Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[wetcoast]

Ovechkin isn't hurting the powerplay, that's an absurd notion and if you watched you'd understand that unless he's pounding it in they're anemic. The problem is that their umbrella has been completely foiled and only if they can get set up, which is a big if because suddenly Backstrom and Kuznetsov can't carry the puck. The PP coach Forsythe's lone advice to help? Have Ovi and Carslon switch places sometimes, as you can suspect this has helped about as much as me typing this.

No, Ovechkin isn't remotely hurting the team on the PP, it's their inability to enter the zone, move the puck with purpose and speed (which is a team problem 5v5 for nearly 3 months now) and get any sort of movement from the PK. It's time they ditch the umbrella and get back to a basic PP setup that can reliably move the puck, use the skill that these players possess and start shooting from all angle instead of having Carlson toss horrible expected wobblers into Ovechkin's skates.

Your narrative is nonsense.

Thank you for making my case.

Ovechkin gets more PP time than any other forward in the league and has a line of 12 goals and 5 assists and it's all his teammates fault?

That's called underperforming.

I guess his -14 on a really good team is someone else's fault as well right?

Good grief Charlie Brown.

 

[Mike8]

How is he not a top 10 player? Do people actually think guys like Gordie Howe were better hockey players than Ovi? Ovechkin is bigger, faster, stronger, better skater, better shooter, better stickhandler, better hitter, etc. Better at every aspect of the game because the game has gotten exponentially more competitive since 2000 due to the advancement of technique, on and off-ice trainers, equipment, nutrition, population pool, etc. Prime Gordie Howe can't even skate under today's standards. People are f***ing stupid.

Your conclusion (that people are stupid) is comical given your logic. And I don't say this in a demeaning way--more that you've correctly pointed out the flaws, but you didn't take into account this isn't how a top-10 of all-time list is composed.

Of course, no one looks at this in a vacuum to compare players across eras. That's never been how historical comparisons have been made, for the reasons you've provided. There is no point at all in making a top-10 history of hockey list if we're not speaking on a relative basis (relative to their respective eras).

 

[Zuluss]

To start with, I personally think (and you may disagree) that the rarest and most valuable offensive hockey players are the ones who are elite -- or at least very, very good -- at both scoring goals and at setting them up (play-making, if you like).

Ovechkin in his heyday had a few top-10 assists seasons, which is good, and he had his one and only scoring title in 2008. He clearly is/was a competent and skilled passer/playmaker... but he has never been elite at it, and has only rarely been, say, top ten or fifteen in the play-making category. Anyway, I would personally (and you may disagree) rank someone like Jaromir Jagr (or Jean Beliveau) ahead of Ovechkin in terms of offensive ability and overall impact, largely because Jagr was better at both scoring goals and setting them up. 5 scoring titles is far more impressive than 1, and while Ovechkin's goals-titles are otherworldly (in fact, the most ever in the NHL), I simply don't find goals totals to be nearly as impressive as point totals

This is a matter of taste and here we just disagree. I prefer players who have a face, who excel at something. It seems dull to me to imagine the hockey history that consists of players lined up on the number of Art Rosses and top10 finishes in points. I would like top10-top20 players to have a legend around their names - and yes, 5 Art Rosses and 4 in a row is a good legend, but it is not the only one possible.
Maurice Richard has no Art Rosses and only one Hart - but he is a staple in top10 players ever. He has his goal-scoring legend, he has his playoff legend. Ovechkin's goal-scoring legend is bigger than Richard's - even though Ovechkin does not have the same level of playoff success, he deserves to be next to Richard based on his goal-scoring.

Bobby Hull had one fewer (so far) NHL goals' title than Ovechkin (plus another in the WHA), but he also had three scoring titles to Ovechkin's one, and a bunch of top-6 assists finishes.

In any case, I cannot really see any argument for him in fifth-place. That just seems way too high, regardless of how many goals he ends up with.

Bobby Hull has long been (and probably still is) my choice for #5 all-time. I know that not everyone would agree about that, but I do not think many people have Bobby Hull out of top10 ever either.
Ovechkin is as close to Bobby Hull as they come. They have very different career arcs despite being very similar goals-scorers, but the overall career value is similar.

Bobby Hull's peak years were 25 to 29, when he was nominated for Hart for five years straight despite winning Art Ross only once during these years, but he was freaking doubling the production of #5 in goal-scoring these years. In comparison to that, his pre25 seasons were hit-and-miss: yes, he won two Art Rosses, but those seasons were sandwiched in between a 50-point season, a 56-point season, and a 62-point season, and the Hart voters showed little love of young Bobby's Art Ross-winning campaigns, especially the first one.

