What probability do you feel Ovechkin has to catch Gretzky now?

[Midnight Judges]

What bugs me with people wanting to rank Ovechkin is the top 10 is that the only argument they seem to have is that he is a great (perhaps the greatest) goalscorer. That's the entire argument. It is a valid argument, but I think it is incomplete. Well, maybe not "incomplete" but I wonder how much it should influence the debate. Let's look at things in more depth.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe are the consensus top 4.

As you noted, discussion starts at 5.

Who are the "contenders" for 5 to 10? Hull, Richard, Béliveau, Lidstrom, Bourque, Hasek, Roy. Of course, then, there is the elephant in the room: Sidney Crosby. Many people consider him top 10, some will go as far as to say he is on track to the consensus 5.

To me. Béliveau is easily ahead of Ovechkin. Bourque, Lidstrom, Hasek and Roy are difficult to compare to Ovechkin because they play different positions. Hull and Richard are primarly goal scorers, so they can be a good comparaison. I feel like both were more complete players than Ovechkin (maybe not Richard)... at least post 2010-2011 Ovechkin.

Now, as I said before, the elephant in the room: Ovechkin's contemporary and main rival: Sidney Crosby.

One thing nobody will argue: Alexander Ovechkin is a better goalscorer than Sidney Crosby. During their entire careers, Crosby beat him in GPG only once (and it was a partial season for Sid). Career GPG are 0.61 vs 0.47. Over 82 games, it is 50 goals vs 39 goals for a 28% advantage for Ovechkin. I mean, it is pretty clear. No argument here. So, if someone wants to bring trophy counting, I'll just say that well, he has 9 Rockets, he is clearly the best goal scorer, duh. It is still super impressive and that's why Ovechkin at least deserves to be in the discussion for top 10.

If we look at overall offensive production.

Crosby's PPG is 1.28. Over 82 games, that's 105 points
Ovechkin's PPG is 1.11. Over 82 that's 91 points
Crosby wins by 15.4%

Over their careers, Ovechkin had the better PPG 4 times (all within their first 5 years) and Crosby had the better PPG 12 times, including the last 11 years.
Crosby never had a year under PPG. Ovechkin has 4 (5 including this one, but that's not fair, he is like 1 point behind pace).

Crosby seems to be winning by a lot, but, to me, it is incomplete. We need to look at things more closely. Peak Ovechkin (his first 5 years) was a different animal. Let's compare their first 5 years and then the other years (a point in time people like to refer as "Ovechkin declining" - his PPG declined, but his goalscoring remained fairly high: 0.68 vs 0.58, small decline, but we are talking over 11 years including like 1 or 2 outlier years)

First 5 years
Crosby's PPG is 1.36. Over 82 games, that's 112 points.
Ovechkin's PPG is 1.34. Over 82 games, that's 110 points.
Crosby wins by 1.8%.

For the first 5 years, if you want to argue that Ovechkin was a better player because he beat Crosby significantly while their PPG was nearly identical. I cannot put much of a fight. Heck, despite winning the overall PPG, Crosby lost 4 years out of 5.

Now, let's look at the last 11 years...

Last 11 years
Crosby's PPG is 1.23. Over 82 games, it is around 101 points.
Ovechkin's PPG is 0.99 (let's give him 1). Over 82 games, that's 82 points.
Crosby wins by 23%.

Productivity wise, it is not even close. Ovechkin is still the best goalscorer by about 10 goals/82 games (27%), but Crosby is the better point producer by 20 points/82 games (25%). Does a 27% in goal scoring erases a 25% PPG advantage? And we are not even talking about the rest of their games here nor are we talking about their team/international achievements, just pure offensive production. I think Crosby, for the last 11 years, has easily been the better players.

If we look at the playoffs, you can see the same dynamic.

Both were neck and neck during their first 5 years (1.32 for Crosby, 1.33 Ovechkin). Crosby had two finals, 1 cup and 2 CS worthy runs. Ovechkin never got out of the second round. So from a legacy standpoint, Sid at the better first 5 playoffs, but individually, Ovechkin was just as good.

Next 11 years, Crosby has 107 points in 106 games for 1.009 PPG. Ovechkin has 81 in 99 for 0.81 PPG. Over 82 games, it is 92 to 77. 19.4% win for Crosby. Legacy wise, Crosby played in 2 finals, won two cups and won two CS. Ovechkin played in 1 final, won 1 cup and 1 CS. Crosby wins from a productivity and legacy standpoint. Productivity wise, it is not even that close.

So, to me based on overall productivity, playoff productivity, playoff legacy AND having been the most productive player for 11 straight years, I put Crosby ahead of Ovechkin career-wise. I do not think the gap is that big and I DO think Ovechkin's goalscoring does close it a little - heck, I'd even have to acknowledge that Ovechkin might have peaked a little higher or, at least, he DID play during his entire peak and produce results. However, when you look at complete legacies, it is obvious is who ahead of who from an historical perspective.

If you cannot put Ovechkin before Crosby or Béliveau. Ovechkin is at best 7th all-time. Then, to decide if he is top 10, you need to compare him to Hull and Richard. You also have to figure out a way to determine if his impact was greater than guys like Shore, Lidstrom, Bourque, Roy and Hasek. Basically, you can have him anywhere from 7 to like 15. So, despite being the best goalscorer of all time, he COULD be as low as 15. Maybe even lower depending on the rankings. He could be as high as 7th though, and that's fair. Maybe even 5th if the argument is really compelling, but I would strongly disagree.

