Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Hockey Outsider]

The "best" usually have a peak goalscoring season that is, at least, arguably among the best all-time. IMO, OV's 2007/08 is outside the Top 5.

What would be your top five, and how far down the list would you have Ovechkin's 2008? (I mean, it's probably defensible if you have that ranked as, say, the 7th greatest goal-scoring season of all-time - but not if you have it ranked 17th).

 

[ted2019]

Nah, the nostalgia goggles are far too strong on that board to reach any sort of sensible understanding. Only amongst hockey fans do we color the past so rosey compared to the modern era, literally no other pro sport does this.

The truth is that with context Ovechkin's individual accolades become even more impressive.

What do you call " sensible understanding" ? Sounds like you are afraid to broaden your knowledge a bit. Also, as I said earlier, awards aren't the end all, be all in making a great player. Question. Without Googling, have you ever heard of Frank Nighbor?

 

[ted2019]

Really? I feel exactly the opposite.

Hockey is the only sport where I’ve heard people say that Gretzky, Howe or Orr are overrated because they wouldn’t make the NHL today. Every week (edit: day) I read people on HFBoards talking about how modern superhuman bionic players would destroy everyone and their families had they played a mere 20 years ago.

Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

Nothing’s perfect but the HOH forum is probably the more resourceful place online to engage in those kinds of comparaisons.

Outstanding post. You should join in on the discussions in the HOH section. You would be very welcomed.

 

[ted2019]

Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?



Multiple project participants stood behind the "shoot only" argument unfortunately. Seeing as how the two main proponents (farkas and exporter) root for a rival team, maybe this argument isn't entirely unbiased. The other proponents of "shoot only" are Canada pride types. If you want a better project, these guys should be encouraged do a better job of setting aside their biases. Or maybe that's a hopeless endeavor.

If a forum perpetuates or invents outright falsehoods and exaggerations due to bias, the alleged esteem is not deserved.



I would hope Sentinel would participate again someday, but I can relate to the sentiment. I am glad folks don't agree on everything. Agreeing is no fun. That said, I've witnessed well-respected folks in the history forum engaging in tactics that go beyond differences of opinion, and well into petty dishonesty.

BenchBrawl said:

Absolutely I would take Ryan Getzlaf over Alex Ovechkin. I believe him to be a better building block. In my own Top 100 list I ranked Ovechkin higher, but I'm sometimes subject to the forces of conformity like everyone else.

This is especially true now that I have reasons to believe Ovechkin and co. weren't very serious when he was in his prime.

I know that BenchBrawl is a very knowledgeable poster and I can guarantee that he was making an tongue and cheek statement about what someone else was posting or had posted.​

 

[ted2019]

Does it happen? Sure but not even remotely as close as much as it does in the NBA, MLB or the NFL. Name one current player who is considered to be in the running for the GOAT or even a top 3 position in the NHL whereas it's seemingly a discussion in every other major sport.

MLB analytics people proclaim pitchers from a mere decade ago are vastly inferior because average velocity was lower. Many herald Mike Trout as the greatest hitter the game has seen, people think the NBA was full of plumbers in the 90's and Lebron could've been the GOAT after 2 championships, but NHL fans still believe Richard, who played in a diminished, 2 country league is somehow still better than a Russian who's surpassed him at literally everything from an individual standpoint and did in a vastly more competitive league. It should be a no brainer that both Crosby and Ovechkin are top 10 all time players because they absolutely are, yet here we are 67 pages deep. They have the individual accolades, they pass the eye test, they've won and done things in the modern game that many thought impossible.

Your Score example outlines the nostalgia issue perfectly and cements my point; they left Malkin off the top 100.

Again, some of the takes from rose colored goggled posters in HOH are just laughably insulting to the modern era of hockey that I don't even bother.

Who left Malkin out of the top 100? The top 100 list in 2008 didn't have him on it. The top 100 list in 2018 had Malkin at #52. The 2013-14 top 60 Centers of all time list, he was at #40.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

Once you've seen someone accuse Ovechkin of lacking goalscoring consistency, you can retire from the internet because you've truly seen it all.

 

[ted2019]

This simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Adjusted Ovis 07-08 trails only Brett Hull in 90-91.

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

while not perfect it does suggest something right.

The HOH section use the VsX over Hockey References Adjusted numbers. This seems to be more accurate.
vsx-comprehensive-summary-1927-to-2020

 

[HTFN]

Once you've seen someone accuse Ovechkin of lacking goalscoring consistency, you can retire from the internet because you've truly seen it all.

League's most inconsistent predictable one trick pony to score all his goals the same way for sure.

 

[tarheelhockey]

League's most inconsistent predictable one trick pony to score all his goals the same way for sure.