(That actually reminds me of a tired narrative "Ovechkin started like Bobby Hull, but then turned into Brett" - I was always wondering whether people who say that mean that Ovechkin started with posting multiple under-ppg seasons and failing to win a Hart in his first 7 seasons in the league. If they do, who were they watching instead of young Ovechkin - Patrick Kane, maybe? If they do not mean that, what is the similarity between pre25 Ovechkin and pre25 Bobby Hull other than 2 goal-scoring titles?)

Ovechkin's pre30 career is in fact a mirror image of Bobby Hull's: the first five years of Ovechkin are similar to Bobby Hull's 25-29 period (Ovechkin was nominated for league's MVP in four seasons and won three times - vs. Hull's 5 nominations and 2 wins, Ovechkin was running laps around his goal-scoring competition, Ovechkin was in fact better in the points race - he was close to winning three times and won once, Hull won once and came close once more). Then between 25 and 29 Ovechkin's seasons were hit-and-miss, like Hull's pre25 career - Ovechkin had two Hart-worthy campaigns, but also a couple of off-seasons. Yes, post25 Ovechkin was challenging for Hart based on his goals, and pre25 Hull was better at putting up points, but a Hart is a Hart, a nomination is a nomination.

It is also interesting that while Bobby Hull does come across as a better point producer, I do not think "3 Art Rosses vs. 1 Art Ross" is a fair comparison. Ovechkin was within 3 points in 2008/09 and 2009/10. He missed some time, he did not win, but the lack of those 6 career points does not really make it 3-1 in Hull's favor. Also, Ovechkin came within 4 and 6 points of an Art Ross win two more times, while Hull finished 2 points behind Mikita once, and in other years he was 10+ points behind the winner.

All in all, pre30 careers of Ovechkin and Bobby Hull seem similar with advantage to Hull (one more MVP nomination, one more goal-scoring title), but Ovechkin seems to create a longevity gap over Hull. Hull never won a goal-scoring title after 30, he moved to a weaker league at 33 and was not exactly setting in on fire either. Ovechkin is still winning goal-scoring titles, Ovechkin is still collecting Hart votes. Another year or two like the current one, and Ovechkin can move ahead of Hull in terms of career value, and even if he does not, they still have to be ranked close to each other. If Hull is #5, then Ovechkin is probably #6 or #7, if Hull is top10, Ovechkin also is.

 

[Mike8]

(That actually reminds me of a tired narrative "Ovechkin started like Bobby Hull, but then turned into Brett" - I was always wondering whether people who say that mean that Ovechkin started with posting multiple under-ppg seasons and failing to win a Hart in his first 7 seasons in the league. If they do, who were they watching instead of young Ovechkin - Patrick Kane, maybe? If they do not mean that, what is the similarity between pre25 Ovechkin and pre25 Bobby Hull other than 2 goal-scoring titles?)

I think the idea of that narrative is that Ovechkin's career starting out similar to Bobby Hull--in Bobby's peak--but his career quickly became more like Brett's. The 'starting out' refers to Ovechkin's career and not Bobby Hull's start. This is trivial probably - and I know you were bringing this up as an aside - but just offering my interpretation of this narrative that annoys you so.

 

[BlueMed]

Your conclusion (that people are stupid) is comical given your logic. And I don't say this in a demeaning way--more that you've correctly pointed out the flaws, but you didn't take into account this isn't how a top-10 of all-time list is composed.

Of course, no one looks at this in a vacuum to compare players across eras. That's never been how historical comparisons have been made, for the reasons you've provided. There is no point at all in making a top-10 history of hockey list if we're not speaking on a relative basis (relative to their respective eras).

My entire point was that: the popular way of composing a top-10 of all time list is illogical by its very nature. The definition of a better hockey player is, who is more effective at helping a team score more goals while giving up fewer goals (skill, size, athleticism, heart, etc). That's what being a better hockey player means. It does not mean, who was more dominant in their respective era, which is inherently unfair because different players play in different eras. When you are comparing players, you always compare them in a vacuum even if they are in the same era but in different conferences, teams, etc.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I did back it up as Ovechkin has more time on the PP than any other player in the league right now and has 12 goals and 5 assists.

Also watching him play he doesn't attack the zone anywhere near the way he did in his prime and his ESGF/ESGA ratios are really meh.


When the trend continues next year there will be other excuses no doubt.

Ovechkin has had a fine career and will probably end up as a top 10 player and is close right ow but the history of the game has had so many great players plain and simple.

And he has 31 out of 43 ES goals and 43 ES points out of 60....so again you keep pushing PP numbers and what not and that he’s somehow being detrimental to his team, yet ignore his ES production? Which is second on his own team...

