Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Wulfgar]

He is IMHO the best goal scorer of all-time but I still wouldn´t put him as a TOP 10 player of all-time, even if we exclude goalies. For me, point totals are more important than just goals so that´s why I rank likes of Crosby or Jagr ahead of Ovechkin, who has got only one Art Ross trophy. I certainly have him in my TOP 20 at this point.

 

[shtorm2005]

By Ovy haters logic, Schwarts and O'Reilly are better than McDavid and Draisaitl, because, you know, a Cup!

 

[Yackiberg8]

By Ovy haters logic, Schwarts and O'Reilly are better than McDavid and Draisaitl, because, you know, a Cup!

Right....very well said

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Hell, a month ago the advance stats nerds were saying Ovechkin was a replacement level player.

Thats how awful Ovechkin was/is at 5v5 defense.

Oh, well, if the advanced stats nerds say it then it must be The Gospel! Also once said by advanced stats nerds: Corsi is a really useful stat for measuring a player's impact on the ice.

Also once said by advanced stat nerds: PDO is the single-most important stat of all the advanced stats. [It's completely worthless, for reasons I've detailed several times in the past.]

Also once said by advanced stat nerds: zone starts are incredibly useful for explaining just how good/bad someone is at offense/defense. [Ignores that many "zone starts" occur in the neutral zone on the fly, and that even non-neutral zone starts have virtually no predictable relationship with offensive/defensive ability, among numerous other criticisms. No, non-math people: correlation is not causation.]

Also once said by advanced stat nerds: Tyler Kennedy is the best player in the NHL. [Even proven with extensive research and thorough predictive modeling!]

I can go on and on and on. I really wish I had $1 for every dumb assertion made by someone referencing "advanced stats." I could buy many large publicly-traded companies and still have enough cash for me, the rest of my family, and 100 of my friends to comfortably retire on.

 

[edog37]

I wasn’t dancing around anything I just wanted to make sure with what you were referencing.

I have thoughts and ideas with that list, but since that’s not the question. Well, what you see as “Weak” is humorous considering what he’s up against. He didn’t get to play on any dynasty’s or in an O6 era like a Majority of those players, but sure...it’s “weak.”

Again, “weak” is subjective. He still is one of the best playoff performers of his era, and he still got it done. I mean Crosby’s cup wins and smythes are weak to many of those players too, yet that doesn’t get talked about? He has 3 cups and 2 smythes while not leading any one of them in scoring, and has by far one...if not the weakest smythe post lockout. If your going to compare, don’t treat Crosby like loyalty, see it for what it is. Crosby doesn’t have Richards goal scoring or cups in the playoffs, Crosby doesn’t have Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky numbers in the playoffs....

If it was Crosby In the same situation on the verge of breaking the all time assists record, I’m sure you would feel differently. Breaking that record is bigger than your thinking. It’s a record that hasn’t really been touched. It’s something special. If that’s not enough for you, then that’s fine, but your definitely underselling it.

Single season peak? No, he has a superior peak by far. Even Malkin has the better single season peak than Crosby, but Ovechkins 08-10 was better than anything Crosby put together. So don’t sell it short as a “single” season peak. He walked away with 2 Harts, 3 Lindsays, a scoring title, and 2 Rockets within that time. That’s a peak that puts him up there with the all time greats, something Crosby doesn’t have. I think Crosby and Ovechkin are better and more accomplished than most of those players. There is just a very big bias for players of that era.

And that again is all with Context. Believeau and Richards played on dynasties in the O6 era. Why can’t Ovechkin have more credit for his playoff success?

It’s also the Irony that Crosby is by far the weakest playoff performer between Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, and Roy. With having the weakest smythes of them, why isn’t that being brought up?

Yes you did, you said Backstroms impact On the Caps is similar to Trottier and the Islanders...

Regardless, still not the same talent. You really are fighting hard for that right aren’t you? Your wrong, get over it. No hockey fan would agree with you.

here you go, chapter & verse. From this past Sunday at 2:22PM

“Talent wise they very much are. Both are elite playmakers & both were high value prospects. Trottier clearly has the better resume but what they bring to the teams is comparable. Or are you suggesting that Backstrom was made by Ovechkin which would be absurd.”

