Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[tenken00]

Show me a highlight of said play.

Vesa Toskala doesn’t count.

So you never seen a player get a primary assist by shooting and missing the net wide right by 3 feet and the puck bounces off a defender and then off a teammate's skate into the net?

 

[pi314]

So you never seen a player get a primary assist by shooting and missing the net wide right by 3 feet and the puck bounces off a defender and then off a teammate's skate into the net?

I've seen flukey goals and assists.

But most times, the people who got the assist(s) and the goal all deserved credit.

I've also seen a bunch of really insecure Ovechkin fans go to great lengths to discredit everyone in hockey except the goal scorer.

I'll believe it more when I see the same arguments for Cheechoo, Brett Hull, Rick Nash, Corey Perry, Lecavalier, Milan Hejduk, and other leading goal scorers.

 

[tenken00]

I've seen flukey goals and assists.

But most times, the people who got the assist(s) and the goal all deserved credit.

I've also seen a bunch of really insecure Ovechkin fans go to great lengths to discredit everyone in hockey except the goal scorer.

I'll believe it more when I see the same arguments for Cheechoo, Brett Hull, Rick Nash, Corey Perry, Lecavalier, Milan Hejduk, and other leading goal scorers.

It's not really about Ovechkin. It's about whether an assist is worth the same as a goal. Especially since hockey assists can have a large randomness factor associated with them. Coming from an outsider's point of view that came to love the game, I'm fine with it. Like I said, it's a quirk of the game. But don't sit there and try to tell me that assists are the equivalent of goals with a straight face and not expect me to roll my eyes. You don't see plays like that in basketball or soccer count as an assist, only direct passes with intent. Passes with purpose. It's like you are so ingrained in this mentality that you refuse to look at it any other way.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

This is the elephant in the room that never gets addressed though.

If the goals are always more important crown really believed this Jonathan Cheechoo should have finished much higher than 15th in Hart voting when his line mate Joe Thortnon won it despite scoring a grand total of 29 goals that season right.

Cheechoo is a product of Thornton though. Thornton produced no matter who his wingers were. It's like when Rob Brown scored 50 goals playing with Lemieux... everyone knew he was a product of his linemate. Cheechoo is better than Brown was but he put up 50+ goals because he was on a line with the best playmaker in hockey.

Ovechkin drives the line just like Crosby or Thornton does. He's going to produce no matter what.

 

[filinski77]

I've seen flukey goals and assists.

But most times, the people who got the assist(s) and the goal all deserved credit.

I've also seen a bunch of really insecure Ovechkin fans go to great lengths to discredit everyone in hockey except the goal scorer.

I'll believe it more when I see the same arguments for Cheechoo, Brett Hull, Rick Nash, Corey Perry, Lecavalier, Milan Hejduk, and other leading goal scorers.

Do you not see the blatant difference between the point of the argument and your examples? No-one is saying that if player A scores more goals than player B, that player A had a better season.

Cheechoo and Hejduk didn't get Hart/Pearson shots cause 1) they had a player on their own team that was significantly better than they were who directly impacted the # of goals they scored and 2) lost out on potential votes due to the players on their team having more points (in cheechoos case, significantly)

Hull literally won a Pearson/Hart, and in his 2 other top goalscoring seasons finished ahead of Gretzky one year and Lemieux another year, despite those 2 having significantly (20-35%) more points

Nash had like 65% less points than the leading scorer his year he won the Rocket, Lecavalier was #2 in Hart voting for forwards, but lost out to Crosby who has 12 more points.

These examples do no justice considering that there's a ton of proof that shows when points are relatively close, the person with more goals is often viewed/voted as having a better year.

At the end of the day, it's not about discrediting the players that get a ton of assists, but giving extra credit to the players who are best at doing the hardest and most important part of a game - scoring goals. At the end of the day, regardless of how anyone feels, assists are completely arbitrary, and goals are not. The NHL could have never even counted assists, and no-one would have batted an eye, because it's not even common to record assists in many other sports. On the flip side, they could have arbitrarily decided that 3 assists could be counted for each goal.