I mean, that's only my opinion and it is worth what it is worth, but I do not see anything "wrong" with it. I do not think Ovechkin being top 10 is a slam dunk strictly because he is the best goal scorer ever. He is certainly in the argument though and I would respect someone putting him as high as 5th. I'd disagree, but it would not be a stupid take.

There are a few ways your arguments fail:

1) You treat secondary assists as just as valuable as goals when goals are actually more valuable than primary assists which are far more valuable than secondary assists. No sane person actually believes secondary assists are as important as goals - but this is the foundation of your opinion.

2) Your comparisons all assume that durability is worth precisely nothing when in reality a $9M player in the press box is worth less than nothing. He's actually hurting his team. Both Crosby and Ovie are quite valuable on the ice even if they aren't scoring.

3) No mention of physicality (which is a significant aspect of hockey)

So in years where Ovechkin significantly outproduces Crosby offensively (such as their first 5), your conclusion is that Crosby wins or they are neck and neck (when Ovie had 3 Pearsons, 2 Rockets, an Art Ross, 2 Harts and a Calder - 3/2/1/2 to Crosby's 1/1/1/1. You assert these are equals. They are very much not!).

And in the 10 years since then Crosby has 19 more points while Ovie has 163 more goals. Sid has 598 primary points in that time. Ovie has 648.

So what you've got to do is pretend the Earth stops spinning when Sid sits out games, and claim that durability a neutral aspect when in reality durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Right, but not many players were at their peak forever. I think Ovi has a few things going for him in this aspect:

- One of the best peaks ever outside of the big-4 (3 straight pearsons with goal/gp and point/gp leads each year)
- The best goal-scorer ever (imo)
- Outside of his peak years, he still won 7 rockets (enough to tie #1 all-time), and Hart finishes of 1/2/6/7/9

He was near point/gp for that large middle chunk of his career, but you gotta remember that top players in those years were scoring 30-40 goals and only 80-90 points right. That was just a result of an extremely low scoring environment.

I agree it is hard to compare across era's, but we can only do the best we can. And when we try our best, based just on performance relative to peers, I think Ovi beats out those 2 Canadiens previously mentioned. And that's even before trying to consider the context of a 6-team Canadian league vs. a more international league.

He obviously has a lot going FOR him, if not, we would not discuss him as a potential top 10 player ever.

I agree with your first point.
I agree that your second point plays a role even though I am not sure I would call him the GOAT (at worst 3rd behind Gretzky and Lemieux, 1st is acceptable)
Your third, I am 50/50. Like, yes for the Rockets even if it shows only one aspect it does show very consistant domination in that aspect and it counts for a lot. The Hart finishes? Meh, I guess we have to have some hard data and the Hart finish kind of fits the bill (I just hate awards voted on by journalists, that's why I prefer CS worthy runs to CS wins. I mean, Ovechkin deserved his CS, but would Kuznetsov's run had been "better" if journalists voted for him instead - he was deserving too. Would Crosby's run be worse if Letang or Kessel had won in 16?). Goalies and defensemen are very rarely considered and Ovechkin is a sexy player. He scores a lot, he does have spectacular hits and he has a great personality. Still, 5 top 10 finishes is very very good and shows consistant greatness.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Sorry, I forgot about secondary assists and hitzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

And durability. And the fact that Alex Ovechkin is an excellent playmaker. And he's also been a great team player and a leader.

 

[george14]

Right, but not many players were at their peak forever. I think Ovi has a few things going for him in this aspect:

- One of the best peaks ever outside of the big-4 (3 straight pearsons with goal/gp and point/gp leads each year)
- The best goal-scorer ever (imo)
- Outside of his peak years, he still won 7 rockets (enough to tie #1 all-time), and Hart finishes of 1/2/6/7/9

He was near point/gp for that large middle chunk of his career, but you gotta remember that top players in those years were scoring 30-40 goals and only 80-90 points right. That was just a result of an extremely low scoring environment.

I agree it is hard to compare across era's, but we can only do the best we can. And when we try our best, based just on performance relative to peers, I think Ovi beats out those 2 Canadiens previously mentioned. And that's even before trying to consider the context of a 6-team Canadian league vs. a more international league.

The argument against a "6 team league" is a bit unfair IMO. Yes, it was "easier" to win awards but there are also a lot of advantages guys have now over the guys back then.

These arguments are always tricky because Gordie Howe was playing wit no helmet, flat sticks, terrible equipment, bad nutrition (most likely), and probably working another job. Today the game is much bigger and a deeper talent pool, but it's hard to compare across eras.

 

[george14]

Admittedly I didn't read your entire post, but let me refer to this particular part.

Even if we assume that the only argument to rank Ovechkin in the top 10 is through his ability to score goals, I think it's a very legitimate and persuasive argument. The purpose of hockey is to score more goals than the opposing team to win games. I think the guy who's arguably the best/greatest at doing that (scoring goals) in the history of hockey absolutely deserves to at the very least be in the conversation for that spot.

If he breaks Gretzky's record, I think he's a lock for at least number 10. Ultimately though, this is all very subjective.

I think that reinforces his point though.