I stated very clearly “talent wise” they are similar. Trottier had a far greater impact, but both had similar pedigree.

once again I expose your ignorance. You’d better go back & watch a few more YouTubes & let those who watched it first hand make the analysis.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I guess that 4 year span is the greatest 4 year span of all time? Crosby is clearly the GOAT....

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.

We're going round and round in circles and getting nowhere. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Crosby. I think Crosby > Ovechkin all-time. But if we're talking about Ovechkin vs top 10 all time, you need to stop obsessing with Crosby and compare him to Roy, Bourque, Hull, Beliveau, Hasek and many other of the usual suspects. It's not just about Crosby vs Ovi.

The one comment i'll respond to is the assist record. You really don't understand why breaking the assist record would be a bigger deal than the goal record? Really?

Gretzky scored 1963 assist in his career. That's the equivalent of a player having a 19 year NHL career - and averaging 100 assists a season - and still falling 63 assists short of the record. You know who managed to score 100 assist in a season? Gretzky, many times. Orr did it once. Lemieux did it once. That's it - no one else in the NHL history scored more than 100 assist in a season. Yet for someone to beat Gretzky's assists record - someone would have to average 100 assist for 20 straight years. You really don't think it's a more unbreakable record than 894 goals?

I don't even understand why you brought up this ridiculous example of assist record. It's one of the most unbreakable records in hockey history. But yes - if Crosby broke it, he wouldn't only be a top 10, or top 5 player - he'd be giving Gretzky a run for his money for #1. Considering he's more than 1100 assists away - I don't think we need to be having a Crosby > Gretzky argument just yet...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

We're going round and round in circles and getting nowhere. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Crosby. I think Crosby > Ovechkin all-time. But if we're talking about Ovechkin vs top 10 all time, you need to stop obsessing with Crosby and compare him to Roy, Bourque, Hull, Beliveau, Hasek and many other of the usual suspects. It's not just about Crosby vs Ovi.

Right, but people who refused to consider Ovechkin as one of the all-time great goal scorers couldn't argue Crosby > Ovechkin for goal scoring, so they needed to drag in other criteria to be able to make that argument.

The one comment i'll respond to is the assist record. You really don't understand why breaking the assist record would be a bigger deal than the goal record? Really?

Gretzky scored 1963 assist in his career. That's the equivalent of a player having a 19 year NHL career - and averaging 100 assists a season - and still falling 63 assists short of the record. You know who managed to score 100 assist in a season? Gretzky, many times. Orr did it once. Lemieux did it once. That's it - no one else in the NHL history scored more than 100 assist in a season. Yet for someone to beat Gretzky's assists record - someone would have to average 100 assist for 20 straight years. You really don't think it's a more unbreakable record than 894 goals?

I don't even understand why you brought up this ridiculous example of assist record. It's one of the most unbreakable records in hockey history. But yes - if Crosby broke it, he wouldn't only be a top 10, or top 5 player - he'd be giving Gretzky a run for his money for #1. Considering he's more than 1100 assists away - I don't think we need to be having a Crosby > Gretzky argument just yet...

1963 assists is a hell of a lot of assists, and breaking it would be a truly outstanding achievement. Whether it would really be a bigger deal is a matter of opinion, though.

The MLB record for career triples is 309. Paul Waner got the closest to it in the last 80 years, and he was still well over 100 short. Willie Wilson has the most of anyone who's played in the last 40 years, and he didn't get halfway there. Dexter Fowler is the current active leader, and he's over 200 short. Whoever breaks that will have broken one of the most difficult-to-reach records in MLB, and yet it will be a bigger deal (read: fans will talk about it more, it will get much more press) if someone gets to 4,256 hits or 762 home runs. Doesn't mean getting to 309 triples wouldn't be totally spectacular, just means that it's not the highlight event that everyone pays attention to.

If anyone is reduced to saying "eh, not that big of a deal that someone breaks the all-time record in ________" especially after putting up pretty notable yearly stats in that category that distinguish them from 99.9% of all NHL players and even the game's all-time greats, my advice would be to quit being a jerk.

 

[wetcoast]

Right, but people who refused to consider Ovechkin as one of the all-time great goal scorers couldn't argue Crosby > Ovechkin for goal scoring, so they needed to drag in other criteria to be able to make that argument.