-> This would drastically change the outcome of points either way, but the only thing that would be consistent are the goals.

 

[pi314]

It's not really about Ovechkin. It's about whether an assist is worth the same as a goal. Especially since hockey assists can have a large randomness factor associated with them. Coming from an outsider's point of view that came to love the game, I'm fine with it. Like I said, it's a quirk of the game. But don't sit there and try to tell me that assists are the equivalent of goals with a straight face and not expect me to roll my eyes. You don't see plays like that in basketball or soccer count as an assist, only direct passes with intent. Passes with purpose. It's like you are so ingrained in this mentality that you refuse to look at it any other way.

Yes I'm sure when Milan Hejduk was leading the league in goals, you were busy telling your hockey friends that it was a travesty Joe Sakic was considered a better player because he had more points.

I'm sure you thought Hejduk's goals were far more valuable. I'm sure you thought Thornton just rode Cheechoo's goal scoring.

I'm sure you're not making the 'goals are so much more important' argument because your favorite player is Ovechkin.

Every single night I can show you a goal that was more about the pass than the finish.

Do we give 5 extra points to the guy who gets an easy tap in off a great pass?

The point system has been used in hockey for a long, long time.

It generally shows the players who make the biggest offensive contributions.

 

[tenken00]

Yes I'm sure when Milan Hejduk was leading the league in goals, you were busy telling your hockey friends that it was a travesty Joe Sakic was considered a better player because he had more points.

I'm sure you thought Hejduk's goals were far more valuable. I'm sure you thought Thornton just road Cheechoo's goal scoring.

I'm sure you're not making the 'goals are so much more important' argument because your favorite player is Ovechkin.

Every single night I can show you a goal that was more about the pass than the finish.

Do we give 5 extra points to the guy who gets an easy tap in off a great pass?

The point system has been used in hockey for a long, long time.

It generally shows the players who make the biggest offensive contributions.

I'm not including any players in my argument. Not even Ovechkin. The only thing I've said about Ovechkin was that the story isn't done, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about him right now.

I'm talking about goals and assists at its most base level. No players, just breaking it down to the fundamental action. Remove all players from your head.

Your argument "because we've always done it this way for 39362728 years" doesn't mean its logical.

 

[pi314]

Do you not see the blatant difference between the point of the argument and your examples? No-one is saying that if player A scores more goals than player B, that player A had a better season.

Cheechoo and Hejduk didn't get Hart/Pearson shots cause 1) they had a player on their own team that was significantly better than they were who directly impacted the # of goals they scored and 2) lost out on potential votes due to the players on their team having more points (in cheechoos case, significantly)

Hull literally won a Pearson/Hart, and in his 2 other top goalscoring seasons finished ahead of Gretzky one year and Lemieux another year, despite those 2 having significantly (20-35%) more points

Nash had like 65% less points than the leading scorer his year he won the Rocket, Lecavalier was #2 in Hart voting for forwards, but lost out to Crosby who has 12 more points.

These examples do no justice considering that there's a ton of proof that shows when points are relatively close, the person with more goals is often viewed/voted as having a better year.

At the end of the day, it's not about discrediting the players that get a ton of assists, but giving extra credit to the players who are best at doing the hardest and most important part of a game - scoring goals. At the end of the day, regardless of how anyone feels, assists are completely arbitrary, and goals are not. The NHL could have never even counted assists, and no-one would have batted an eye, because it's not even common to record assists in many other sports. On the flip side, they could have arbitrarily decided that 3 assists could be counted for each goal.

-> This would drastically change the outcome of points either way, but the only thing that would be consistent are the goals.

See the bolded section. Therein lies the problem.

Assists are so "random" that Gretzky must be like a lottery winner.

Because he just kept "randomly" piling them up.

More than anyone else in history.

Definitely didn't have anything to do with his vision, creativity, skillset, and awareness.

Just an arbitrary beneficiary of good fortune.

I can't tell whether you people are just that devoted to your favorite player or you know absolutely nothing about hockey beyond a highlight clip from YouTube.