You are simplifying the game to goals and ignoring the fact that other players need to set up the goals, or play defense, or stop the puck, etc. I always bring up this argument and people deflect; is Brett Hull a better player than Steve Yzerman? There is no doubt he was a better goal scorer. So his piece of the hockey pie is bigger. But everyone knows Yzerman was a superior player to Hull.

Someone has to win faceoffs, play defense, be the set up man, body check, play the PK, etc. Ovechkin happens to be one of the best ever at scoring goals (maybe the best, like you say), but the argument is flawed because there is much more to the game than scoring goals. Not to bring this debate up again but there is a reason you don't see too many people (aside from Caps fans/Crosby haters) saying Ovechkin is a better player than Crosby even though he is definitely a better scorer. The last 10+ years Crosby and McDavid have been voted the best player in the random NHL players poll.

It's like saying the point of the game of basketball is to score more points than your opponents, therefore Kareem and Malone are the best players ever because they scored the most and 2nd most points. Malone is often times not even ranked in the top 3 at his own position (power forward).

 

[Scandale du Jour]

There are a few ways your arguments fail:

1) You treat secondary assists as just as valuable as goals when goals are actually more valuable than primary assists which are far more valuable than secondary assists. No sane person actually believes secondary assists are as important as goals - but this is the foundation of your opinion.

2) Your comparisons all assume that durability is worth precisely nothing when in reality a $9M player in the press box is worth less than nothing. He's actually hurting his team. Both Crosby and Ovie are quite valuable on the ice even if they aren't scoring.

3) No mention of physicality (which is a significant aspect of hockey)

So in years where Ovechkin significantly outproduces Crosby offensively (such as their first 5), your conclusion is that Crosby wins or they are neck and neck (when Ovie had 3 Pearsons, 2 Rockets, an Art Ross, 2 Harts and a Calder - 3/2/1/2 to Crosby's 1/1/1/1. You assert these are equals. They are very much not!).

And in the 10 years since then since then Crosby has 19 more points while Ovie has 163 more goals. Sid has 598 primary points in that time. Ovie has 648.

So what you've got to do is pretend the Earth stops spinning when Sid sits out games, and claim that durability a neutral aspect when in reality durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

I will only address the bolded part, because the rest is just your regular stuff about secondary assists/hits (and hits are not the only way to mesure "physicality", Crosby plays a skilled grinder game, Ovechkin plays more on the perimeter even if he hits more - neither of these things are a positive or a negative, IMO). I do agree about availability and I even pointed out that it was a point in Ovechkin's favor in one of my posts. My goal was to use Crosby to situate Ovechkin within the potential top 10 as he is the only direct comparable. I do not want to argue in circles with you and who is better, because at the end of the day, it does not matter.

Ovechkin did not significantly outproduce Crosby offensively during their first 5 years, that's a lie unless we view things in your alternate reality full of secondary assists and primary points. Crosby had a VERY VERY VERY slim PPG advantage over a large enough sample size. My conclusion was that Crosby wins "legacy wise" because he has had better playoffs and two finals - these things are looked at when people rank players, for better or for worse. I also said that one could say that Ovechkin had a better peak and I would have a very hard time arguing against that. You want to argue that Ovechkin wins "legacy wise" because he has more individual awards. Fair enough, it is an argument that is routinely used in rankings. I hate trophy counting, but ok...

Trophy counting creates a gap that isn't there in reality and that is why I dislike it. Crosby was like 4 points behind Ovechkin when Ovechkin won the Calder, Crosby finished second in Calder voting. Ovechkin had the better year, but it was not by a large margin (yeah, yeah, I know GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLZ). Crosby was a finalist for other trophies when Ovechkin won them (not all of them, obviously). Crosby won a rocket against Ovechkin, but Ovechkin had the better GPG, yet, if we trophy count, that one goes to Sid (and it does not matter in the grand scheme of things as Ovechkin is obviously the much better goal scorer). You can give Ovechkin an advantage peak wise and regular season wise for their first five years, it is not a bad argument. Suggesting that the gap is huge is a lie. When it comes to raw productivity, they were neck and neck. The way you choose to look at context is yours and that's fine. When it is that close, you need to nitpick. I chose the playoffs (once again, raw productivity is neck and neck), you chose individual trophies. We can debate in circles for hours and neither of us will be wrong; that is why it is close.

Using raw totals to compare their impact during a 11-year period is laughable. I guess Marcel Dionne is a top 5 player ever

 

[Scandale du Jour]

And durability. And the fact that Alex Ovechkin is an excellent playmaker. And he's also been a great team player and a leader.

And these things can be said of literally anyone in consideration for the top 10.

As for being a great playmaker... I mean, define playmaker. If you mean that he makes things happen when he has the puck on his stick, I'll agree... but once again, you can say that of ANY skater in consideration for a top-10 spot. If you are trying to argue that he is great at setting up others, I'd say that maybe he has the ability, but it is certainly not showing in his stats (guy hasn't sniffed 50 assists in a decade).

 

[Midnight Judges]

And these things can be said of literally anyone in consideration for the top 10.

Jagr was a great team player and leader? Eh, I think he very obviously was not.

Lemieux wasn't a great leader or a team guy either.

 

[gtrower]

Why are we talking about Crosby in this thread? He’s barely halfway to 894.

