Not really. It's a group-think forum with a small gaggle of homers who have all sorts of nutty opinions.
One regular said Ovechkin would have been the 9th greatest player on thew 1956 Canadiens.
Another guy maintains that Ryan Getzlaf is better than Alex Ovechkin.
Another guy claims that Sidney Crosby could have scored as many goals as Ovie...if he wanted to.
Several of them claimed that Ovechkin is a "shoot-only" player despite being top 10 in assists over his career, and having led the entire league in points during his career, while also being top 4 in hits.
^^^These are not fringe opinions in that forum. These are from the "highly respected" regulars.
It's just not a forum that is ever going to give Ovie a fair shake.
I absolutely have not.
The discussions in the history forum are precisely as dumb as I portrayed.
Yeah, you have.
The poster never said "Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin all-time" - he specifically said he liked him better. Knowing how much you hate Crosby and are a Caps fan, I'm sure you like Tom Wilson better than Crosby. He also said that although Ovechkin obviously ranks higher all time, he would take Getzlaf on his team first. Nothing wrong with that - he wasn't saying Getzlaf was better, just that he liked him better.
Most say "shoot first" not "shoot only". It's not the same. For some reason you take that as a negative. Ovechkin shoots more than anyone in the league most years, and scores more goals. That's a good thing. No need to be defensive. Being shoot first isn't a bad trait if he makes it work.
I don't remember the "Crosby could score more goals then Ovechkin if he wanted to" comment, but considering how you're misrepresenting others, I wouldn't be surprise if you took that out of context. Crosby's role as a center is more often that of a playmaker, and he's an extremely skilled goal-scorer. I think if he got to play winger with a great playmaker, he absolutely could have had a career where he scored a ton more goals. Doesn't necessarily mean more than Ovechkin for career, but maybe in a given year or set of years, he could have given him a run for his money.
Also -
YOU post on the history forum, and you have some of the worst takes ever - ie assists count for almost nothing. So just because you saw certain opinions you disagree with, it doesn't mean it's shared by majority, it could very well be a random extreme opinion as you find anywhere else.
I'd say 90%+ of voters who participate in the HOH rankings projects are extremely objective in their analysis.