1963 assists is a hell of a lot of assists, and breaking it would be a truly outstanding achievement. Whether it would really be a bigger deal is a matter of opinion, though.

The MLB record for career triples is 309. Paul Waner got the closest to it in the last 80 years, and he was still well over 100 short. Willie Wilson has the most of anyone who's played in the last 40 years, and he didn't get halfway there. Dexter Fowler is the current active leader, and he's over 200 short. Whoever breaks that will have broken one of the most difficult-to-reach records in MLB, and yet it will be a bigger deal (read: fans will talk about it more, it will get much more press) if someone gets to 4,256 hits or 762 home runs. Doesn't mean getting to 309 triples wouldn't be totally spectacular, just means that it's not the highlight event that everyone pays attention to.

If anyone is reduced to saying "eh, not that big of a deal that someone breaks the all-time record in ________" especially after putting up pretty notable yearly stats in that category that distinguish them from 99.9% of all NHL players and even the game's all-time greats, my advice would be to quit being a jerk.

Most analogies form baseball to hockey simply don't work that well and your example is proof of why.

There are obvious reasons why the triple leaders are for the most part early MLB players as the game has underwent some serious changes since then.

The example of 1963 assists was a very good one and if we ever see another player come clsoe to that we will recognize greatness when we see it.

Take for example probably the best passer or playmaker in modern times Joe Thornton.

He has 1088 assists in 22 seasons and is still 875 behind Gretzky.

Jumbo Joe is a sure fire HHOFer at this point and there are only 20 other players in NHL history (aside from Joe and Wayne) to even hit 875 assists period.

You really need to go back and look at how historic and monumental 1963 assists would be.

 

[GreatGonzo]

We're going round and round in circles and getting nowhere. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Crosby. I think Crosby > Ovechkin all-time. But if we're talking about Ovechkin vs top 10 all time, you need to stop obsessing with Crosby and compare him to Roy, Bourque, Hull, Beliveau, Hasek and many other of the usual suspects. It's not just about Crosby vs Ovi.

The one comment i'll respond to is the assist record. You really don't understand why breaking the assist record would be a bigger deal than the goal record? Really?

Gretzky scored 1963 assist in his career. That's the equivalent of a player having a 19 year NHL career - and averaging 100 assists a season - and still falling 63 assists short of the record. You know who managed to score 100 assist in a season? Gretzky, many times. Orr did it once. Lemieux did it once. That's it - no one else in the NHL history scored more than 100 assist in a season. Yet for someone to beat Gretzky's assists record - someone would have to average 100 assist for 20 straight years. You really don't think it's a more unbreakable record than 894 goals?

I don't even understand why you brought up this ridiculous example of assist record. It's one of the most unbreakable records in hockey history. But yes - if Crosby broke it, he wouldn't only be a top 10, or top 5 player - he'd be giving Gretzky a run for his money for #1. Considering he's more than 1100 assists away - I don't think we need to be having a Crosby > Gretzky argument just yet...

It’s the comparison that everyone is making. Your comparing Ovechkins playoffs to the top 10, and saying it isn’t a enough....well saying Crosby’s playoffs is the deciding factor overall to him him top ten. Ok, do you believe Hasek, Hull, and Bourque are top 10 players?

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Granted I did put Crosby in the situation that Ovechkin is in. Let’s say he doesn’t have a lot of goals, but tons of assists. Has lead the league in assists more times than anyone, and could break the all time assists record. And this is without a big goal tally. You would still see that as worthy of a top 10 spot? I just feel anyone who breaks that kind of record for ALL TIME deserves a spot. It’s an all time record, not something to shrug off. When you have more goals than anyone in NHL history, your up there regardless.

Most analogies form baseball to hockey simply don't work that well and your example is proof of why.

There are obvious reasons why the triple leaders are for the most part early MLB players as the game has underwent some serious changes since then.

The example of 1963 assists was a very good one and if we ever see another player come clsoe to that we will recognize greatness when we see it.

Take for example probably the best passer or playmaker in modern times Joe Thornton.

He has 1088 assists in 22 seasons and is still 875 behind Gretzky.

Jumbo Joe is a sure fire HHOFer at this point and there are only 20 other players in NHL history (aside from Joe and Wayne) to even hit 875 assists period.

You really need to go back and look at how historic and monumental 1963 assists would be.

