Where do you place Ovechkin on your personal list of the greatest players of all time?

[daver]

Right... does that apply to Bobby Hull as well? Their careers are pretty damn similar.

This is a table I put together last year out of curiosity comparing Crosby, Believeau, Hull, and Ovechkin hypothetically in a Canadian-only league if anyone is interested.

Canada only league
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

Ovechkin​

[/TD]

[TD]

Hull​

[/TD]

[TD]

Crosby​

[/TD]

[TD]

Beliveau​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Art Ross​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Rocket Trophies​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 3 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

15​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

17​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

18​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 3 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

15​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

14​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Assists​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Assists​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1st AS Team​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

2nd AS Team​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

3rd AS Team (if it existed)​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

n/a​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

n/a​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Reality
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

Ovechkin​

[/TD]

[TD]

Hull​

[/TD]

[TD]

Crosby​

[/TD]

[TD]

Beliveau​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Art Ross​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Rocket Trophies​

[/TD]

[TD]

9​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 3 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

14​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Goals​

[/TD]

[TD]

15​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 3 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Points​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 5 In Assists​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Top 10 In Assists​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1st AS Team​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

2nd AS Team​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

3rd AS Team (if it existed)​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

n/a​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

n/a​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The issue with hypothetical anything is that it opens up a can of worms that is either acknowledged or not based on personal biases. You are presuming that removing 40% to 50% of the players in the current league would not affect the numbers of the remaining 50% to 60%.

The eye test sees Hull being statistically superior to Ovechkin outside of OV's peak. I am all for acknowledging, strictly in a statistical context, that a Top 3 finish in the O6 =/= a Top 3 finish in the recent/current era but it is not as significant as you think. Generally, a Top 3 finish in the O6 = a Top 5 finish in the current era, a Top 5 finish in the O6 = a Top 10 finish in the current era.

When players have similar career offensive resumes in terms of raw scoring and PPG finishes, a reasonable tiebreaker can be the era they played in.

Crosby's raw point finishes and PPG finishes are closer to Howe's than they are to Hull and Beliveau when all of them are measured against the #1/#2 scorers each year despite being closer in raw numbers.

Bobby Hull was Bobby Hull-like longer than OV was peak OV-like. He didn't have down years, relatively speaking, mid-prime like OV and didn't become one-dimensional like OV did.

 

[Acallabeth]

Ovechkin's entire case for top 15,10 or 20 player rests almost entirely on his goal scoring, nothing else is important enough or elite enough all time to get into this rarified air.

Wasn't aware this thread was discussing most complete players of all time.

Strange that this concept is applied to Ovechkin much more frequently than towards all other all-time greats. Some of the most lauded players ever had holes in their games, sometimes to a point of egregiousness (like Maurice Richard or Mario Lemieux), yet somehow people believe it's fair to discuss Ovechkin without the attribute of his that happens to be arguably the best of all time.

It almost seems like some people are a little bit biased.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is anyone debating that? I believe MJ only brought up hits to support his claim that Ovi has (or had) a physical side to his game. Whether you want to call it a dimension is just a matter of semantics. Either way its *something* that Richard, Hull, Jagr, Crosby, etc did not offer (as far as I know regarding the older guys).

Frankly, the point you are making is no different than the one I was trying to make earlier: that peak Henrik Sedin producing the same number of points as peak Ovi is trivial.

The talk was about "dimension". So, it's not "semantics" so much as it is the topic of conversation.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Wasn't aware this thread was discussing most complete players of all time.

Strange that this concept is applied to Ovechkin much more frequently than towards all other all-time greats. Some of the most lauded players ever had holes in their games, sometimes to a point of egregiousness (like Maurice Richard or Mario Lemieux), yet somehow people believe it's fair to discuss Ovechkin without the attribute of his that happens to be arguably the best of all time.

It almost seems like some people are a little bit biased.

