Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[TheFinalWord]

I think it would be very hard to argue that if he passes Gretzky for goals, that he isn't a top 10 player all-time. I'm not a huge Ovi fan, but setting that record would earn him that place.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

yes he is. Been underappreciated his whole career.

 

[wetcoast]

I was going to ask actually if it was Brett or Bobby, but I jumped the gun.
Still. Bobby who?

Bobby Hull Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Introducing Bobby Hull

 

[Herregud]

Apparently being among the most physical forwards in the league since he broke in excludes Ovechkin from being a meat and potatoes guy. Who. The hell. Knew?

Has the accepted definition of meat and potatoes changed? Or is this another HFboards thing where Ovechkin is simply a "pretty good" player?

 

[wetcoast]

Well, I think about it this way: I have watched more complete hockey games by Bobby Hull than complete rounds of golf by Tiger Woods.

That would not stop me from ranking Tiger Woods as the best golfer of all time.

My personal opinion from personally watching a player is a lot less valuable than universal consensus from insiders who saw 50+ years of the NHL and have a strong opinion about how players rank. If I can collect a whole lot of those opinions, I feel like I’m more capable of discerning the truth out of that consensus (or lack of consensus) than I am of simply watching video until my brain explodes.

This is a great and honest opinion but hockey "insiders" are also extremely high on Niedermeyer and Toews.

Is your opinion or line of thinking change on them because you saw them?

Put another way, I also look at insiders opinions for guys that I haven't seen a lot or even at all but many other factors come into play as well.

Even if one has never seen and thus doesn't include any pre expansion players, there is a very strong argument that there might be 10 post expansion (or guys who played a significant amount of time post expansion) guys better than Ovechkin in Howe, Bobby Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Crosby, Haske, Roy, Jagr, Bourque and Lidstrom for starters.

Now I wouldn't personally place all of those guys ahead of Ovi but that's still only covering around 1/2 of the all time time period at best.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm sure the Crosby cult will go to great lengths to torture per game/per 60/etc numbers into portraying him as a much more historic player than his actual numbers will say. Just like people do for Forsberg, except Forsberg's game had insane sizzle so he manages to stand out and attract an extra following. Just like they'll have no choice but to downplay Ovechkins unquestioned all around dominance in his prime as you do now and reframe his transition into by far the best post 30yo sniper in the history of the game as a limitation.

No one else will care though. Ovechkin's picture will be up there above Gretzky's where it counts for the single most historic individual nhl achievement while Crosby will have the notoriety Joe Sakic has today give or take

I'm guessing this will be a major talking point at the annual MJ barbecue where darts will be played with a Crosby poster but it will still be politely giggled at in most hockey circles.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

Wait, are you proposing here that LW is historically lower scoring because ... there are some on-ice defensive responsibilities, or some other factor that prevents left wingers from scoring? You do realize that it's lower scoring because there just aren't as many elite left wingers, right?

If anything, being an elite LW is an advantage in that you wouldn't have to compete with the Howes, Richards, Jagrs of the world at RW, or the Gretzkys, Lemieuxs, Beliveaus at C for all stars.

Being the best LWer shouldn't count for anything other than being better than other LWs. If you're not as dominant as a other players, being a LW doesn't somehow compensate for that.

And, by the way, Bobby Hull is the all-time best LW.

Best player at his position. Ovechkin can say that. Crosby cannot and never will.

Try to rationalize it however you wish, it’s a fact.

 

[Hank Plank]

Why are some Ovechkin fans still so insecure? 8 has accomplished just about everything a player can no need to constantly try and knock down Sid to make OV look better.

 

[Zuluss]

This is most certainly the worst way to compare Ovechkin and Jagr. Why would you choose such a bad point of comparison?

Ovechkin plays LW -- historically the weakest position. Jagr plays RW -- historically strong.

To give you a sense, here's Ovechkin's competition for his LW wins:
Brad Marchand, Jamie Benn, Chris Kunitz, Ray Whitney, Zetterberg, Parise, Vanek, and Heatley.

Jagr competition for RW:
Alfredsson, Bertuzzi, Iginla, Bure, Selanne, Mogilny, Neely, Recchi and Hull.

