Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[daver]

No-one said that winning a rocket = best player no matter what, and deserves top Hart/Lindsay votes. If that was the case, Ovi would have as many Harts as Gretzky lmao.

The thing is that Ovechkin's Hart/Lindsay track record is already top-10 all-time, and THEN when you consider how he's most likely the best goalscorer all-time, a conclusion can be made that he's top-10 all-time.

OV's lacking the consistency that the other Top Ten forwards had (Hull, Beliveau and Crosby) but could very well end up beside Richard perhaps. Most likely stays outside the Top Ten.

He will always be among the best/greatest goalscorers but not stand out clearly as the "best". He lacks a peak season that rivals at least 5 or 6 players peak goalscoring seasons.

 

[Brucelenok]

OV's lacking the consistency that the other Top Ten forwards had (Hull, Beliveau and Crosby) but could very well end up beside Richard perhaps. Most likely stays outside the Top Ten.

He will always be among the best/greatest goalscorers but not stand out clearly as the "best". He lacks a peak season that rivals at least 5 or 6 players peak goalscoring seasons.

LMFAO. His peak season is arguably the greatest one in NHL History outside of Orr/Gretzky/ Lemieux. And his prime seasons perhaps not as long (5-6), are also one of the greatest primes outside of the three I mentioned above plus Howe

 

[Randyne]

Lol. Ok.

Keep Loling. Malkin contributed 27% points to Crosby in RS and 26% points in PO. I don't remember someone else who so heavily dependent on a guy from other line.

 

[daver]

LMFAO. His peak season is arguably the greatest one in NHL History outside of Orr/Gretzky/ Lemieux. And his prime seasons perhaps not as long (5-6), are also one of the greatest primes outside of the three I mentioned above plus Howe

What are you basing this on?

Oh, wait a second, I see that you LYFAOed so there is no reason to present your case.

 

[Brucelenok]

What are you basing this on?

Oh, wait a second, I see that you LYFAOed so there is no reason to present your case.

It is just the fact. "In 2008, Ovechkin became the first player in the history of the NHL to win all four major awards Art Ross, Rocket Richard, Ted Lindsay and Hart". Now there were only 2 players in NHL history who have done the same (i.e. Rocket didn't exists prior to 1999) - Gretzky & Lemieux. That's when it comes down to his peak.

Now, has he played, 4 more games in 08-09 and 10 games in 09-10, he would three peat and collect all FOUR awards THREE YEARS IN A ROW.

 

[HockeySniper]

No he’s not. Neither is Crosby

 

[Weztex]

It is just the fact. "In 2008, Ovechkin became the first player in the history of the NHL to win all four major awards Art Ross, Rocket Richard, Ted Lindsay and Hart". Now there were only 2 players in NHL history who have done the same (i.e. Rocket didn't exists prior to 1999) - Gretzky & Lemieux. That's when it comes down to his peak.

Now, has he played, 4 more games in 08-09 and 10 games in 09-10, he would three peat and collect all FOUR awards THREE YEARS IN A ROW.

That is not true.

Phil Esposito (1973-74)
Guy Lafleur (1977-78)
Wayne Gretzky (5x)
Mario Lemieux (1987-88/1995-96)
Alexander Ovechkin (2007-08)

The Pearson/Lindsay was first given in 1971 and the Richard in 1999. Those years restriction make it sound a lot more unique than it is.
Prior to 1971, those are the players won the Art Ross, Hart and the goal scoring race. One could assume that all of them would have won the Pearson/Lindsay.

Nels Stewart (1925-26)
Howie Morenz (1927-28)
Gordie Howe (1951-52/1952-53/1962-63)
Jean Beliveau (1955-56)
Bernard Geoffrion (1960-61)
Bobby Hull (1965-66).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

No-one said that winning a rocket = best player no matter what, and deserves top Hart/Lindsay votes. If that was the case, Ovi would have as many Harts as Gretzky lmao.

The thing is that Ovechkin's Hart/Lindsay track record is already top-10 all-time, and THEN when you consider how he's most likely the best goalscorer all-time, a conclusion can be made that he's top-10 all-time.

Only five players in NHL history (going back to the end of WWII) have earned more Hart trophy votes than Ovechkin (normalized so each year is worth the same number of votes) - Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, and Crosby. So that's a pretty good argument in Ovechkin's favour.

On the other hand, the Hart voters predominantly pick forwards. Of the top 35 on my list, 29 are forwards. So by this metric, Crosby and Ovechkin both rank ahead of Orr, which is clearly false. Nor am I certain than they rank ahead of Roy, Hasek, Bourque or Lidstrom - they might, but it's open to discussion. (Also, the Hart obviously doesn't take playoff performance into account, where Ovechkin loses ground compared to most, but not all, of the candidates for the top 10).

The point is - you're right, in that Ovechkin's Hart trophy record gets him into the discussion for the top 10. I'm not sure that it's enough to keep him there when you consider other positions, and take playoffs into account, but it's a pretty good way to start the argument for his inclusion.