Speaking for me, Lemieux was a balanced attacker (including being the best goal scorer of all time) so that's a positive that Ovechkin really doesn't have...despite him having like 600 assists in 20 years or whatever we're trying to pass off as impressive, while pretending that no one watched him this entire time.

And Richard is someone that I place "down" with Ovechkin for the very reason(s) that you list. A lot of folks here have/had Richard in the #5 discussion. I had him around 20. I went after him last top 100 project because he isn't a very complete or, at least, balanced player. His style of play is limited when you look at the film. So, he doesn't belong in the top 10, certainly...we have 10 more well-rounded players than these guys.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Wasn't aware this thread was discussing most complete players of all time.

Strange that this concept is applied to Ovechkin much more frequently than towards all other all-time greats. Some of the most lauded players ever had holes in their games, sometimes to a point of egregiousness (like Maurice Richard or Mario Lemieux), yet somehow people believe it's fair to discuss Ovechkin without the attribute of his that happens to be arguably the best of all time.

It almost seems like some people are a little bit biased.

No one outside of Montreal has Richard near the Top 10. Lemieux was a better set up man than goal scorer despite his exploits there. He averaged over 1 assist per game for his career. Ovechkin has spent slight more than half his career being a 1 trick pony. He's great at that 1 trick, but he doesnt contribute beyond goals.

No we're not discussing the most complete directly, but the question is Ovechkin's all time ranking. Which is certainly somewhere in the top 20. When you're talking about ranking the 20 greatest players of all time completeness of their game is going to be a deciding factor by default.

 

[Fatass]

No one outside of Montreal has Richard near the Top 10. Lemieux was a better set up man than goal scorer despite his exploits there. He averaged over 1 assist per game for his career. Ovechkin has spent slight more than half his career being a 1 trick pony. He's great at that 1 trick, but he doesnt contribute beyond goals.

No we're not discussing the most complete directly, but the question is Ovechkin's all time ranking. Which is certainly somewhere in the top 20. When you're talking about ranking the 20 greatest players of all time completeness of their game is going to be a deciding factor by default.

With the greatest players there’s one tier clearly above the rest with 99, 4, 66, 9.
Then there’s a large group of great players who are separated by nuance. Imo leading his club to a Cup is important. Some players accomplished that multiple times. Others not at all. OV was important in one Cup for his club. Without that Cup I’d rank OV lower in the greatest players.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No one outside of Montreal has Richard near the Top 10.

The top 100 players project of 2008 had Richard 6th. The one in 2018-2019 had him 9th.

You think the project participants were massively biased in favor of the Habs?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think the quoted statement was a fair or accurate assessment of the hockey world at large.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Richard as a top 10 player has been the historical consensus (even if I don't have him there).

The Hockey News in 1998 had him at 5 all time.

The Bleacher Report had him at 6th in 2011, behind the Big Four and Hull

The Score had him at 7th in 2016 behind the Big Four, Messier, and Jagr

The Hockey News had him at 6th in 2021, behind Crosby. And Ovechkin at 8th.

Scotty Bowman had him at 3rd behind Orr and Howe, and ahead of Gretzky and Lemieux.

Over time, his reputation has fallen. His paper stats don't jump out. But there's certainly something to be said that his reputation as the consensus best Non-Big Four player ever was firm as recently as the late 2000s.

We wave off the playoff goalscoring, and his rigid play, but man, when the entirety of the world that watched you considered you arguably the best ever, it means something. Read anything from contemporaries about Richard. There's a level of awe in regards to clutch play that has never really been replicated.

I have Richard behind Hull, Jagr, and Ovechkin, for the record.

 

[pandro]

Is it a fair assumption that Ovechkin has had the worst supporting cast out of all players considered for the top 20 of all time other than Ray Bourque?