 

[Midnight Judges]

As for being a great playmaker... I mean, define playmaker. If you mean that he makes things happen when he has the puck on his stick, I'll agree... but once again, you can say that of ANY skater in consideration for a top-10 spot. If you are trying to argue that he is great at setting up others, I'd say that maybe he has the ability, but it is certainly not showing in his stats (guy hasn't sniffed 50 assists in a decade).

Ovechkin is deployed as a goal scorer, to the benefit of his team. The results (Caps PP% being the best in the NHL by a pretty good margin since 2007, the Caps having the most points since 2007, and second most goals for) speak for themselves. He could easily accumulate more points if he was not deployed in this role. He'd certainly get more assists, and you would think he was a better player for it. But it wouldn't be the best use of his talents.

My point is, in terms of goals actually created by individual players (hockey reference has 553 for Ovie and 479 for Crosby), Ovie has relatively fewer points.

Certainly you can weight secondary assists equal to goals. Personally, I don't think it is indicative of actual contributions.

 

[filinski77]

He obviously has a lot going FOR him, if not, we would not discuss him as a potential top 10 player ever.

I agree with your first point.
I agree that your second point plays a role even though I am not sure I would call him the GOAT (at worst 3rd behind Gretzky and Lemieux, 1st is acceptable)
Your third, I am 50/50. Like, yes for the Rockets even if it shows only one aspect it does show very consistant domination in that aspect and it counts for a lot. The Hart finishes? Meh, I guess we have to have some hard data and the Hart finish kind of fits the bill (I just hate awards voted on by journalists, that's why I prefer CS worthy runs to CS wins. I mean, Ovechkin deserved his CS, but would Kuznetsov's run had been "better" if journalists voted for him instead - he was deserving too. Would Crosby's run be worse if Letang or Kessel had won in 16?). Goalies and defensemen are very rarely considered and Ovechkin is a sexy player. He scores a lot, he does have spectacular hits and he has a great personality. Still, 5 top 10 finishes is very very good and shows consistant greatness.

Totally fair, and completely understand what you're basing that off of.

A way I have never really thought of it is something like this: If you look at Ovechkin's career AFTER his first 5 years: 3rd in points over that frame, 1st in goals over that frame (25% more than #2), 7 rockets (tied for most all time), Hart, Smythe, and either the 1st or 2nd most Hart votes in the 2010's decade. That alone is likely a top 30 career all time (maybe even 20? idk).

And then add on 3 Pearsons, 2 Harts, 2 Rockets, and 3 straight point/gp leads, 3 straight goal/gp leads, and the extra goals that pushes him from one of the best goalscorers of all time to THE greatest goalscorer of all time (and also adding a bunch to his raw totals). How much stock does adding all of this get you? I personally think it's enough to go from top-30 to top 5-10.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Just like Dan Marino in football. You have to actually win something, (or win more than 1) championship to be considered the greatest of all time.

Exactly why Brees will always be in the shawdows of Brady/Manning. He only led his team to a championship once while the others went multiple times.

How can Ovechkin be considered a great team leader when the Capitals have pulled off some of the biggest choke jobs outside of 2018 is hilarious to say in itself.

 

[Zuluss]

Bossy has the highest GPG of all time and Ovechkin is 6th. No doubt, era matters. But I would argue Mike Bossy is the most dominant goal scorer ever, especially since you bring up "it isn't all about raw numbers". He played 10 seasons, finished top 5 in goals 8 times, scored 60 goals 5 times, scored 50 goals 9 times, and led the league twice. Oh yeah, and there were some schmucks playing against him named Lemieux and Gretzky.

OK, let's look at % leads over #10 in goals

Bossy: 73-42-33-33-28-26-25-9-9
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-41-30-26-24-15-6

Pretty much every year but one, Ovechkin beats Bossy by a sizeable margin - and his list is much longer, in 9 seasons Bossy is retired and Ovechkin has two more goal-scoring titles (with 26% and 24% margins over #10, something like 50 goals vs. 40)
Bossy playing against Gretzky has nothing to do with that - Gretzky was no obstacle to Bossy running circles around guys like Pierre Larouche or Ron Sedlbauer. The margins Bossy had over those guys are smaller than Ovechkin's margins over probably similar competition (or maybe some will even say today we have better Larouches and Sedlbauers to round out top10 in goals).

So my point is, just because you dominate an era, does not mean you are the best ever. And this is an easy point to illustrate here; considering when people discuss some of the best goal scorers ever (Richard, Hull, Hull, Gretz, Howe, Lemieux, Bossy, Ovi, etc.), many played against each other thus stealing accolades.

Ovechkin's dominance I was referring to is the dominance over the field, not over the best goalscorers of his time.
I am not making the argument "look how much better than Stamkos/Kovalchuk Ovechkin was"; if I was, bringing up Richard/Howe or Bossy/Gretzky competition would make sense.
But I am looking at Ovechkin's continued dominance over #10 in goals, Ovechkin's edge over a generic "good goalscorer" of his time - and by that metric, Ovechkin's 11th-best season is roughly as good as Bossy's 5th-best season or Brett Hull's 4th-best or Lemieux' 5th-best. That's what's impressive - most players you mentioned peaked and faded, by their 9th-best season they were out of top5 in goals, and Ovechkin won a Rocket in his 11th-best season. You may say it was a weak Rocket, but he still was able to beat 9 "good goalscorers", and Gretzky and Esposito and Brett Hull in their 9th-best, let alone 11th-best seasons could beat none.