You are just enjoying this season for Ovechkin a little to much and couldn’t wait to talk about how “bad” he’s been. Your part of the same crowd that did it in 2011, 2012, and 2014. Except you suddenly disappear when he redeems himself, which he always has. But sure, focus on PP time and this season alone and close your mind to anything else, looks good on you.

Come next year you will be right where you are continuing your crusade against Ovechkin while he continues to hunt for the goal scoring record. I’m sure that must bug you but I’m sure you will be able to cope.

Ok...like who? Name some. Since Ovechkin seems to be a dime a dozen in your expert opinion, who has had the overall better career with the talent that should be mentioned that hasn’t already?

 

[Mike8]

My entire point was that: the popular way of composing a top-10 of all time list is illogical by its very nature. The definition of a better hockey player is, who is more effective at helping a team score more goals while giving up fewer goals (skill, size, athleticism, heart, etc). That's what being a better hockey player means. It does not mean, who was more dominant in their respective era, which is inherently unfair because different players play in different eras. When you are comparing players, you always compare them in a vacuum even if they are in the same era but in different conferences, teams, etc.

Yeah, but that just doesn't make sense to compare in a vacuum--for all the reasons you mentioned (training regimens, etc.). So then what's the point of ever comparing? Players in 50 years will be better than they are today, certainly. Is that your point, then? That we shouldn't have a top-10 all-time list at all? Obviously people will do it anyway, so I'm not sure why rail against it?

And comparing across eras has its challenges--as is evidenced by this thread. But there's good, productive discussions that come out of it (this thread not being an example of that, however).

 

[Zuluss]

I think the idea of that narrative is that Ovechkin's career starting out similar to Bobby Hull--in Bobby's peak--but his career quickly became more like Brett's. The 'starting out' refers to Ovechkin's career and not Bobby Hull's start. This is trivial probably - and I know you were bringing this up as an aside - but just offering my interpretation of this narrative that annoys you so.

I guess what I do not understand is how "Ovechkin started as Bobby Hull and continued like Bobby Hull" would look like.

So Ovechkin started his career by (nearly) matching Bobby Hull's peak. What was he supposed to do next? Keep playing at peak Hull level? That would have made him clearly better than Hull, who only maintained his peak play for 5 years, and the right comparison then would have been Howe.

So after (nearly) matching Bobby Hull's peak, Ovechkin went on to match Bobby Hull's off-peak seasons - he got a couple of Hart-worthy years, a couple of meh seasons that were still All-star team worthy, some more goal-scoring titles with a healthy amount of Hart votes attached. The order of years was different, but the career value is about the same.

And since Ovechkin came close to Bobby Hull's peak, his career can never become like Brett Hull's - even if his off-peak years had been like Brett's off-peak years, which they were not.

 

[BlueMed]

Yeah, but that just doesn't make sense to compare in a vacuum--for all the reasons you mentioned (training regimens, etc.). So then what's the point of ever comparing? Players in 50 years will be better than they are today, certainly. Is that your point, then? That we shouldn't have a top-10 all-time list at all? Obviously people will do it anyway, so I'm not sure why rail against it?

And comparing across eras has its challenges--as is evidenced by this thread. But there's good, productive discussions that come out of it (this thread not being an example of that, however).

Yeah that is my point. Unfortunately, that lends to a rather boring discussion, but that's the nature of things. Societies tend to get better over time not only in sports but also in science, education, technology, etc. That's just the way it is.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

If he ends up being the top goal scorer of all time, he could have 0 assists, be terrible defensively, and would still be a top 10 player of al ltime.

 

[Sentinel]

What on earth are you talking about lol

The "lol" is entirely on you, bud.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think Ovechkin's legacy or historical ranking will have anything to do with breaking or not breaking the career goals record. That's kind of irrelevant at this point.

When you say "Top 5", are you talking about goal-scoring? I think Ovechkin is very comfortably there, and has been a for a couple of years or more. I don't think there's much of an argument against his being top-3 all time, by now.

I mean, maybe at a stretch, someone could make a credible case for his being as "low" as fifth -- esp. if you want to prioritize peak-level domination, international hockey, or playoff goal-scoring -- but even that would be difficult at this stage. He's gotta be top-3 in NHL history by now.

No, I'm not talking "goalscoring." He is already in the top 3. If he surpasses Gretzky, he becomes the undisputed #1 goalscorer and in the 5-7 PLAYERS of all time.