Video art idea: overlay 100 identical Ovechkin goals so they look like 1 clip

 

[Zuluss]

Crosby 1152-530-922-1452
Ovechkin 1288-775-634-1409

Yes that's right Crosby has 43 more point in 136 less games.

Here are two back-to-back seasons when Ovechkin and Crosby traded places being 2nd and 5th/6th in Hart voting - 2014/15 and 2015/16

First, let's look at their combined stats for the two seasons:
Ovechkin 103g+49a=152 pts in 160 games
Crosby 64g+105a=169 pts in 157 games
So Crosby leads OV by 17 pts or 11.2%

Now, let's look at their combined Hart voting share (or, if you wish, Hart voting points normalized by the maximum number of points available)
Ovechkin 56.6%+14.1%=70.7%
Crosby 8.8%+53.3%=62.1%
Here we have OV leading Crosby by 13.8% despite collecting 11.2% less points.

See, Crosby is visibly lagging behind Ovechkin in Hart voters recognition even when Crosby beats Ovechkin in points by 11.2%.

Now, let's take your career numbers - they result in Ovechkin's ppg of 1409/1288=1.094 vs. Crosby's ppg of 1.26 - that's 15.2%. Is that enough to close the gap favoring Ovechkin when the points difference was 11.2%? Does not seem so.

But we have an even better ratio - in career points, Crosby leads Ovechkin only by 3%, 1452/1409. So clearly Ovechkin has accomplished more in his career, even if the gap was 11.2%, not 3% (and that requires Crosby to collect another 115 points), Ovechkin would still be comfortably ahead.

 

[RageQuit77]

Once you've seen someone accuse Ovechkin of lacking goalscoring consistency, you can retire from the internet because you've truly seen it all.

True. Only other option is then that there are no such things like 'consistent goal scorer' or 'consistent goal scoring' in the game of hockey at all. In terms of goal scoring consistency Ovi is the standard you compare others.

(for the side note, that "lack of consistency" debate has annoyed me a lot in conjunction of P.Laine's goal scoring, particularly during his first two career years, that cannot be considered inconsistent per se if also maintaining even some kind of meaning and definition what consistency means in the hockey goal scoring. For Ovi's case it is utterly absurd to accuse him being inconsistent. He is the least inconsistent one.)

 

[HTFN]

BenchBrawl said:

Absolutely I would take Ryan Getzlaf over Alex Ovechkin. I believe him to be a better building block. In my own Top 100 list I ranked Ovechkin higher, but I'm sometimes subject to the forces of conformity like everyone else.

This is especially true now that I have reasons to believe Ovechkin and co. weren't very serious when he was in his prime.

I know that BenchBrawl is a very knowledgeable poster and I can guarantee that he was making an tongue and cheek statement about what someone else was posting or had posted.​

I mean, is the thread just below this one where he predicts Montreal will win the Cup next year and Bergevin is one of the league's best GMs also tongue in cheek?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Who left Malkin out of the top 100? The top 100 list in 2008 didn't have him on it. The top 100 list in 2018 had Malkin at #52. The 2013-14 top 60 Centers of all time list, he was at #40.

It's a reference to NHL.com's 100 Greatest Players list, published two years ago:

100 Greatest NHL Players

And yes, Malkin is an embarrassing omission - one of the worst exclusions from that list.

 

[HTFN]

Video art idea: overlay 100 identical Ovechkin goals so they look like 1 clip

I guess if you used him as the exact focal point, it'd look like 60-ish players passing the puck to one guy at the same time, and then a giant scattershot of a hundred pucks.

I have no idea how you'd do that but I agree there's a version of it that looks cool.

 

[RageQuit77]

Video art idea: overlay 100 identical Ovechkin goals so they look like 1 clip

Interrupted occasionally by clips of comments of goalies repeating essentially same thing along lines: "Yeah. You know it's coming, but..."

 

[Weztex]

Does it happen? Sure but not even remotely as close as much as it does in the NBA, MLB or the NFL. Name one current player who is considered to be in the running for the GOAT or even a top 3 position in the NHL whereas it's seemingly a discussion in every other major sport.

Well could it just be that nobody is in the running right now? Nobody's winning 7 straight Hart or 8 straight Norris trophies. Hasek isn't really ancient memory and no goalie showed similar sheer domination since. For all we know it could take many decades before someone challenge Brady or LeBron. It is crazy to think that we're it that zone?

MLB analytics people proclaim pitchers from a mere decade ago are vastly inferior because average velocity was lower. Many herald Mike Trout as the greatest hitter the game has seen, people think the NBA was full of plumbers in the 90's and Lebron could've been the GOAT after 2 championships, but NHL fans still believe Richard, who played in a diminished, 2 country league is somehow still better than a Russian who's surpassed him at literally everything from an individual standpoint and did in a vastly more competitive league.