 

[filinski77]

Only five players in NHL history (going back to the end of WWII) have earned more Hart trophy votes than Ovechkin (normalized so each year is worth the same number of votes) - Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, and Crosby. So that's a pretty good argument in Ovechkin's favour.

On the other hand, the Hart voters predominantly pick forwards. Of the top 35 on my list, 29 are forwards. So by this metric, Crosby and Ovechkin both rank ahead of Orr, which is clearly false. Nor am I certain than they rank ahead of Roy, Hasek, Bourque or Lidstrom - they might, but it's open to discussion. (Also, the Hart obviously doesn't take playoff performance into account, where Ovechkin loses ground compared to most, but not all, of the candidates for the top 10).

The point is - you're right, in that Ovechkin's Hart trophy record gets him into the discussion for the top 10. I'm not sure that it's enough to keep him there when you consider other positions, and take playoffs into account, but it's a pretty good way to start the argument for his inclusion.

Great points. Even if you were to rank Ovechkins Harts/Pearson’s 8-12th all time, I think he gains quite a few spots for being the greatest goal scorer ever on top of all that.

How many years will it be until we see someone top 9 goal scoring titles? It took 40-50 years for Ovi to top Hull, and has now surpassed him by 2. Just the inherent fact that goal scoring is the hardest and most important part of hockey has to bump Ovi up a lot in my opinion.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Wow we found @illpucks evil twin

He's so much worse that I think the account should be banned.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

No, the seasons were equally as impressive.

How can you post this with a straight face? No one in their right mind is taking 40 less goals comparing these 2 seasons, no one.

 

[Varan]

I don’t see why both Crosby and Ovechkin are in the 5-10 range.

Top four for me is set in stone.

1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe
4. Lemieux

5-10 you have a bunch of options.

Personally, I’ve always had Maurice Richard at 5th, mostly due to the story of his. I think you could have Harvey, Beliveau, Hull, Potvin (who I’m just high on).

5-10 is a mess but they both have legitimate arguments to be in it

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Damm right I don't because I dont believe the narrative of goals over everything else.

I'm just pointing out how flawed it is.

 

[discobob]

This makes no sense. Every assist that a player has was the result of a goal. 40 assists by a player = 40 team goals as much as 40 goals by a player = 40 team goals.

You have to consider the team component of stats when you start valuing them according to team goals, which are a team stat.

My point was a simple one... limiting your view to assists... all of the players on team A have been awarded 100 assists. This may represent anywhere between 50 and 100 goals. The real number is usually closer to 50. Knowing this, how "valuable" is each assist to the team? You can't claim that each one is "worth" a goal... the math doesn't work...

Re-run the same exercise with goals, and the team has 100 goals and each player "point" is worth one goal.

 

[ted2019]

No he's not currently. We have a new exercise/project coming up in the HOH section ranking the numbers #101-200 players of all time and you must submit you top 220/240 players and I have him somewhere between 14th - 18th best ( which is a few spots higher then I had him ranked when we did the top 100 players in 2018).

 

[wetcoast]

That list is a joke. The history forum is tainted with blatant nativism. One of the voters said Ryan Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin. Another guy had Gretzky 7th and Ovechkin 59th. Yet another guy maintains that Crosby is actually a better goal scorer, but he chooses not to score goals. Several others maintained that Ovechkin is a "shoot only" player despite his 550 assists. The one and only Russian participant quit the project in protest.

Roughly 70% of the voters were Canadian, and an additional ~ 15% were Penguins fans. So the Russian Capitals player didn't get much of a fair shake there.

Where exactly are you getting this stuff or do you make it up like another guys in the US Capital.

Also you have criticized the list for quite some time now and have been asked to provide your top 100 and yet for something like 2 years you still haven't come up with one.

Also your analysis of the project actually doesn't give it the credit it deserves, by pointing out outliers and selective rankings, something you always do BTW makes it sounds like there was some kind of bias against Ovechkin or something.

 

[wetcoast]

You're confused. Hejduk wasn't a better player than Sakic, but he absolutely positively had a better season than Sakic in 2002-03 (the one year in which Hejduk led the league in goals). Would you argue otherwise?

Also, funny thing: he also had more points than Sakic that year. 40 more in fact (98 to 58).

The real funny thing is that Foppa with a mere 29 goals and only 8 more points won the Hart while Hedjuk was a distant 12th.

The whole goals are worth more than assists thing is extremely silly and not very well thought out.

 

[wetcoast]

Crosby useless without healthy Malkin. Ovechkin won a cup with injured Backstrom.

Man this is just such a bad post dude.

Crosby has countless times done extremely well when Malkin was out with injuries.

There is a reason why Crosby produces offense at a higher rate in both the regular season and playoffs than Malkin.

 

[wetcoast]

OV's lacking the consistency that the other Top Ten forwards had (Hull, Beliveau and Crosby) but could very well end up beside Richard perhaps. Most likely stays outside the Top Ten.