 

[BallardEra]

I don't get why people cite Bossy's goals per game in order to claim he was the best goal scorer.

Gretzky had a better goals per game over that same span.

Bossy didn't play long enough to see his goals per game drop off over a 20 year career like it did for Gretzky.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Using raw totals to compare their impact during a 11-year period is laughable. I guess Marcel Dionne is a top 5 player ever

That's a straw man argument. There is no need to adjust for a Crosby/Ovechkin comparison because their careers overlap 100%.

Dionne played almost exclusively in the highest scoring era ever. IMO a proper comparison for Dionne against anyone outside that era starts with adjusting. Incidentally Dionne's total career adjusted points are tied with Ovie right now, and 5 points ahead of Crosby. So they will both far surpass him.

 

[Beukeboom]

The problem with Ovie in terms of top ten all time, is that he had a five year peak, and since has struggled to be a ppg player. I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. The goals alone will take him high high up, but I can't agree to top ten. Especially given that he has been on the ice for more goals against than forward during this time. Given that Caps has been a great team during this period it's pretty remarkable. "+- isn't everything" you say. I agree. But he's an outlier in a negative sense compared to the other greats. So hence, his peak is Bobby Hull, but the majority of his career is Brett Hull.

Edit: Just to be clear, I really like Ovie and his battering ram kind of style. This is merely directed at a top ten of all time claim.

Edit 2. Pretty off topic I suppose. But not much more to say about his chances. Next season will be really interesting. Players tend to fall of a cliff as they age. Wayne's last season was pretty abysmal, so it's easy to forget he was tied for #3 in points the year prior.

 

[filinski77]

The problem with Ovie in terms of top ten all time, is that he had a five year peak, and since has struggled to be a ppg player. I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. The goals alone will take him high high up, but I can't agree to top ten. Especially given that he has been on the ice for more goals against than forward during this time. Given that Caps has been a great team during this period it's pretty remarkable. "+- isn't everything" you say. I agree. But he's an outlier in a negative sense compared to the other greats. So hence, his peak is Bobby Hull, but the majority of his career is Brett Hull.

Edit: Just to be clear, I really like Ovie and his battering ram kind of style. This is merely directed at a top ten of all time claim.

Edit 2. Pretty off topic I suppose. But not much more to say about his chances. Next season will be really interesting. Players tend to fall of a cliff as they age. Wayne's last season was pretty abysmal, so it's easy to forget he was tied for #3 in points the year prior.

A lot to unpack here. Throwing out +/- is obviously completely terrible. Ovi is a plus player overall throughout his career, and has only gone negative 5 seasons (imagine trying to shit on Crosby for having 2 negative seasons and a 0 season - no one cares).

Your second main point was that Ovi struggled to hit point/gp. That’s fair I suppose, but you have to remember how low the scoring was in the 2010s:

-2011: Ovi was 7th in points, and only 7 players had 82+ points
- 2012: Only 6 guys had 82+ points (also Ovis worst season of his career)
- 2013: Ovi 3rd in points
- 2014: Ovi 8th in points, and only 5 guys had 82+ points
- 2015: Ovi 4th in points, and only 3 guys had 82+ points
- 2016: Only 5 guys with 82+ points

Gotta think of how 50g and 80p in the early and mid 2010s was like putting up 65g and 105p+ in the 80s.

Ovechkin post peak was first in goals by a large margin (25%), and third in points. He was scoring 50 goals and winning rockets by 10 goals over #2. In the end, Ovis career has been so unique that you can’t just compare it to other players and assume it wasn’t as good simply because of his raw numbers.

 

[Zuluss]

What bugs me with people wanting to rank Ovechkin is the top 10 is that the only argument they seem to have is that he is a great (perhaps the greatest) goalscorer. That's the entire argument. It is a valid argument, but I think it is incomplete.

That's definitely not the whole thing. Ovechkin has the best three-year peak since Jagr (and maybe, if one looks at consecutive three years, Ovechkin's three year peak is even higher than Jagr's). Ovechkin still has the best single season of the 21st century (the 65-goal season). We do not even know yet how big those two things are: what if no one surpasses Ovechkin's 1-year/3-year peak in the next 20 years? Everyone thought McDavid would do that, but so far he has not.

Oveckin has insane longevity - at this point, Howe is probably the only comparable. Ovechkin has collected 14 top20 finishes in points - if we exclude O6-era players, who played in the league with 18 first-liners, Gretzky has 18 top20 finishes in points, Dionne has 16, Ovechkin and Sakic have 14, Jagr has 13, Francis 12, Lemieux 11. Ovechkin has 9 years with 5% of Hart votes or more - out of the names listed above, only Gretzky and Lemieux have more or the same number. Jagr has 7 such years, Sakic and Dionne have 4.

Ovechkin is building up a strong argument to be the best LW of all-time, and his competition is Bobby Hull. That's another area in which Ovechkin is historically significant. You basically cannot tell the story of the game without mentioning Ovechkin - with all respect to players like Beliveau or Shore or Lidstrom, one cannot say the same about them.

Who are the "contenders" for 5 to 10? Hull, Richard, Béliveau, Lidstrom, Bourque, Hasek, Roy. Of course, then, there is the elephant in the room: Sidney Crosby. Many people consider him top 10, some will go as far as to say he is on track to the consensus 5.