 

[MeHateHe]

This thread is Exhibit A of the futility of arguing a player's legacy before several years after their career has ended. Those so enamoured with the player's current exploits - exacerbated here by the pursuit of Gretzky's all-time goal-scoring record - cannot possibly discuss the player without getting all doe-eyed and spiralling into fan-boying. Then we have to put up with main-board level topics (secondary assists! hits as a metric!) and it takes a machete to cut through to a meaningful conversation.

Someone I'm sure is going to accuse me of policing the thread and I'll only say there's this whole other thread on the main board, filled with fans, in which moderators have chided posters for crapping on the player in question, meaning it's clearly intended to be a fan thread. With that in mind, is it too much to ask that a thread in this forum be a little more clear eyed?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Richard as a top 10 player has been the historical consensus (even if I don't have him there).

The Hockey News in 1998 had him at 5 all time.

The Bleacher Report had him at 6th in 2011, behind the Big Four and Hull

The Score had him at 7th in 2016 behind the Big Four, Messier, and Jagr

The Hockey News had him at 6th in 2021, behind Crosby. And Ovechkin at 8th.

Scotty Bowman had him at 3rd behind Orr and Howe, and ahead of Gretzky and Lemieux.

Over time, his reputation has fallen. His paper stats don't jump out. But there's certainly something to be said that his reputation as the consensus best Non-Big Four player ever was firm as recently as the late 2000s.

We wave off the playoff goalscoring, and his rigid play, but man, when the entirety of the world that watched you considered you arguably the best ever, it means something. Read anything from contemporaries about Richard. There's a level of awe in regards to clutch play that has never really been replicated.

I have Richard behind Hull, Jagr, and Ovechkin, for the record.

Not sure if I have seen that top 75 from the Hockey News beofre. Don't remember it, but at this stage that means little.

Certainly a lot of dubious rankings. Quite interesting.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Richard as a top 10 player has been the historical consensus (even if I don't have him there).

The Hockey News in 1998 had him at 5 all time.

The Bleacher Report had him at 6th in 2011, behind the Big Four and Hull

The Score had him at 7th in 2016 behind the Big Four, Messier, and Jagr

The Hockey News had him at 6th in 2021, behind Crosby. And Ovechkin at 8th.

Scotty Bowman had him at 3rd behind Orr and Howe, and ahead of Gretzky and Lemieux.

Over time, his reputation has fallen. His paper stats don't jump out. But there's certainly something to be said that his reputation as the consensus best Non-Big Four player ever was firm as recently as the late 2000s.

We wave off the playoff goalscoring, and his rigid play, but man, when the entirety of the world that watched you considered you arguably the best ever, it means something. Read anything from contemporaries about Richard. There's a level of awe in regards to clutch play that has never really been replicated.

I have Richard behind Hull, Jagr, and Ovechkin, for the record.

Nostalgia goggles are a hell of a thing.

If you just showed people Richard's stats/trophy case without his name on it very few if any would put him top 10. What you are fighting against with Richard is a generation that has had Paul Bunyan level tales of his accomplishments force fed to them since childhood and they now parrot those same tales.

 

[Victorias]

Richard as a top 10 player has been the historical consensus (even if I don't have him there).

The Hockey News in 1998 had him at 5 all time.

The Bleacher Report had him at 6th in 2011, behind the Big Four and Hull

The Score had him at 7th in 2016 behind the Big Four, Messier, and Jagr

The Hockey News had him at 6th in 2021, behind Crosby. And Ovechkin at 8th.

Scotty Bowman had him at 3rd behind Orr and Howe, and ahead of Gretzky and Lemieux.

Over time, his reputation has fallen. His paper stats don't jump out. But there's certainly something to be said that his reputation as the consensus best Non-Big Four player ever was firm as recently as the late 2000s.

We wave off the playoff goalscoring, and his rigid play, but man, when the entirety of the world that watched you considered you arguably the best ever, it means something. Read anything from contemporaries about Richard. There's a level of awe in regards to clutch play that has never really been replicated.