Well time travel does not exist so imagining those players face to face is a useless exercise. So unless you wanna fault Richard for being born in 1921 (which I'm sure he didn't planned) and playing in the conditions of his time (which I'm sure was the top hockey players in the world), I don't see how far the era argument can take us. It's basically saying ''well if there was more competition'', which is an argument that you could just as freely stamp on today's NHL. (not arguing Richard vs. OV here. Just ''back then'' vs ''now'')

It should be a no brainer that both Crosby and Ovechkin are top 10 all time players because they absolutely are, yet here we are 67 pages deep. They have the individual accolades, they pass the eye test, they've won and done things in the modern game that many thought impossible.

Are they? Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Harvey, Shore, Richard, Bourque, Hasek, Morenz and Roy are all top-10 candidates. None of these players would strike me as ridiculous in any top-10 list. Nor would Crosby and Ovechkin. But to say it's a no brainer when 13 players have similar or superior resumes is pushing it. Should 8 and 87 be in the running? Absolutely. Is it ridiculous to believe 10 players have accomplished more at NHL level? Absolutely not. (and I have Crosby between 5th and 8th)

Your Score example outlines the nostalgia issue perfectly and cements my point; they left Malkin off the top 100.

Malkin wasn't left out of The Score's list, he was 61th (ahead of Shore, as were Mats Sundin and Mark Recchi). The NHL top 100, which you seem to be referring to, wasn't in any order. And yes, Malkin being left off was like seeing the window break on the Tesla truck. There goes the credibility. But still, it's the same top 100 that had only 17/100 players completing their career before 1967, AKA the halfway mark of the NHL. Kinda pimps my point.

Again, some of the takes from rose colored goggled posters in HOH are just laughably insulting to the modern era of hockey that I don't even bother.

Eveybody values things its own way. To me, saying that both Crosby and Ovechkin ''are top 10 all time players because they absolutely are'' is insulting to any great player of the past who had a similar career/path/impact. But then again, when I read some comments here, there's no way the HOH board bias is not enough to compensate.

 

[daver]

This simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Adjusted Ovis 07-08 trails only Brett Hull in 90-91.

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

while not perfect it does suggest something right.

Speaking of not passing the smell test. You know that "adjusting" using league GPG is flawed to the point of being basically useless.

Why not look at the best, if not the only, metric to consider: % dominance over his direct peers?

 

[daver]

What would be your top five, and how far down the list would you have Ovechkin's 2008? (I mean, it's probably defensible if you have that ranked as, say, the 7th greatest goal-scoring season of all-time - but not if you have it ranked 17th).

Based on % dominance over a reasonable sample of direct peers (the other Top 10 to 20 goalscorers) using GPG, Wayne's 81/82 and Hull's 65/66 stand out as the best. OV's is #8ish.

 

[bobholly39]

What would be your top five, and how far down the list would you have Ovechkin's 2008? (I mean, it's probably defensible if you have that ranked as, say, the 7th greatest goal-scoring season of all-time - but not if you have it ranked 17th).

For what it's worth I'd have Ovechkin's 08 season nowhere near the top 5 goal-scoring seasons of all-time. I don't know about closer to 17th than 7th though. Maybe ~8-10th?

Gretzky has 2. Lemieux has at least 1 - possibly 3. Brett Hull has 1. Bobby Hull may have a couple or so. Then you get to Ovechkin. Esposito, Howe, Richard have some good seasons too, not sure any are above Ovechkin though.

It's fine to call Ovechkin greatest goal-scorer, I think his prime/career is certainly strong enough to merit that distinction. And he has a very strong goal-scoring peak, but "very strong" doesn't mean he's #1 or close.

 

[bobholly39]

Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?



Multiple project participants stood behind the "shoot only" argument unfortunately. Seeing as how the two main proponents (farkas and exporter) root for a rival team, maybe this argument isn't entirely unbiased. The other proponents of "shoot only" are Canada pride types. If you want a better project, these guys should be encouraged do a better job of setting aside their biases. Or maybe that's a hopeless endeavor.

If a forum perpetuates or invents outright falsehoods and exaggerations due to bias, the alleged esteem is not deserved.



I would hope Sentinel would participate again someday, but I can relate to the sentiment. I am glad folks don't agree on everything. Agreeing is no fun. That said, I've witnessed well-respected folks in the history forum engaging in tactics that go beyond differences of opinion, and well into petty dishonesty.

You criticize a lot - and you obviously have a passion for the discussion - yet you don't ever participate. You've stated for months (years?) you'd give us your own top 100 list so we can compare in kind and you never have. There's a new project starting soon to rank 101-200 players, will you participate in that?