How is he not a top 10 player? Do people actually think guys like Gordie Howe were better hockey players than Ovi? Ovechkin is bigger, faster, stronger, better skater, better shooter, better stickhandler, better hitter, etc. Better at every aspect of the game because the game has gotten exponentially more competitive since 2000 due to the advancement of technique, on and off-ice trainers, equipment, nutrition, population pool, etc. Prime Gordie Howe can't even skate under today's standards. People are f***ing stupid.

Admit it: you don't know first thing about Gordie Howe. "Better skater" and "better shooter"? Put Ovechkin in the 1950s outfits, give him the wooden stick, and have Howe elbow his face. "Better hitter" Gordie was a psychopath out there, and one of the best two-way forwards the game has ever known. AND he played for a million years.

You are right about one thing: people are f***ing stupid. Ovechkin is one or two tiers below Gordie, and if you don't understand it, then you have no business discussing hockey.

 

[Sentinel]

Ovi supporters are going to need a different narrative soon as the record one is flimsy and perhaps out of range.

Some actual better play than being a minus 14 player who plays more than any player on the PP and has a PP line of 12 goals and 5 assists is indicating that his position of playing more PP minutes by a large margin over other NHL forwards might change going forward.

Ovechkin happens to lead all players in ESG over the past decade and a half and not by a small margin.

Ovy detractors are going to need a different narrative if Ovy breaks the record.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The fact of the matter is that Ovechkin has a 12-5 power play line this year with exceptionally high PP time.

The Capitals have 41 PPG. That's T-10th in the league right now. (The PP is 16th in the league at 20.0%.) If the Caps PP clicked at the same rate as Edmonton, they'd have another 18 PPG. If it was "only" 5th-best, it would be equal to St. Louis at just under 24% and they'd have 8 more. When you look at the individuals,

Carlson has 2-23-25 (tied for 4th in the league in PPA, top-10 in PPP)
Ovechkin has 12-5-17 (T-3rd in PPG behind Draisaitl's 13 and Pastrnak's 19)
Backstrom has 2-15-17
Oshie has 10-2-12
Kuznetsov has 6-6-12
Vrana has 1-11-12
Wilson has 5-2-7

Back to PP%: using the same PPG rates for guys relative to the team total, it would give Ovechkin 5 more (Caps crank at a 28.57% rate) and 2 more (23.94% PP rate) respectively. I don't know if somehow 17-7-24ish or so would be "more acceptable" (don't think 14-6-20 would still fly, but I'll let you and/or others opine on it) but even that first one still wouldn't put him top-10 in PPP.

Note though that of the Caps' 41 PPG, Ovechkin's been on the ice for 37 of them. The only player who's been on for a larger percentage of his team's PPG is Draisaitl (51 of 54). So, if he's not on there the Caps PP isn't doing squat - but, when he's out there the Caps aren't having to have Ovy do all the scoring for them.

So, I'm just curious: what should his PP stats be to pass as acceptable? And/or, what stats should the rest of his teammates "only" be putting up so that he can put up acceptable PP stats?

 

[SuperHockeyFanSN]

I would always read how sacred Gretzky's records were.

ITT I now read "yeah he can break arguably the greatest one and he's not even top 10."

Just LOL

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Nope, this is not objectively established. This is a pretty clear-cut case of using a word incorrectly, then throwing a temper tantrum when you're informed of the definition. Treat this as an education experience, not as a reason to throw a fit.

Nah, I'm completely correct; amongst people that matter in hockey my take is the objective take and you can pound that keyboard all you want because it doesn't' make a difference.

 

[Jtown]

If he ends up being the top goal scorer of all time, he could have 0 assists, be terrible defensively, and would still be a top 10 player of al ltime.

this right here is why i would never put a goalie in a top 10 or even in the hart conversation. Players who only impact one end of the ice are not nearly as valuable as players that can impact both sides. Hence why Ovi has won only 1 cup.

 

[wetcoast]

If he ends up being the top goal scorer of all time, he could have 0 assists, be terrible defensively, and would still be a top 10 player of al ltime.

Um nope any player with only 0 assists isn't a top 10 player of time.

Heck even Hasek and Roy have double digit assists.

Not even sure what your point is here as this is hockey not soccer.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

this right here is why i would never put a goalie in a top 10 or even in the hart conversation. Players who only impact one end of the ice are not nearly as valuable as players that can impact both sides. Hence why Ovi has won only 1 cup.

Complete fallacy. Ovechkin only has 1 cup because for a decade he had horrible goaltending, a blue line that couldn't shut down anyone and no other players that could pick up the scoring slack. Ovechkin impacted both zones early in his career by being the greatest scoring threat of the generation, he was always a threat to break the zone and kept defensemen honest when he was on the ice. They didn't lose any of those early flameout because Ovechkin and thinking this way is what armchair, ill informed fans do.