I have Richard behind Hull, Jagr, and Ovechkin, for the record.

Interestingly, the Score article says this: “Richard was so much more than a hockey player to Montreal fans, which may have played a role in his final ranking.”

I do think some people find it disrespectful to rank him (and other legends) lower, but it’s fine to acknowledge that he can have a top 5 legacy in the game (and probably always will) without being a top 5 or 10 player. He was indeed considered the best ever by some (a title taken fairly quickly by Howe), but there have been so many greater players since. His teammate Durnan was considered the greatest goalie ever by some all the way until his passing, but we all know many goalies have passed him.

Out of curiosity, what is the oldest GOAT ranking (not quotes, but complete ranking) that anyone has found?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Nostalgia goggles are a hell of a thing.

If you just showed people Richard's stats/trophy case without his name on it very few if any would put him top 10. What you are fighting against with Richard is a generation that has had Paul Bunyan level tales of his accomplishments force fed to them since childhood and they now parrot those same tales.

I certainly hope we're all intelligent enough to rank players beyond their trophy cases.

 

[daver]

Is it a fair assumption that Ovechkin has had the worst supporting cast out of all players considered for the top 20 of all time other than Ray Bourque?

Not to the extent that it matters in his ranking.

 

[MadLuke]

Is it a fair assumption that Ovechkin has had the worst supporting cast out of all players considered for the top 20 of all time other than Ray Bourque?

Cap era versus no cap and it remove the oilers-montreal players could make this possible, but the capitals have been so close to the Penguins during their career. Were McDavid oilers in average better ? Hasek could be hard to pin with the Sabres, wings, sens, Jagr was also quite up and down in that regard.

Only 2 teams won more game than the Capitals since he joined the NHL, Bruins-Penguins, only the Penguins scored more goals, they had the best powerplay (could be Ovechkin in good part).

The Pens were a 101.11 pts by 82 games team, the Caps 99.6 pts by 82 games teams since 2006

He probably enough time on a serious contender to create a big enough sample size.

 

[seventieslord]

Here are the the skaters listed by @jigglysquishy as potential top-20 players of all-time, whose careers took place mostly or all past 1959, ranked by their team's R-off (GF-GA ratio at even strength with the player out of the lineup and/or on the bench):

Hull 1.19
Lidstrom 1.17
Ovechkin 1.07
Gretzky 1.04
Orr 1.03
Crosby 0.99
Bourque 0.96
Jagr 0.93
Howe (928 games post-1959) 0.85
Lemieux 0.84

I don't think that supporting cast is something that OV can really complain about.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is it a fair assumption that Ovechkin has had the worst supporting cast out of all players considered for the top 20 of all time other than Ray Bourque?

Oh my goodness, no. The Caps were regularly a 1st place team, multiple Presidents' Trophies, high-end #1 PMD, #1 centers, high end coaches...

Lemieux had a worse one on the whole. Basically playing for an expansion level team at the beginning and end of his career. Jagr playing on a top-six or nothing team the majority of his career.

Ovechkin, as a recent example, is on a 41-20 team and is a -12. No one else on the team is worse than -3 (his linemate for a lot of the time). He had help.

 

[Victorias]

Here are the the skaters listed by @jigglysquishy as potential top-20 players of all-time, whose careers took place mostly or all past 1959, ranked by their team's R-off (GF-GA ratio at even strength with the player out of the lineup and/or on the bench):

Hull 1.19
Lidstrom 1.17
Ovechkin 1.07
Gretzky 1.04
Orr 1.03
Crosby 0.99
Bourque 0.96
Jagr 0.93
Howe (928 games post-1959) 0.85
Lemieux 0.84

I don't think that supporting cast is something that OV can really complain about.

Interesting. Is there enough data for Beliveau?

Also, do you have those numbers with the player included (ie to see his impact)?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Oh my goodness, no. The Caps were regularly a 1st place team, multiple Presidents' Trophies, high-end #1 PMD, #1 centers, high end coaches...