Comparing those two classes of players: the left wingers have a total of maybe 1 hall of famer. The right wingers have at least 6 hall of famers.

If you are trying to tell me that Jagr should get more credit for the 7 seasons he was chosen 1st All-star over those people, I agree, I said already - Jagr's best 7 seasons are better than Ovechkin's best 7 seasons.

But if you are trying to tell me Jagr has 5 top3 finishes fewer at RW than Ovechkin has at LW because Jagr's competition was tougher - could you list even 3 years when Jagr was precluded from finishing top3 in All-star voting because 3 of those HOFers went ahead of him and also were better than, say, Giroux in 2017/18?

I checked out 2001/02, when Jagr was 5th in points and 5th in All-star voting - he was beaten by Bill Guerin, Pavol Demitra and Glen Murray.
I checked out 2006/07, when Jagr was 8th in points and 6th in All-star voting. He was beaten by Heatley, who you list as not good enough competition for Ovechkin and by MSL who Ovechkin had no trouble beating in All-star voting even when MSL won the Art Ross in 2012/13.

Another thing to consider is that All-star voting is taken based on one season, not on career or the history of LW position. Jamie Benn is a smaller player than Cam Neely, but in his Art Ross season Benn was a tough competition. In other years, he was not, but there was always enough good LW around to challenge OV in their career season.

Further, Jagr has 5 Art Rosses. Ovechkin has 1. Their peak offensive performance and dominance is not comparable.

Their best 3 consecutive seasons are in fact comparable. 4th-best to 7th-best seasons go in Jagr's favor.

So let me do the comparison for the three best consecutive seasons.
In 2007-2010, OV led #10 in points by an average of 27% and led #10 in goals by an average of 50%.
In 1998-2001, Jagr led #10 in points by an average of 33% and led #10 in goals by an average of 20%.

Let's transform it in the 2018/19 currency: in 2018/19, #10 in points was at 96 points, #10 in goals was 41 goals.
Peak Ovechkin projects into 41*1.5=60 goal, 96*1.27=122 point guy, peak Jagr - into 41*1.2=48 goal, 96*1.33=128 point guy.
This is very, very close, and I would probably take the 60-goal guy.

You're trying to claim Jagr has 'little outside his best 8 seasons', except his point finishes are: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 -- for a total of 11x, and that stretches from 1994 to 2007, indicating an incredibly long peak (relative to Ovechkin's especially).

And why are we looking at top10 finishes? Let's look at top20 finishes: Ovechkin has 13 of those (probably 14 after this season), Jagr also has 14 of those in his full career.

When Ovechkin is out of top10 in points, he is probably 5 points out of #10 - but also wins goal-scoring titles - so he gets Hart votes, he gets on All-star teams. When Jagr was top10 in points, he was just part of a large pack of players - and thus did not get Hart and All-star votes.
I mean, talk to lifelong Caps fans who remember Jagr on the Caps (I was following Detroit more at that time) and ask them if they would trade 2017-2020 Ovechkin (aged 32-34) for 2001-2004 Jagr (aged 29-31). Based on point finishes (5-19-15 for Jagr, 11-15-16 for OV) you would think they would, right?

Bourque's career is actually the antithesis to Ovechkin's. Bourque was a top flight defenseman for the entirety of a long career; Ovechkin had a 5 season super elite peak and then random spurts with prolific goal scoring.

Oh come on, Ovechkin always was and still is a top flight winger just as Bourque was a top flight defenseman.
Ovechkin is top20 in points in all his seasons but one.
Ovechkin is top3 at his position in all his seasons but one.
Ovechkin was top10 in Hart voting in 9 seasons.
It is not like if he is not top10 in points, he fell off the face of the Earth - he has two seasons with 14% and 12% of the Hart votes when he was not top10 in points, and one more season with a significant number of people putting him on the ballot.

 

[wetcoast]

Well, what we see from their Hart voting record is that when Richard was top3 in points, he was nominated for Hart, but when he was out of top3, voters were not impressed and did not include him on the ballot (except for one season when he got 2% of the vote).
Ovechkin 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 6, 7, 9
Richard 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 8
On the other hand, when Ovechkin was out of top10 in points (but still top20), Hart voters did have him on the ballot, because he was also winning the goal-scoring race by a significant margin. So it is not all about points.