The point was that breaking the goal scoring total is just as amazing and special. But many still treat it like it wouldn’t be enough. It’s a record that was seen as I breakable. I mean the closest is Howe at 93....the next is Jagr where Gretzky has 123 more, and it took Jagr and Howe playing into his 40s to get to those achievements.

Im just saying. Breaking that record, along with everything else he has achieved. I don’t see how anyone could say he isn’t.

here you go, chapter & verse. From this past Sunday at 2:22PM

“Talent wise they very much are. Both are elite playmakers & both were high value prospects. Trottier clearly has the better resume but what they bring to the teams is comparable. Or are you suggesting that Backstrom was made by Ovechkin which would be absurd.”

I stated very clearly “talent wise” they are similar. Trottier had a far greater impact, but both had similar pedigree.

once again I expose your ignorance. You’d better go back & watch a few more YouTubes & let those who watched it first hand make the analysis.

No. Talent, skill, career.....Backstrom isn’t close. And I mean it isn’t even a contest. You got caught and now your trying to save face, But please continue fighting the good fight.

 

[412 Others]

Ah, I see the Draper/Kunitz (ORANGES) having more cups line made its predictable entrance into the discussion.

We're comparing 2 high profile players in Crosby and Ovechkin (APPLES)- both of which have had the benefit playing on very good teams for most of their careers. These are the star players/leaders of their respective teams. They can and should be measured on how their contributions impact what's most important - winning titles.

When you bust out the Draper/Kunitz having more cups thing - and act like you've checkmated/mic dropped everyone - you come across as a mindless boob. That is all.

 

[BeastoftheEast85]

I believe he is top 10. His career compares favorably with Hull and Richard who both are universally considered top 10 players. I do not see how you consider Richard top 10 without also considering Ovy top 10z

 

[FinProspects]

Oh, this is actually Sid vs Ovie thread. Well, good, its been a while since we had one.

 

[daver]

I believe he is top 10. His career compares favorably with Hull and Richard who both are universally considered top 10 players. I do not see how you consider Richard top 10 without also considering Ovy top 10z

Playoffs put Richard in the Top Ten. When you are talking about the very best of all-time, OV being Top 20 vs. Top 10 is getting to the "marginal difference territory".

 

[shtorm2005]

Ah, I see the Draper/Kunitz (ORANGES) having more cups line made its predictable entrance into the discussion.

We're comparing 2 high profile players in Crosby and Ovechkin (APPLES)- both of which have had the benefit playing on very good teams for most of their careers. These are the star players/leaders of their respective teams. They can and should be measured on how their contributions impact what's most important - winning titles.

Good teams, but not equal enough to compare leaders. Also, it absolutely takes dept scoring and more than one leader. Almost nobody performed at Ovy's level in his team, and when someone did, they won the cup. It takes little brain to say that Pens won it more times because Crosby is better than Ovy.

 

[daver]

Good teams, but not equal enough to compare leaders. Also, it absolutely takes dept scoring and more than one leader. Almost nobody performed at Ovy's level in his team, and when someone did, they won the cup. It takes little brain to say that Pens won it more times because Crosby is better than Ovy.

Crosby being better than OV as player and in the playoffs certainly can be pointed to helping his team more than OV did.

 

[Hatfield]

Most analogies form baseball to hockey simply don't work that well and your example is proof of why.

There are obvious reasons why the triple leaders are for the most part early MLB players as the game has underwent some serious changes since then.

The example of 1963 assists was a very good one and if we ever see another player come clsoe to that we will recognize greatness when we see it.

Take for example probably the best passer or playmaker in modern times Joe Thornton.

He has 1088 assists in 22 seasons and is still 875 behind Gretzky.

Jumbo Joe is a sure fire HHOFer at this point and there are only 20 other players in NHL history (aside from Joe and Wayne) to even hit 875 assists period.

You really need to go back and look at how historic and monumental 1963 assists would be.

I sort of agree with both sides of this. Gretzky's assist total is staggering and virtually unbeatable, whereas the goals record could be beaten by Ovechkin (and probably could have been beaten by Jagr if not for lockouts/KHL). On the other hand, the goals record is the more "glamorous" one and will get more attention from media and casual fans. For instance, it was a bigger deal when Gretzky broke the goals and points records than when he broke the assists record. (But then again, the assists record was far less impressive at the time Gretzky broke it; by the end of his career he'd nearly lapped Howe, and several others have beaten that total.)