He will always be among the best/greatest goalscorers but not stand out clearly as the "best". He lacks a peak season that rivals at least 5 or 6 players peak goalscoring seasons.

Speaking of not very well thought out posts......

Its becoming increasingly difficult to not have Ovechkin as the best goal scorer of all time....period.

 

[wetcoast]

Great points. Even if you were to rank Ovechkins Harts/Pearson’s 8-12th all time, I think he gains quite a few spots for being the greatest goal scorer ever on top of all that.

How many years will it be until we see someone top 9 goal scoring titles? It took 40-50 years for Ovi to top Hull, and has now surpassed him by 2. Just the inherent fact that goal scoring is the hardest and most important part of hockey has to bump Ovi up a lot in my opinion.

That's not how it works though.

Ovechkin ranks 8-12th all time in Harts-Pearsons because of his goal scoring.

double counting isn't a very convincing argument.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Where exactly are you getting this stuff or do you make it up like another guys in the US Capital.

Also you have criticized the list for quite some time now and have been asked to provide your top 100 and yet for something like 2 years you still haven't come up with one.

Also your analysis of the project actually doesn't give it the credit it deserves, by pointing out outliers and selective rankings, something you always do BTW makes it sounds like there was some kind of bias against Ovechkin or something.

There absolutely was some kind of bias against Ovechkin.

Many of the guys in the history forum are Don Cherry types. They make little effort to hide it. Penguins fans were also significantly over-represented. That's nobody's fault in particular and certainly not the guy who led the project. But that's the fact of the matter.

Nostalgia is also prevalent and results in a severe anti-recency bias - to the point where the history forum asserts pre-baby boom Canada alone (population 9-11 million) put out waaaaaaaaay more top end talent in the 1950s than the international hockey community today. The chances of that being accurate are not good.

Sometimes group results aren't so good - kinda like when a bunch of famous (predominantly) Canadian hockey analysts said Toews was better than Malkin a couple years ago. That wasn't some whim. These folks deliberated and came up with this result. With a straight face they said Malkin - being the 3rd best player of this generation - isn't top 100. It was ultra stupid. None of the participants in that list were illiterate or ignorant or unfamiliar with the game. It was a who's who of Canadian hockey, and clearly some sort of groupthink tainted things in a very anti-Russian and pro-Canadian way.

If the hockey news could screw it up so bad, certainly a bunch of anonymous volunteer randos could as well.

 

[txpd]

OV's lacking the consistency that the other Top Ten forwards had (Hull, Beliveau and Crosby) but could very well end up beside Richard perhaps. Most likely stays outside the Top Ten.

He will always be among the best/greatest goalscorers but not stand out clearly as the "best". He lacks a peak season that rivals at least 5 or 6 players peak goalscoring seasons.

Lacking consistency? Where? Hasnt he won the goal scoring title in 5 of the last 6 seasons? In his last 7 seasons he has averaged 47.8 goals including losing 10 games of this last season to Covid.

 

[wetcoast]

There absolutely was some kind of bias against Ovechkin.

Many of the guys in the history forum are Don Cherry types. They make little effort to hide it. Penguins fans were also significantly over-represented. That's nobody's fault in particular and certainly not the guy who led the project. But that's the fact of the matter.

Nostalgia is also prevalent and results in a severe anti-recency bias - to the point where the history forum asserts pre-baby boom Canada alone (population 9-11 million) put out waaaaaaaaay more top end talent in the 1950s than the international hockey community today. The chances of that being accurate are not good.

Sometimes group results aren't so good - kinda like when a bunch of famous (predominantly) Canadian hockey analysts said Toews was better than Malkin a couple years ago. That wasn't some whim. These folks deliberated and came up with this result. With a straight face they said Malkin - being the 3rd best player of this generation - isn't top 100. It was ultra stupid. None of the participants in that list were illiterate or ignorant or unfamiliar with the game. It was a who's who of Canadian hockey, and clearly some sort of groupthink tainted things in a very anti-Russian and pro-Canadian way.

If the hockey news could screw it up so bad, certainly a bunch of anonymous volunteer randos could as well.

Well I'm sure they are eagerly all awaiting your list, since you said you would be a maybe on the top 101-200 players of all time.

After the big 5 how is your list going to look.

 

[Randyne]

There is a reason why Crosby produces offense at a higher rate in both the regular season and playoffs than Malkin.

Malkin's lack of motivation being 2C?
Malkin's PPG 1.35 without Crosby.
Crosby's PPG 1.22 without Malkin.
Personally I think he is more talented than Ovechkin and Crosby.

 

[Fantomas]

The whole goals are worth more than assists thing is extremely silly and not very well thought out.

You're so good at glossing over every point to the contrary, and then with a mere waive of the hand dismiss it as "not very well thought out."

1.7 = 1. Classic stuff, daver lite.