We can even do an example: in 2015/16, Ovechkin was 15th in points (6 points out of 9th place), but he also won the goal-scoring race with a 52% margin over #10 in goals. He collected 14.1% of the Hart vote that year with 60 people putting him on the ballot and 26 of them ranking him top3 in the league. The voters took him over Kuznetsov, Kopitar, Tavares, Tarasenko, Pavelski, who had more points but apparently less impact.
In 1945/46, Richard was 5th in points, 3 points away from both #2 and #9, but 12 points behind the leader. He was also 4th in goals, 10 goals behind the leader and 7 goals ahead of #10. The voters took him as one of a large group of top10 players on both lists (which were very similar in that season) and no one put Richard on the ballot.

So yes, it is possible to be top20 in points and still have a better season than someone who was top5 in points. It is not all about points.

There are 2 problems when looking at hart voting over time.

1) Voters often change their criteria from year to year nevermind that the group of voters and criteria are entirely different over 50, 60 and 70 years apart.

2) Ovechkin didn't win 14.5% of the vote in 15-16, this has been pointed out to you once before and it's pretty clear to see as in the hockey reference , which is where you are getting that number if you add up the entire amount of that column it comes to over 240.

The % of votes is actually counting the % of vote points of which Ovechkin received 212

2015-16 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

You also state that Ovechkin was top 3 on 26 ballots but the breakdown goes like this

first-2
second-6
3rd-18 votes

As for Ovechkin receiving more Hart points than some of the other guys you listed, it doesn't make him a "better" player for that year as we need only to look back at McDavid was a distant 5th in 17-18 when Taylor Hall won.

Hart voting much like Conn Smythe voting often depends on a specific narrative relevant to that time period nothing more and nothing less.

 

[SouthGeorge]

He might make my Top 40-50 all time when he's done. You have to weigh everything. 40% of his goals on powerplay. That's like rewarding Curry for free throws or penalty kick goals. Then you have to factor he scored a majority of his goals two different ways. That's like saying Ray Allen is Top 10 because he was the best 3 point shooter. Centers and goalies are just way more important than wingers. Center is the franchise QB. Wingers are dime a dozen. Plug and play. Some centers and goalies with worse stats get the nod over him. Don't get me wrong, one of the best pure one trick pony goal scorers ever. 40-50 range all time.

 

[Iapyi]

I'm sure the Crosby cult will go to great lengths to torture per game/per 60/etc numbers into portraying him as a much more historic player than his actual numbers will say. Just like people do for Forsberg, except Forsberg's game had insane sizzle so he manages to stand out and attract an extra following. Just like they'll have no choice but to downplay Ovechkins unquestioned all around dominance in his prime as you do now and reframe his transition into by far the best post 30yo sniper in the history of the game as a limitation.

No one else will care though. Ovechkin's picture will be up there above Gretzky's where it counts for the single most historic individual nhl achievement while Crosby will have the notoriety Joe Sakic has today give or take

1 = think what you want, history will have the final say.

2 = I highly doubt it, believe what you want, history will have the final say.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

I don't think OV is the greatest goal scorer of all time. Lemieux was a much better goal scorer than OV and he was not just a shot first player like AO. The difference between players like Lemieux, Gretzky, and even someone like Crosby is that they not only scored goals but also elite passers that made the best play. If someone like Lemieux wanted to just be a shot first guy instead of making the best play with some of the greatest passing of all time he would of averaged over a goal a game. Heck in his prime he did that already.

OV is not the greatest goal scorer of all time but the greatest pure goal scorer. The all time great players all have been great goal scorers and passers like the Lemieux, Gretzky, Crosby, Howe, and other forwards. Adding in defenseman and goaltenders puts OV much further back. I would also take a Jagr, Yzerman, LaFontaine, Forsberg, and many others over OV who for several years wasn't even a top 10 point producer in th league despite playing full seasons or close. None of the real great players was like that.

One of these things is not like the others. No way I'd take him over Ovy.

 

[yeaher]

in

Why are some Ovechkin fans still so insecure? 8 has accomplished just about everything a player can no need to constantly try and knock down Sid to make OV look better.

inferiority complex surely

 

[Herregud]

Why are some Ovechkin fans still so insecure? 8 has accomplished just about everything a player can no need to constantly try and knock down Sid to make OV look better.