To me. Béliveau is easily ahead of Ovechkin. Bourque, Lidstrom, Hasek and Roy are difficult to compare to Ovechkin because they play different positions. Hull and Richard are primarly goal scorers, so they can be a good comparaison. I feel like both were more complete players than Ovechkin (maybe not Richard)... at least post 2010-2011 Ovechkin.

Hull and Ovechkin compare very well if you sort of swap their late 20s and early 20s: Ovechkin in his early 20s was the dominant player Hull was in his late 20s, and Ovechkin in his late 20s was similar to Hull in his early 20s (some MVP-worthy seasons alternating with down seasons). Now that Ovechkin seems to be gaining the longevity edge on Hull and seems to have taken Hull's mantle of the best goal-scorer of all-time, it becomes very hard to rank Ovechkin more than 1 or 2 slots behind Hull.
If you value playoffs a lot, you may not rank Hull #5, but he has to be in top10 somewhere, as you said. Well, Ovechkin is right where Hull is, a step behind - or may be even a step ahead.

If we look at overall offensive production.

Crosby's PPG is 1.28. Over 82 games, that's 105 points
Ovechkin's PPG is 1.11. Over 82 that's 91 points
Crosby wins by 15.4%

Dionne's ppg is 1.31. Lafluer's ppg is 1.20. Dionne wins by 10% - but many people will still take Lafleur's RS record, because that six-year peak!
It does not matter much that Dionne was more productive than Lafleur in the tail end of their careers. This is not what we remember them for.

Crosby vs. Ovechkin career ppg is a similar story. For example, the last two years Crosby's ppg was better, but that does not really add much to their resumes. If anything, in the last two seasons Ovechkin padded his resume more: he won his 9th goal-scoring title (with a good margin over #10) and he may well tie Howe in number of top5 finishes in goals (not to mention all other milestones). That definitely adds to the lore; 47 points in 41 games though... duh, a few people do that every single year.

Crosby never had a year under PPG. Ovechkin has 4 (5 including this one, but that's not fair, he is like 1 point behind pace).

Again, who cares. Many of Crosby's ppg years earned him no Hart recognition; some were shortened by an injury, but in some years he was just not good enough. Think 2017/18 or 2005/06 - yes, the points were there, but Crosby was not very impactful, literally no one put him on the Hart ballot.
On the other hand, in some of his under-ppg years Ovechkin had a strong Hart record, 2015/16 being the prime example. Dominance in the goal-scoring race matters; 50-goals seasons in the period when nobody can repeat a 40-goal season matter.

First 5 years
Crosby's PPG is 1.36. Over 82 games, that's 112 points.
Ovechkin's PPG is 1.34. Over 82 games, that's 110 points.
Crosby wins by 1.8%.

For the first 5 years, if you want to argue that Ovechkin was a better player because he beat Crosby significantly while their PPG was nearly identical. I cannot put much of a fight. Heck, despite winning the overall PPG, Crosby lost 4 years out of 5.

Ovechkin was not just a better player in their first 5 years. He was a much better player. During his first 5 years in the league, Ovechkin had the best season of the century so far and put together the three-year peak that is still unsurpassed.
Crosby's best (or at least most decorated season) in the same time-frame is the season when he beat Joe Thornton by 4 points, and Jumbo Joe was not even at his very best.
So after the first 5 years in the league there was a lot of catching up for Crosby to do.

Now, let's look at the last 11 years...

Last 11 years
Crosby's PPG is 1.23. Over 82 games, it is around 101 points.
Ovechkin's PPG is 0.99 (let's give him 1). Over 82 games, that's 82 points.
Crosby wins by 23%.

There are multiple seasons during this period when Crosby had higher ppg, but Hart voters recognized Ovechkin as being better (2014/15, 2012/13, 2017/18). And there is a lot of catching up Crosby has to do.
Here is a crude way to balance things out: let's say 2012/13 and 2013/14 were the years when Crosby caught up with Ovechkin's first 5 years in terms of MVP titles and kind of reduced the gap between the peaks.

So let's look at the rest in terms of Hart finishes:
Crosby 2, 2, 2, 5
Ovechkin 1, 2, 6, 7, 9
While Crosby was catching up with Ovechkin's first five years, Ovechkin eked out another Hart in 2012/13, and overall his Hart voting record looks better: frankly, voting Crosby over McDavid in 2018/19 was ridiculous and was mostly punishing McDavid for being on a bad team, and both in 2015/16 and 2018/19 players disagreed with the journalists who placed Crosby 2nd in the Hart voting and did not nominate him for Lindsay. As a minor point, one can also remark that Ovechkin got a higher % of Hart vote in 2015/16 (when he finished 6th) than Crosby did in 2014/15 (when he finished 5th).

Actually, 2014/15 and 2015/16 should be Exhibit 1 in comparing Crosby's and Ovechkin's ppg.
During this two-year period, Crosby collected 64 goals and 169 points in 157 games for 1.076 ppg
Ovechkin collected 103 goals and 152 points in 160 games for 0.95 ppg.
So Crosby is well over ppg, OV is well under ppg, Crosby's ppg advantage is 13.3% (pretty close to career difference in ppg).