 

[pi314]

I'm not including any players in my argument. Not even Ovechkin. The only thing I've said about Ovechkin was that the story isn't done, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about him right now.

I'm talking about goals and assists at its most base level. No players, just breaking it down to the fundamental action. Remove all players from your head.

Your argument "because we've always done it this way for 39362728 years" doesn't mean its logical.

Indeed, you are not including any players in your argument.

But it's pretty painfully obvious which one you have a vested interested in.

 

[tenken00]

Indeed, you are not including any players in your argument.

But it's pretty painfully obvious which one you have a vested interested in.

So... what does that mean? If I say Ovechkin is not a top 10 player, you would admit that assists are not the equivalent of a goal?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes I'm sure when Milan Hejduk was leading the league in goals, you were busy telling your hockey friends that it was a travesty Joe Sakic was considered a better player because he had more points.

I'm sure you thought Hejduk's goals were far more valuable. I'm sure you thought Thornton just rode Cheechoo's goal scoring.

I'm sure you're not making the 'goals are so much more important' argument because your favorite player is Ovechkin.

Every single night I can show you a goal that was more about the pass than the finish.

Do we give 5 extra points to the guy who gets an easy tap in off a great pass?

The point system has been used in hockey for a long, long time.

It generally shows the players who make the biggest offensive contributions.

Playmakers like Oates or Forsberg or Thornton produced no matter who they were with. They were awesome players who drove the play and that's why they're all HOF caliber players. (Edit: glad Oates got in. Took too long and I hadn't even realized he was in. He should've been in much earlier.)

I don't bother with the whole secondary assist thing... it's silly to get into that stuff as far as I'm concerned. But I definitely think that pound for pound I'd take a goal scorer over a playmaker. It's not always the case though... if the playmaker is the guy who makes the goal scorer then obviously that's who you'd take instead.

 

[pi314]

So... what does that mean? If I say Ovechkin is not a top 10 player, you would admit that assists are not the equivalent of a goal?

It means that hockey plays are so not black and white.

Some goals are not nearly as valuable as some assists.

On some plays, the goal scorer made the play.

On some plays, the primary assist made the play.

On some plays, the *gasp* secondary assist made the play.

On some plays, multiple players made the play.

It's not always true that a goal is automatically better than an assist.

There are too many posters on here insecurely trying to use the "MOAR GOALS" argument to prop up their favorite player. Usually Ovechkin or Matthews.

It's not as easy as "let's just look at who scored the most goals".

 

[daver]

92 goals. No doubt about it. I'm not saying Gretzky wasn't an offensive tour de force, with him setting up everyone and their dog. Its just that the hockey assist is the stat with the most randomness attributed to it out of any other sport.

You can literally blast a puck from your own crease, have it pinball off the faces of 4 opponents and their goalie to have it fall right in front of your teammate a foot away from the net. BAM! Primary assist.

You can also score in the fashion too. The hockey goal is the stat with the most randomness attributed to it out of any other sport. So what's your point?

 

[tenken00]

It means that hockey plays are so not black and white.

Some goals are not nearly as valuable as some assists.

On some plays, the goal scorer made the play.

On some plays, the primary assist made the play.

On some plays, the *gasp* secondary assist made the play.

On some plays, multiple players made the play.

It's not always true that a goal is automatically better than an assist.

There are too many posters on here insecurely trying to use the "MOAR GOALS" argument to prop up their favorite player. Usually Ovechkin or Matthews.

It's not as easy as "let's just look at who scored the most goals".

Of course. No one is arguing that. But the assist totals do include a lot of jibberish. Why not just count assists as only those that were directed to the goal scorer purposefully and only those passes. That never hurt Magic Johnson. Since everything and anything goes, final assist totals are laden with a bunch of randoms along with the great plays. That's why assist totals have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[tenken00]

You can also score in the fashion too. The hockey goal is the stat with the most randomness attributed to it out of any other sport. So what's your point?

That the goal was the result of a direct action, although lucky, going from a player's stick (or body or skate) into a net. An assist that does that is indirect due to the very nature of the goal scorer performing the direct action.