Haha. I read this thread when it started and I feel like at least 70% of the first replies to say "no" were from Penguins/Sid fans.

The first response in this thread involving Crosby in any way whatsoever was one trying to knock down OV to make Sid look better. In an Ovechkin thread. But yeah, sure. It's the Ovechkin fans.

 

[max21]

He might make my Top 40-50 all time when he's done. You have to weigh everything. 40% of his goals on powerplay. That's like rewarding Curry for free throws or penalty kick goals. Then you have to factor he scored a majority of his goals two different ways. That's like saying Ray Allen is Top 10 because he was the best 3 point shooter. Centers and goalies are just way more important than wingers. Center is the franchise QB. Wingers are dime a dozen. Plug and play. Some centers and goalies with worse stats get the nod over him. Don't get me wrong, one of the best pure one trick pony goal scorers ever. 40-50 range all time.

40-50 range all time? Lmfao. Not even sure how to respond to this.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Wait, are you proposing here that LW is historically lower scoring because ... there are some on-ice defensive responsibilities, or some other factor that prevents left wingers from scoring? You do realize that it's lower scoring because there just aren't as many elite left wingers, right?

If anything, being an elite LW is an advantage in that you wouldn't have to compete with the Howes, Richards, Jagrs of the world at RW, or the Gretzkys, Lemieuxs, Beliveaus at C for all stars.

Being the best LWer shouldn't count for anything other than being better than other LWs. If you're not as dominant as a other players, being a LW doesn't somehow compensate for that.

And, by the way, Bobby Hull is the all-time best LW.

What a ridiculously circular argument. Left wings put up more goals and less points because their job is to finish plays on one of two possible wings. Centers put up less goals and more points because their job is to distribute amongst the wings. Do dmen put up less points and goals because there are no elite dmen? Or maybe because their job is to activate less and watch for counterattacks?

 

[Duffalufagus]

Are people drunk in this thread? IF he breaks the Gretz record (or even gets close, really) then maybe top ten. Maybe.

we are talking about a one trick pony who, but for one magical run, has been a total disappointment in big spots. For his whole career.

Crosby is leaps and bounds ahead. Not even close, really.

 

[filinski77]

He might make my Top 40-50 all time when he's done. You have to weigh everything. 40% of his goals on powerplay. That's like rewarding Curry for free throws or penalty kick goals. Then you have to factor he scored a majority of his goals two different ways. That's like saying Ray Allen is Top 10 because he was the best 3 point shooter. Centers and goalies are just way more important than wingers. Center is the franchise QB. Wingers are dime a dozen. Plug and play. Some centers and goalies with worse stats get the nod over him. Don't get me wrong, one of the best pure one trick pony goal scorers ever. 40-50 range all time.

Terrible take, you're either absolutely ignorant, or just so biased it makes you delusional.

Either way.

 

[Herregud]

Are people drunk in this thread? IF he breaks the Gretz record (or even gets close, really) then maybe top ten. Maybe.

we are talking about a one trick pony who, but for one magical run, has been a total disappointment in big spots. For his whole career.

Crosby is leaps and bounds ahead. Not even close, really.

These are things you believe and I suppose I cannot fault you for your beliefs.

But they are wrong. They have been proven wrong.

 

[SouthGeorge]

Terrible take, you're either absolutely ignorant, or just so biased it makes you delusional.

Either way.

Position matters. Centers and goalies are way more important. Elite center can carry wingers. It can't happen the other way around. Not to mention 37% of his career goals his team needed an advantage.

 

[filinski77]

I don't really disagree with you, but I think your framing is a little disingenuous:

First, your notes on Ovechkin's accomplishments today are mostly goal-oriented. I don't think saying that it's "a record that may never be broken" makes any sense at all, particularly given the context of that having been said about Gretzky and now we have Ovechkin threatening to break it. Further, scoring may continue increasing in the league, so there's really no way to tell.

Second, Ovechkin had a really terrific peak -- his first 5 seasons in the league. Thereafter, he's been a sniper. A prolific sniper, and the best of all time in that regard, but a sniper nonetheless. His Lindsay wins and Hart wins were largely confined to that peak. It's tough to find any top-10 contenders who had such brevity in their peak offensive performance.