Lemieux had a worse one on the whole. Basically playing for an expansion level team at the beginning and end of his career. Jagr playing on a top-six or nothing team the majority of his career.

Ovechkin, as a recent example, is on a 41-20 team and is a -12. No one else on the team is worse than -3 (his linemate for a lot of the time). He had help.

This.

No Ovechkin never got to play with another superstar say like Crosby/Malkin, but his teams were always talented.

Semin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Green, Carlson, Holtby. That's no worse than say Bourque's Boston help of Neely, Oates, Moog, Wesley, Middleton

 

[pandro]

Here are the the skaters listed by @jigglysquishy as potential top-20 players of all-time, whose careers took place mostly or all past 1959, ranked by their team's R-off (GF-GA ratio at even strength with the player out of the lineup and/or on the bench):

Hull 1.19
Lidstrom 1.17
Ovechkin 1.07
Gretzky 1.04
Orr 1.03
Crosby 0.99
Bourque 0.96
Jagr 0.93
Howe (928 games post-1959) 0.85
Lemieux 0.84

I don't think that supporting cast is something that OV can really complain about.

Neither can Bobby Hull, it seems.

 

[norrisnick]

Oh my goodness, no. The Caps were regularly a 1st place team, multiple Presidents' Trophies, high-end #1 PMD, #1 centers, high end coaches...

Ok... for simplicity's sake lest take the top 25 from the last HOH project.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Position[/TD]
[TD]Born[/TD]
[TD]Nation[/TD]
[TD]Supporting cast eval[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Wayne Gretzky[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1961[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Gordie Howe[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[TD]1928[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Bobby Orr[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1948[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Mario Lemieux[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1965[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Bobby Hull[/TD]
[TD]LW[/TD]
[TD]1939[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Jean Beliveau[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1931[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Patrick Roy[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[TD]1965[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Doug Harvey[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1924[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Maurice Richard[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[TD]1921[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Ray Bourque[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1960[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Up for debate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Howie Morenz[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1902[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Up for debate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Sidney Crosby[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1987[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]Dominik Hasek[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[TD]1965[/TD]
[TD]Czech Republic[/TD]
[TD]Up for debate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]Eddie Shore[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1902[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Up for debate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Nicklas Lidstrom[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1970[/TD]
[TD]Sweden[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Jaromir Jagr[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[TD]1972[/TD]
[TD]Czech Republic[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Red Kelly[/TD]
[TD]D / C[/TD]
[TD]1927[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Denis Potvin[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1953[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]Jacques Plante[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[TD]1929[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]Frank Nighbor[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1893[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Up for debate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]Mark Messier[/TD]
[TD]LW / C[/TD]
[TD]1961[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]Alex Ovechkin[/TD]
[TD]LW / RW[/TD]
[TD]1985[/TD]
[TD]Russia[/TD]
[TD]Guy in question[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]Guy Lafleur[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[TD]1951[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]Stan Mikita[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]1940[/TD]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]Viacheslav Fetisov[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]1958[/TD]
[TD]Russia[/TD]
[TD]Clearly stronger than Ovechkin's[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So you've got a handful of pre-war players which makes simple evals tricky and then Bourque (who has as many Pres' trophies as Ovechkin) and Hasek. The rest pretty clearly had stronger supporting casts than Ovechkin.

It's nearly impossible to have an all-time great resume without being on all-time great teams.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'll just say Nighbor clearly had more help than Ovechkin. He had what, 5 long term teammates in our top 15 in the pre merger project?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Wrong on Lemieux and Jagr, I think those are absolute gimmes too. Their linemates were minor leaguers more often than they should have been. Mikita? I don't know about that. This requires some more thought. But it would require some rules of engagement probably...

But the fact that Lemieux is "clearly stronger", I'd say that we're probably just not evaluating things correctly and/or similarly...