 all time or simply top 10 in past 20 years?
Ovechkin is definitely behind both Crosby and Malkin for playoffs. Probably some Chicago player(s) too. He's good at playoffs - great even - but compared to other usual top 10-20 all time players - it's a weakness. Why are you dancing around this point so much? Just acknowledge it and move on - its common sense.
Coming back to Crosby - much better playoff resume than Ovi. 4 "smythe-worthy cup runs". Yes even if you subjectively feel some of those 4 are better or worst than others - 4 is amazing, especially in this era of cap/parity. His overall production outside of those 4 runs is also good. So no Crosby wouldn't compare to Gretzky or Roy for playoffs - but among top 20 players all time his playoffs fair much better than Ovi - without looking at list id guess he's around middle
Also - you keep obsessing over comparing Ovechkin to Crosby only. This thread isnt about "whose better Ovi or Crosby" - its asking about Ovechkin all time. To rank Ovechkin (or Crosby) all time you need to compare them to all other usual suspects up for top 10-20 placement.
Ovis best full season is better than Crosby's. Even Malkins is. Sure. So what? My point was compared to any of the other top 10-20, Crosby isnt weak for peak. He's not #1 - but certainly not near the very bottom (as Ovi is for playoffs).
If Crosby was on the verge of beating the all time assist record he'd be a guaranteed top 5 player all time and likely quite a bit higher. The assist record is MUCH more impressive than the goal record due to the sheer volume of it.
But again - logic seems to fail you. Its not about whether the record is important or not. Its just about realizing that a few goals more or less makes zero difference. When Ovechkin is 40 and about to retire - we'll have the full scope of his career. His remaining 5-7 seasons and playoffs. At that point well be able to decide if his overall resume is worthy of top 20, top 10, top 5 or whatever. Whatever our decision on the matter is - for me whether he finishes with 897 career goals vs 887 will have 0 effect. How can 10 careers goals be significant in career assessment? It would be a stupendous feat to own the record, worthy of honor and bragging rights - but thats it. Ovechkin retiring at 40 with 887 goals or 897 goals ranks in the EXACT same position all time.
Because your using past players to measure his playoff success to. Which of course, given the context, doesn’t exactly give Ovechkin a fighting chance. You say he needs more playoff success given how many of the top 10 have that, but yet some in the 10 top(HF) played before 1960, played in Dynasty’s, and even Bobby Hull only has one cup.
But production wise he’s right behind those two, and those two played on the same damn team. Justin Williams is arguably a better playoff performer as well, some players just have that level of play....and Ovechkin does, along with having regular season play. It’s the bar that your setting that puzzles me.
I agree, all I was pointing out was that if Ovechkin is below Crosby because of his lack of playoff success, then how far back is Crosby compared to the big 4? He certainly shouldn’t be 5th based on the same standards. Is he behind Roy as well? What about guys like Hasek and Bourque who weren’t so fortunate in terms of playoff success? These are questions that need to be asked.
But Crosby’s peak is rather weak considering he didn’t really have one. Doesn’t mean his bigger seasons take a back seat, but Ovechkins peak was special and something that shouldn’t be ignored because his playoffs aren’t on the same level, that’s the problem. Again, compared to the big 4, Crosby’s peak is weak....even compared to guys like Hasek, Jagr, and Bourque, his peak is weak....but his playoffs push him over those guys, Right?
how is the assist record more valuable than the goal record? That’s my point, Crosby would be top 5, yet Ovechkin wouldn’t? That’s none sense. I just think it’s bias as hell to suggest that.
His overall resume right now is definitely top 10 worthy, just because it’s not a slam dunk in your mind doesn’t mean it isn’t on that level. That’s why so many have been talking about it. You say MY logic fails you, yet your logic is playoffs, playoffs, and playoffs...everything else isn’t valuable enough for your liking. That’s flawed. You then suggest that Crosby would be easily top 5 if he beat the assists record, citing it as “more difficult.” Yet you don’t see the flaw in that idea.
let’s put it this way, Ovechkin already has a better resume than most of the top 20. Add his goal scoring dominance to the mix. Add his playoff success, add the fact that he isn’t finished. Either way, it’s hard to ignore that his career as a whole isn’t In the running.
Meh in a 4 year span Crosby walked off with a hart Lindsay rocket 2 smythes so yeah
I guess that 4 year span is the greatest 4 year span of all time? Crosby is clearly the GOAT....
why do you continuously go down the “Crosby never plays on the PK” and “Crosby isn’t good at defense” road when Ovechkin is literally awful at defense?
It doesn’t make sense in the context of propping Ovechkin up over Crosby.
because Crosby doesn’t play the PK and isn’t that good defensively. Ovechkin isn’t either, and being better than Ovechkin defensively doesn’t exactly make Crosby appear better.