Third, stating that Ovechkin is '3rd all time in Ted Lindsay wins' is disingenuous for two reasons: (i) he's tied for 3rd with Crosby, Jagr and Lafleur, and a player like Marcel Dionne (not close to top-10) has 2 and Messier (not in contention for top-10) also has 2; and (ii) the award only came into existence in 1970, excluding a whole slew of top players (Orr, Howe, Esposito, Beliveau, Hull, Richard, Morenz, Harvey -- indeed, all the players that would keep Ovechkin out of the top-10).

Last -- where are you getting your points/gp? From what I've seen he's 22nd in points/gp. Of course, this stat doesn't mean as much until a player retires.

First - I gave 5 accomplishments, only 2 related to goals. I don't see how that is 'mostly goal-oriented'

Second - Ovechkin won his first Hart in 2008, and his last in 2013. Not too sure how stretched apart you really want him to win that award? I mean, Crosby won his 1st of 2 in 2007, and his 2nd of 2 in 2014. Literally only a 1 year extra stretch? Although I will agree his dominance as far as point production is on the smaller side compared to other top-10 players, the main argument for Ovechkin has always been being the best goalscorer of all time (or one of the best), as well as a 3 year peak that rivals anyone not named Lemieux and Gretzky.

Third - I agree he is tied with other players, but either way he's still tied of 3rd in that trophy, and shows his dominance in that regard.

Last - I said "8th all time in leading the league in points/gp" Ie. he has lead the NHL in points/gp (per season) the 8th most times all time with 3. Which also goes to show that there really were not that many players outside of Gretzky etc. that had such long periods of crushing the league in points or points/gp. Which is exactly why Ovechkin's goalscoring lifts him above and beyond the other players who were also only top point producers for a few years.

 

[Zuluss]

There are 2 problems when looking at hart voting over time.

1) Voters often change their criteria from year to year nevermind that the group of voters and criteria are entirely different over 50, 60 and 70 years apart.

Hart voting much like Conn Smythe voting often depends on a specific narrative relevant to that time period nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, Hart voting record has its problems. Any better idea of how we get an integral measure of a player's performance that includes points, goals, physical play, defense, etc.?
Hart voting is not perfect, but it is still much better than the idea that someone who finishes top3 in points must be a top3 player in the league and someone who finishes 15th must be outside of top10 players.

Ovechkin didn't win 14.5% of the vote in 15-16, this has been pointed out to you once before and it's pretty clear to see as in the hockey reference , which is where you are getting that number if you add up the entire amount of that column it comes to over 240.

The % of votes is actually counting the % of vote points of which Ovechkin received 212

2015-16 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

Yes, this is what "% of vote" for any award is. It normalizes by total number of "vote points" (i.e., # of voters times 10 points for finishing 1st) and thus can be compared year-over-year.

You also state that Ovechkin was top 3 on 26 ballots but the breakdown goes like this

first-2
second-6
3rd-18 votes

Very good, now we know those who voted OV top3 in 2015/16 are not lunatics who think he was better than Kane that year (well, 2 voters are), but generally reasonable folks, who probably picked OV over Benn and Holtby.

As for Ovechkin receiving more Hart points than some of the other guys you listed, it doesn't make him a "better" player for that year as we need only to look back at McDavid was a distant 5th in 17-18 when Taylor Hall won.

Yes, players get snubbed in Hart voting because of their team not making playoffs. Ovechkin was snubbed this way in 2005/06, when he was nominated for Lindsay, but finished 6th in Hart voting.
Any reason to believe that in other seasons when he received a sizeable fraction of the vote he got the votes of the snubbed folks?

 

[Sentinel]

Breaking Gretzky's record will seat him somewhere in the top-10, but there isn't a decent argument to be made for a guy with only one Art Ross to flirt with 5th.

Where do you rank Richard with his one Hart and zero Art Rosses?

 

[Sentinel]

Hull
I think he and Crosby are in the next tier with Richard, Jagr, Bourque, Shore, Lidstrom, and Morenz.

Name one one category in which Ovechkin has not surpassed Hull already.

EDIT: I addressed it further below.