Now look at Hart voting
2014/15 - OV has 888 "Hart points" (56.6% of maximum possible), Crosby has 138 (8.8%)
2015/16 - OV has 212 "Hart points" (14.1%), Crosby has 800 (53.3%)
It is not clear whether we can add those points and compute the percentage difference, but it is clear that Ovechkin has a better Hart voting record during this two-year span - despite having 13.3% lower ppg.

Let that sink in - Ovechkin has 13.3% lower ppg, but he is still better.

If we look at overall offensive production.

Crosby's PPG is 1.28. Over 82 games, that's 105 points
Ovechkin's PPG is 1.11. Over 82 that's 91 points
Crosby wins by 15.4%

Now that gap in career ppg does not look as convincing, does it? Especially adding the fact that Ovechkin played like two-seasons-worth more games.

Then, to decide if he is top 10, you need to compare him to Hull and Richard. You also have to figure out a way to determine if his impact was greater than guys like Shore, Lidstrom, Bourque, Roy and Hasek.

Hull and Ovechkin are joined at the hip. If Hull goes 7th all-time, Ovechkin goes 8th. Or maybe even 6th. The only way to keep Ovechkin out of top10 all-time is to rank Hull 12th and see if you have any takers for that.

Ovechkin is basically the Bourque of wingers. Just look at their All-star voting record, iron out the irregularities (i.e., years when Bourque is in the first All-Star team, but not top2 in Norris), think a bit about the peak, and you have more or less a similar record.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

That's definitely not the whole thing. Ovechkin has the best three-year peak since Jagr (and maybe, if one looks at consecutive three years, Ovechkin's three year peak is even higher than Jagr's). Ovechkin still has the best single season of the 21st century (the 65-goal season). We do not even know yet how big those two things are: what if no one surpasses Ovechkin's 1-year/3-year peak in the next 20 years? Everyone thought McDavid would do that, but so far he has not.

Oveckin has insane longevity - at this point, Howe is probably the only comparable. Ovechkin has collected 14 top20 finishes in points - if we exclude O6-era players, who played in the league with 18 first-liners, Gretzky has 18 top20 finishes in points, Dionne has 16, Ovechkin and Sakic have 14, Jagr has 13, Francis 12, Lemieux 11. Ovechkin has 9 years with 5% of Hart votes or more - out of the names listed above, only Gretzky and Lemieux have more or the same number. Jagr has 7 such years, Sakic and Dionne have 4.

Ovechkin is building up a strong argument to be the best LW of all-time, and his competition is Bobby Hull. That's another area in which Ovechkin is historically significant. You basically cannot tell the story of the game without mentioning Ovechkin - with all respect to players like Beliveau or Shore or Lidstrom, one cannot say the same about them.



Hull and Ovechkin compare very well if you sort of swap their late 20s and early 20s: Ovechkin in his early 20s was the dominant player Hull was in his late 20s, and Ovechkin in his late 20s was similar to Hull in his early 20s (some MVP-worthy seasons alternating with down seasons). Now that Ovechkin seems to be gaining the longevity edge on Hull and seems to have taken Hull's mantle of the best goal-scorer of all-time, it becomes very hard to rank Ovechkin more than 1 or 2 slots behind Hull.
If you value playoffs a lot, you may not rank Hull #5, but he has to be in top10 somewhere, as you said. Well, Ovechkin is right where Hull is, a step behind - or may be even a step ahead.



Dionne's ppg is 1.31. Lafluer's ppg is 1.20. Dionne wins by 10% - but many people will still take Lafleur's RS record, because that six-year peak!
It does not matter much that Dionne was more productive than Lafleur in the tail end of their careers. This is not what we remember them for.

Crosby vs. Ovechkin career ppg is a similar story. For example, the last two years Crosby's ppg was better, but that does not really add much to their resumes. If anything, in the last two seasons Ovechkin padded his resume more: he won his 9th goal-scoring title (with a good margin over #10) and he may well tie Howe in number of top5 finishes in goals (not to mention all other milestones). That definitely adds to the lore; 47 points in 41 games though... duh, a few people do that every single year.



Again, who cares. Many of Crosby's ppg years earned him no Hart recognition; some were shortened by an injury, but in some years he was just not good enough. Think 2017/18 or 2005/06 - yes, the points were there, but Crosby was not very impactful, literally no one put him on the Hart ballot.
On the other hand, in some of his under-ppg years Ovechkin had a strong Hart record, 2015/16 being the prime example. Dominance in the goal-scoring race matters; 50-goals seasons in the period when nobody can repeat a 40-goal season matter.



Ovechkin was not just a better player in their first 5 years. He was a much better player. During his first 5 years in the league, Ovechkin had the best season of the century so far and put together the three-year peak that is still unsurpassed.
Crosby's best (or at least most decorated season) in the same time-frame is the season when he beat Joe Thornton by 4 points, and Jumbo Joe was not even at his very best.
So after the first 5 years in the league there was a lot of catching up for Crosby to do.



There are multiple seasons during this period when Crosby had higher ppg, but Hart voters recognized Ovechkin as being better (2014/15, 2012/13, 2017/18). And there is a lot of catching up Crosby has to do.
Here is a crude way to balance things out: let's say 2012/13 and 2013/14 were the years when Crosby caught up with Ovechkin's first 5 years in terms of MVP titles and kind of reduced the gap between the peaks.