I'm a big Crosby fan and you're a big Crosby hater and so we clash a lot in discussions. But I found that particular "shoot only" argument for Ovi pretty dumb too and argued against it a lot. But what you're completely ignoring is that there were 30+ voters. Just because 1 or 2 voters spout a controversial opinion very loudly, it doesn't mean majority will vote that way. Controversial opinions are actually useful, as it sometimes helps people look at things from a different angle - but in the end the voting was fine.

The one poster you keep referring to about Getzlaf vs Ovechkin obviously doesn't seem to like Ovechkin, period. I told him his take about Getzlaf was ridiculous too. But - that wasn't part of the project. That's an opinion he stated many months after - well after he voted Ovechkin ~20th or so. He was extremely fair in his rankings, despite apparently not really liking the player. So again - not sure why you keep trying to attack the credibility of the project.

I hope @Sentinel participates too, it's nice to have varied opinions.

Lastly - obviously you know you are one of the most biased posters on HF. Instead of criticizing others endlessly, why don't you join in and see how objective you can be when ranking 100 players?

 

[bobholly39]

I mean, is the thread just below this one where he predicts Montreal will win the Cup next year and Bergevin is one of the league's best GMs also tongue in cheek?

Montreal will win the Stanley Cup this year - so I don't know what your problem is.

 

[filinski77]

I'm particularly interested in the 78 to 19 comparison when there are almost the same number of Canadians in the league.

In 78 there were some really good non Canadians and Canadian players in the WHA still as well.

1977-78 WHA Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

The drop in a decade as well is very interesting to say the least but I'm guessing the main increase is from American players..

That's a good point but at the end of the day, if there were good players in the WHA, that just further watered down the potential of the competition in the NHL. How many WHA players back then could have replaced NHL players?

Similar to think of how many KHL etc players could replace current NHL players? 10, 20? Who knows, but I'm sure it's a wash.

The number of Canadian players has stayed the same, but only because the league size has increased by 50%, still resulting in a more diverse league now. I've tried reaching out to a couple of people at Hockey Canada's administrative department to try and obtain some sort of 'historical' summary of the youth hockey numbers in Canada as far back as possible, but from the few responses I have received, they didn't seem too keen on releasing the data for personal/recreational analysis.

 

[txpd]

Meanwhile in baseball, never have I heard hoards of fans doubting the status of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. The Score ranked Eddie Shore, a 4 time Hart winner, 70th all time... Hockey fans are diminishing past accomplishments A LOT more than baseball, football or basketball fans are.

Seriously? In baseball the pre and post slider era are as defining as the pre and post butterfly goalie eras.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm a big Crosby fan and you're a big Crosby hater

I am absolutely not a Crosby hater. He's the most likely candidate to be ranked as the 6th all-time greatest player on my list.

"Hater" would be putting him 22nd, let alone 59th, or claiming Ryan Getzlaf is better, or claiming Ovechkin is actually a better playmaker than Crosby but he chose to focus on goals instead, or claiming Crosby is a "pass only" player (after all he has far fewer goals than Ovechkin has assists), or making "facetious" "throw away" arguments against Crosby "just to get a rise." Or making excuses for all of that nonsense. -Now THAT, would be hating. Often, that's how Ovie is treated by the history forum regulars.

You criticize a lot - and you obviously have a passion for the discussion - yet you don't ever participate. You've stated for months (years?) you'd give us your own top 100 list so we can compare in kind and you never have. There's a new project starting soon to rank 101-200 players, will you participate in that?

I am going to try to participate. I'm kind of surprised people want to do this again already. I thought it would be another 5 years or more.

There are some complex considerations having to do with the talent pool and other era considerations that are not fleshed out. I have not fleshed them out myself, and so I have not made a list. I think an informed list means the author has awareness of talent pool fluctuations. So there is a lot of work to do, and I have not done it.

It is fair of you, and others, to criticize me for this right now. Ultimately I will give you something to scrutinize.

I'm a big Crosby fan and you're a big Crosby hater and so we clash a lot in discussions. But I found that particular "shoot only" argument for Ovi pretty dumb too and argued against it a lot. But what you're completely ignoring is that there were 30+ voters. Just because 1 or 2 voters spout a controversial opinion very loudly, it doesn't mean majority will vote that way. Controversial opinions are actually useful, as it sometimes helps people look at things from a different angle - but in the end the voting was fine.

I recall that and I do respect you for having principles on this stuff.

Unfortunately, it was at least 5 core project participants who were saying these things or liking the posts. And it wasn't a controversial opinion they were espousing, it was an outright falsehood. Big difference. There should have been more pushback from other participants.

 

[txpd]

I think his prime/career is certainly strong enough to merit that distinction. And he has a very strong goal-scoring peak, but "very strong" doesn't mean he's #1 or close.

What is his prime career? What scale are we grading him in? He is 35 years old and has effectively 6 50 goal season in the past 7 seasons. He has a record 9 goal scoring titles with an active streak. What is the scale again?