In addition, does Joe Thornton not have any cups because he didn't impact both sides?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Ovechkin will have scored 800 goals by the end of his career, only Gretzky and Howe have accomplished that feat. Era adjusted goals relative to league scoring rates and percentage of teams total goals Ovechkin blows Gretzky out of the water. There is no logical argument that could be made to keep Ovechkin out of the top 10; lack of a Stanley Cup could’ve been a valid reason, but he put that to rest with an incredible playoff performance. Adding a Conn Smythe to his ridiculous level of other accolades and hardware cement him as top 10. Posters pointing out flaws in his overall game, no player is perfect, Gretzky was poor defensively, weak in board battles and lacked adequate checking in his game; Messier and MacT would take the big draws with the Oilers. We would never hold this against Gretzky because of his insane offensive output than why do it with Ovechkin? You could argue OV’s lack of a great all around game if he finished with around 650-700 goals, not when he’ll have 800+ and is considered the greatest goal scorer of all time. Ovechkin’s overall game as a winger was pretty good, besides being the GOAT goal scorer he had incredible size, speed, athleticism and passion. He was extremely tough to handle and dished out a lot of hard hits. There really is no logical argument to keep “The Great 8” out of the top 10 when he reaches 800 goals in this era, it’s simply remarkable.

 

[wetcoast]

Nah, I'm completely correct; amongst people that matter in hockey my take is the objective take and you can pound that keyboard all you want because it doesn't' make a difference.

Um maybe it's time for a reality check here eh?

Your post,like mine, and all the other posts here are subjective opinions.

Anyone claiming, to use your words here, that "they are completely correct" need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Well actually a whole mine of salt.

 

[wetcoast]

Ovechkin happens to lead all players in ESG over the past decade and a half and not by a small margin.

Ovy detractors are going to need a different narrative if Ovy breaks the record.

When a player ages what they did if their early to mid 20s is alot less relevant than what they are doing in the current season.

Not really sure why you are missing that point.

Joe Thornton has more assists than anyone else in that time period too but I didnt see any teams trading 5 first round picks for a 90 assist man....well because he isnt one anymore.

 

[wetcoast]

The Capitals have 41 PPG. That's T-10th in the league right now. (The PP is 16th in the league at 20.0%.) If the Caps PP clicked at the same rate as Edmonton, they'd have another 18 PPG. If it was "only" 5th-best, it would be equal to St. Louis at just under 24% and they'd have 8 more. When you look at the individuals,

Carlson has 2-23-25 (tied for 4th in the league in PPA, top-10 in PPP)
Ovechkin has 12-5-17 (T-3rd in PPG behind Draisaitl's 13 and Pastrnak's 19)
Backstrom has 2-15-17
Oshie has 10-2-12
Kuznetsov has 6-6-12
Vrana has 1-11-12
Wilson has 5-2-7

Back to PP%: using the same PPG rates for guys relative to the team total, it would give Ovechkin 5 more (Caps crank at a 28.57% rate) and 2 more (23.94% PP rate) respectively. I don't know if somehow 17-7-24ish or so would be "more acceptable" (don't think 14-6-20 would still fly, but I'll let you and/or others opine on it) but even that first one still wouldn't put him top-10 in PPP.

Note though that of the Caps' 41 PPG, Ovechkin's been on the ice for 37 of them. The only player who's been on for a larger percentage of his team's PPG is Draisaitl (51 of 54). So, if he's not on there the Caps PP isn't doing squat - but, when he's out there the Caps aren't having to have Ovy do all the scoring for them.

So, I'm just curious: what should his PP stats be to pass as acceptable? And/or, what stats should the rest of his teammates "only" be putting up so that he can put up acceptable PP stats?

Well I'm on phone right now so I can't look up the exact totals but any player that his supporters claim is one of the top goal scorers in the league and according to some on here still a Hart candidate should have more than 17 PP points given the amount of ice time and SOG Ovi takes.

I think people needs to look at the facts of the matter, ie actual production, TOI and SOG and focus less on the jersey number here and then they would all agree that the actual production is underwhelming given the other factors I mentioned.

Just as worrying is the -14 on a very good Caps team and once again the eytest backs this up.

At age 34 this isn't a good trend.

 

[Fantomas]

Is Ovechkin a top-10 player of all time?
No, probably not even that close.

Is Ovechkin a top-10 goal-scorer of all time?
Yes, obviously.

lmao

 

[Fantomas]

Some actual better play than being a minus 14 player

Crosby is -7 in 35 games. He must be awful too.