So let's look at the rest in terms of Hart finishes:
Crosby 2, 2, 2, 5
Ovechkin 1, 2, 6, 7, 9
While Crosby was catching up with Ovechkin's first five years, Ovechkin eked out another Hart in 2012/13, and overall his Hart voting record looks better: frankly, voting Crosby over McDavid in 2018/19 was ridiculous and was mostly punishing McDavid for being on a bad team, and both in 2015/16 and 2018/19 players disagreed with the journalists who placed Crosby 2nd in the Hart voting and did not nominate him for Lindsay. As a minor point, one can also remark that Ovechkin got a higher % of Hart vote in 2015/16 (when he finished 6th) than Crosby did in 2014/15 (when he finished 5th).

Actually, 2014/15 and 2015/16 should be Exhibit 1 in comparing Crosby's and Ovechkin's ppg.
During this two-year period, Crosby collected 64 goals and 169 points in 157 games for 1.076 ppg
Ovechkin collected 103 goals and 152 points in 160 games for 0.95 ppg.
So Crosby is well over ppg, OV is well under ppg, Crosby's ppg advantage is 13.3% (pretty close to career difference in ppg).

Now look at Hart voting
2014/15 - OV has 888 "Hart points" (56.6% of maximum possible), Crosby has 138 (8.8%)
2015/16 - OV has 212 "Hart points" (14.1%), Crosby has 800 (53.3%)
It is not clear whether we can add those points and compute the percentage difference, but it is clear that Ovechkin has a better Hart voting record during this two-year span - despite having 13.3% lower ppg.

Let that sink in - Ovechkin has 13.3% lower ppg, but he is still better.



Now that gap in career ppg does not look as convincing, does it? Especially adding the fact that Ovechkin played like two-seasons-worth more games.



Hull and Ovechkin are joined at the hip. If Hull goes 7th all-time, Ovechkin goes 8th. Or maybe even 6th. The only way to keep Ovechkin out of top10 all-time is to rank Hull 12th and see if you have any takers for that.

Ovechkin is basically the Bourque of wingers. Just look at their All-star voting record, iron out the irregularities (i.e., years when Bourque is in the first All-Star team, but not top2 in Norris), think a bit about the peak, and you have more or less a similar record.

There are very few people outside of DC that think Ovechkin is a better all around hockey player than Crosby.

Your opinion is most certainly in the minority.

 

[filinski77]

There are very few people outside of DC that think Ovechkin is a better all around hockey player than Crosby.

Your opinion is most certainly in the minority.

I agree that Crosby has been the “better” player over the course of the last 16 years, but I also believe that when you rank players in an all-time sense, there’s a lot more that goes into it that just that.

Ovechkin had the better peak, has way more individual trophies, and will go down as the greatest goal scorer in league history (which 100% is extremely important when considering players for a top-10 all time list, especially since scoring goals is the fundamental point of hockey, and also the hardest thing to do in the game).

At the end of the day, I think Ovechkin is a top-10 player of all time, and that Crosby is as well. The thing that needs to be understood is that we already have someone who might do the exact same stuff Crosby has done (McDavid). But it may be 50 years until we see someone compete for Gretzkys goal record, or someone try to match Ovis rocket record. That in itself is a huge difference between the 2 players.

 

[McFlash97]

When its all said and done. OV's goal totals are going to be so ludicrous that any argument between him and Sid will always fall towards OV's side.

He has proved to be the more durable player and a much better goal scorer.

 

[Zuluss]

Crosby was like 4 points behind Ovechkin when Ovechkin won the Calder, Crosby finished second in Calder voting. Ovechkin had the better year, but it was not by a large margin

Oh, come on now. The points were close, but the level of play was not. Literally no one had Crosby on the Hart ballot, and Ovechkin finished 6th in Hart voting and was nominated for Lindsay (then Pearson).

Ovechkin did not significantly outproduce Crosby offensively during their first 5 years, that's a lie unless we view things in your alternate reality full of secondary assists and primary points.

The only reason why their ppg look close in the first five years is because Ovechkin had a sophomore slump in 2006/2007, while Crosby took full advantage of the high-scoring environment, and ppg is punishing Ovechkin harshly for that, even though in the grand scheme of things down years do not matter. Bobby Hull had under-ppg seasons after each of his first Art Ross wins. Gordie Howe had an under-ppg season after winning 4 Art Rosses in a row. Who remembers that now? Nobody, it is never brought up.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

I agree that Crosby has been the “better” player over the course of the last 16 years, but I also believe that when you rank players in an all-time sense, there’s a lot more that goes into it that just that.

Ovechkin had the better peak, has way more individual trophies, and will go down as the greatest goal scorer in league history (which 100% is extremely important when considering players for a top-10 all time list, especially since scoring goals is the fundamental point of hockey, and also the hardest thing to do in the game).

At the end of the day, I think Ovechkin is a top-10 player of all time, and that Crosby is as well. The thing that needs to be understood is that we already have someone who might do the exact same stuff Crosby has done (McDavid). But it may be 50 years until we see someone compete for Gretzkys goal record, or someone try to match Ovis rocket record. That in itself is a huge difference between the 2 players.

When you think of all time greats in almost every sport, individual records are typically thrown to the side for actual championships. Since that is the point of any team sport, to win championships.

You say scoring goals is fundamental to hockey, but not allowing goals and winning are just as important.

 

[BallardEra]

#728

 

[Pip]

Beast