 

[Hatfield]

Ah, I see the Draper/Kunitz (ORANGES) having more cups line made its predictable entrance into the discussion.

We're comparing 2 high profile players in Crosby and Ovechkin (APPLES)- both of which have had the benefit playing on very good teams for most of their careers. These are the star players/leaders of their respective teams. They can and should be measured on how their contributions impact what's most important - winning titles.

When you bust out the Draper/Kunitz having more cups thing - and act like you've checkmated/mic dropped everyone - you come across as a mindless boob. That is all.

It's an appropriate response to a mindless point.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Top 5 I dont think his name belongs in THAT category.
Top 10 is debatable
Top 15 100%
Crosby still will rank higher than OV even if he beats Gretzky`s goal record.

 

[wetcoast]

I sort of agree with both sides of this. Gretzky's assist total is staggering and virtually unbeatable, whereas the goals record could be beaten by Ovechkin (and probably could have been beaten by Jagr if not for lockouts/KHL). On the other hand, the goals record is the more "glamorous" one and will get more attention from media and casual fans. For instance, it was a bigger deal when Gretzky broke the goals and points records than when he broke the assists record. (But then again, the assists record was far less impressive at the time Gretzky broke it; by the end of his career he'd nearly lapped Howe, and several others have beaten that total.)

Great post and the big picture here is that some are promoting goals as worth more than points and definitely more important than assists which is really strange and reveals a great amount of bias.

As for Ovechkin beating the goals record, he is 195 goals away from that milestone and this season he is showing a huge decline as an overall player even if he is still elite at scoring goals.

Does anyone see that decline decreasing going forward?

Unlikely and it might turn into a spectacle (and not in a good way) as Ovi reaches for the record but blemishes the memory of his career.

For those focused on goals it probably won't matter but those focused on the historical record it sure will.

 

[wetcoast]

Top 5 I dont think his name belongs in THAT category.
Top 10 is debatable
Top 15 100%
Crosby still will rank higher than OV even if he beats Gretzky`s goal record.

First 3 I agree with and the last one will depend on how their respective careers play out but it looks 95% certain at this point.

 

[shtorm2005]

Crosby being better than OV as player and in the playoffs certainly can be pointed to helping his team more than OV did.

Then why you all bring championships? Argue all you want about who performed better, but don't bring championships. You can play better and be a better player, but still lose. Championships it's about whole team and luck.

 

[waitin425]

I believe that Crosby is the better player....but, if Ovi beats Gretzky's goal record in 50 years it will be Ovi who gets talked about

I'll rank the top 10 players I've actually seen play.....

Gretzky
Lemieux
Crosby
Ovechkin
McDavid
Hasek
Lidstrom
Yzerman
Sakic
Lindros

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Ah, I see the Draper/Kunitz (ORANGES) having more cups line made its predictable entrance into the discussion.

We're comparing 2 high profile players in Crosby and Ovechkin (APPLES)- both of which have had the benefit playing on very good teams for most of their careers. These are the star players/leaders of their respective teams. They can and should be measured on how their contributions impact what's most important - winning titles.

When you bust out the Draper/Kunitz having more cups thing - and act like you've checkmated/mic dropped everyone - you come across as a mindless boob. That is all.

We're comparing 2 high profile players in Lemieux and Messier (APPLES)- both of which have had the benefit playing on very good teams for most of their careers. These are the star players/leaders of their respective teams. They can and should be measured on how their contributions impact what's most important - winning titles.

Messier 6 cups, Lemieux 2. So Messier >> Lemieux.

Kurri 5 cups, Jagr 2. So Kurri >> Jagr.

Apples to apples right?

 

[daver]

Then why you all bring championships? Argue all you want about who performed better, but don't bring championships. You can play better and be a better player, but still lose. Championships it's about whole team and luck.

The great ones win championships. Many people pointed to OV playing a strong 2-way game when they won the Cup.

 

[shtorm2005]

The great ones win championships. Many people pointed to OV playing a strong 2-way game when they won the Cup.

Nope, great players are great no matter if their team wins championships. Without Malkin, Crosby wouldn't probably get SC, but he would be great anyway.