 

[pi314]

That the goal was the result of a direct action, although lucky, going from a player's stick (or body or skate) into a net. An assist that does that is indirect due to the very nature of the goal scorer performing the direct action.

Goals are sometimes flukey and indirect too. Hockey has bounces.



I'm sure Bernie Nichols at 0:51 was pure skill getting a puck shot off his back.

Or maybe he purposefully used his back.

There are flukey goals and flukey assists.

They happen less than 5% of the time.

You guys love to imply that they happen with assists more often than they actually do.

The MOAR GOALS argument on this site always boils down to 1 of 2 things.

My favorite player is Ovechkin.

My favorite player is Matthews.

Narrowly disguised fan insecurity.

 

[tenken00]

Goals are sometimes flukey and indirect too. Hockey has bounces.



I'm sure Bernie Nichols at 0:51 was pure skill getting a puck shot off his back.

Or maybe he purposefully used his back.

There are flukey goals and flukey assists.

They happen less than 5% of the time.

You guys love to imply that they happen with assists more often than they actually do.

The MOAR GOALS argument on this site always boils down to 1 of 2 things.

My favorite player is Ovechkin.

My favorite player is Matthews.

Narrowly disguised fan insecurity.

I think you should realize by now that my argument is unrelated to Ovechkin or Matthews. The fact that you keep harping on it actually shows that you are being a little insecure... It's fine. I didn't wanna get pulled into some big debate over it. Like I said, it's a quirk.

Edit: And in other sports you have flukey goals, but not really flukey assists... since flukey assists are pretty much never counted. While in hockey you have flukey assists on non-flukey goals.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

This is the elephant in the room that never gets addressed though.

If the goals are always more important crown really believed this Jonathan Cheechoo should have finished much higher than 15th in Hart voting when his line mate Joe Thortnon won it despite scoring a grand total of 29 goals that season right.

I know that you don't sincerely believe this cherry picked example is indicative of overall goal scoring value, you're a better poster than that man.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

That the goal was the result of a direct action, although lucky, going from a player's stick (or body or skate) into a net. An assist that does that is indirect due to the very nature of the goal scorer performing the direct action.

You've nailed exactly why goals are objectively more valuable than assists with every post throughout this ridiculous 63 pages.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So which Wayne Gretzky was better? The one who scored 92 goals or the one who scored 151 assists and increased the production of his linemates significantly?

I would take 92 goals and 212 points over 52 goals and 215.

Wouldn't you?

 

[daver]

I would take 92 goals and 212 points over 52 goals and 215.

Wouldn't you?

No, the seasons were equally as impressive.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No, the seasons were equally as impressive.

I'll take the 92 goals.

 

[daver]

I'll take the 92 goals.

I'll take the player who lifted up his linemates with his playmaking. Whatever gets the puck in the net, right?

 

[Randyne]

I've also seen a bunch of really insecure Ovechkin fans go to great lengths to discredit everyone in hockey except the goal scorer.
I'll believe it more when I see the same arguments for Cheechoo, Brett Hull, Rick Nash, Corey Perry, Lecavalier, Milan Hejduk, and other leading goal scorers.

Yes I'm sure when Milan Hejduk was leading the league in goals, you were busy telling your hockey friends that it was a travesty Joe Sakic was considered a better player because he had more points.
I'm sure you thought Hejduk's goals were far more valuable. I'm sure you thought Thornton just rode Cheechoo's goal scoring.

So you are saying any of those guys equal to Ovechkin?
Even if you combine them all, Ovechkin blow them out of the water.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'll take the player who lifted up his linemates with his playmaking. Whatever gets the puck in the net, right?

If that were the case then Oates would be ranked as highly as Hull. Thornton would be ranked much higher than he's been ranked as well...

215 points is insane even if they were ALL assists. But 215 vs 212? If it were two different players the guy who scored 92 would be the one who's more valued than the guy who scored 52. It's a more rare talent to be able to do this and a goalscorer tends to be less dependent than playmakers to put pucks in the net because they can do it themselves.