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

[seventieslord]

Interesting. Is there enough data for Beliveau?

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

R: on:

Orr: 2.01
Lidstrom: 1.41
Bourque: 1.37
Hull: 1.37
Crosby: 1.36
Jagr: 1.35
Howe: 1.26
Gretzky: 1.26
Lemieux: 1.23
Ovechkin: 1.21


Beliveau was 1.33 on, 1.33 off, in the last 748 games of his career. (yeah, I guess he counts if Howe does)

For total team ES performance numbers you'd have to weigh the on and off figures (approximately 40% of ES minutes were played by the forwards on average, and 45-50% by defensemen)

On/off:

Orr: 195%
Howe: 148%
Lemieux: 146%
Jagr: 145%
Bourque: 143%
Crosby: 137%
Lidstrom: 121%
Gretzky: 121%
Hull: 115%
Ovechkin: 113%

Neither can Bobby Hull, it seems.

Yes, that is true.

 

[norrisnick]

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...

Mario/Jagr and Mikita/Hull are all on the list of top 25. To pretend that they didn't help each other is bafflingly absurd. They don't have to share every shift to help each other. In many ways it helps to have someone of that caliber on the ice when you aren't and vice versa.

Does Ovechkin have a top 100 teammate? Maybe Fedorov if you count his cameo at the very end.

 

[MadLuke]

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

I think there a bit historical big name teammate that can be named and not team support.

The Penguins from 84 to 88 were quite rough like the 06-07 Caps and for the last comeback obviously it was not always pretty either when they were bleeding salary.

And the other conversation could have to do, what about the teamsupport the other guys he had to beat had (if this is about playoff result legacy).

His caps lost to the
2008 flyers
2009 Pens
2010 Mtl
2011 lighting
2012 Rangers
2013 Rangers
2015 Rangers
2016 Pens
2017 Pens
2018 won
2019 Carolina
2020 Islanders
2021 Bruins
2020 Panthers

Not sure how often they were the clear underdog on that list, versus if we look at prime Bourque playoff lost list.

 

[daver]

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

As opposed to an all-time great talent propelling his team to success?

As pointed out already, Ovechkin's Caps could hardly be defined as lacking in talent. Over the course of his career, they are a Top 3 - 5 regular season team with two President's Cups and one Cup.

This is hardly early years Mario.

 

[MadLuke]

Mario/Jagr and Mikita/Hull are all on the list of top 25. To pretend that they didn't help each other is bafflingly absurd. They don't have to share every shift to help each other. In many ways it helps to have someone of that caliber on the ice when you aren't and vice versa.

Does Ovechkin have a top 100 teammate? Maybe Fedorov if you count his cameo at the very end.

If we reduce team support has the big name on the jersey, it is not about saying that Mario-Jagr did not help each other (in the 6 season they both had each other, Jagr played 24 years, 5.5 of those were with Mario including him as a rookie, even if we agree that post Rangers it does not matter much, most of it was without Lemieux on his team.

According to the Internet, Lemieux-Jagr played 341 games on the same teams, maybe 200 of those with Lemieux-Jagr on the same PP unit or line ?

And his 98-00 run was without Mario, that what when he was a face of a team at his ultimate peak what he was trying to win a cup with:

1998-99 Pittsburgh Penguins Roster, Stats, Injuries, Scores, Results, Shootouts | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest Pittsburgh Penguins Roster, Stats, Injuries, Scores, Results, Shootouts and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

If someone 20 years from now look at it like that, McDavid had some of the greatest team support in the league playing with Draisaitl while Eichel won it all with an aging Pietrangelo

 

[daver]

Strange twist of direction for OV who was saved the embarrassment of a Cupless resume despite being a really good regular teams over his career to succeeding despite the worst team support of any Top 20 player.

He neither gains or loses much from his playoff resume or on opinion on the strength of his team.

 

[Victorias]

R: on:

Orr: 2.01
Lidstrom: 1.41
Bourque: 1.37
Hull: 1.37
Crosby: 1.36
Jagr: 1.35
Howe: 1.26
Gretzky: 1.26
Lemieux: 1.23
Ovechkin: 1.21


Beliveau was 1.33 on, 1.33 off, in the last 748 games of his career. (yeah, I guess he counts if Howe does)

For total team ES performance numbers you'd have to weigh the on and off figures (approximately 40% of ES minutes were played by the forwards on average, and 45-50% by defensemen)

On/off:

Orr: 195%
Howe: 148%
Lemieux: 146%
Jagr: 145%
Bourque: 143%
Crosby: 137%
Lidstrom: 121%
Gretzky: 121%
Hull: 115%
Ovechkin: 113%


Yes, that is true.

Thanks!

Hard to see a case, in light of this and everything else, for Hull over Ovechkin. I think Howe-Jagr-Ovechkin-Hull-Richard is how I would rank the wingers.

Mario/Jagr and Mikita/Hull are all on the list of top 25. To pretend that they didn't help each other is bafflingly absurd. They don't have to share every shift to help each other. In many ways it helps to have someone of that caliber on the ice when you aren't and vice versa.

Does Ovechkin have a top 100 teammate? Maybe Fedorov if you count his cameo at the very end.

Yeah, it obviously has an effect. But looking at top-X players isn’t necessarily the right approach as the Caps had plenty of good and deep teams.

Honestly, they were just unlucky to lose in multiple Game 7’s (a couple times to the Penguins). Not comparable with Bourque’s B’s or Hasek’s Sabres IMO.

I don’t think this should affect his ranking either way. Even the Bruins with multiple President’s trophies the past 10-15 years only came away with one Cup.

 

[Vilica]

Ovechkin has clearly had a lot of good players around him, but the list of great players he has played with is way behind anybody around him on an all-time list. Discounting Backstrom for the moment, here's the list of games played with Ovechkin by Hall of Famers:

70 games by age 38-39 Sergei Fedorov
55 games by age 43 Zdeno Chara

Ovechkin's also been coached by a player in the Hall of Fame:

130 games by Adam Oates

Ovechkin's literally been coached for more games by a Hall of Fame player than he has had Hall of Fame-level teammates.

Discounting Malkin, Letang, and Fleury for the moment, Crosby has played with Recchi (37-39), Lemieux (40), Hossa (29), and Iginla (35).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mario/Jagr and Mikita/Hull are all on the list of top 25. To pretend that they didn't help each other is bafflingly absurd.

That's just it. No one is saying that. So, you went binary with it and I don't think that's a productive area of discussion considering it doesn't represent the game. That's ultimately what we're trying to evaluate is the game.

If the question was: Who had top 25 teammates? Then, sure. Then we don't need anything more than Puckdoku level evaluation...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Backstrom is making the Hall of Fame.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Backstrom is making the Hall of Fame.

No, no, no, we're discounting the guys that hurt Ovechkin's case...ya know, just for the sake of argument... if you disagree with that approach, you're biased.

 

[Victorias]

Ovechkin has clearly had a lot of good players around him, but the list of great players he has played with is way behind anybody around him on an all-time list. Discounting Backstrom for the moment, here's the list of games played with Ovechkin by Hall of Famers:

70 games by age 38-39 Sergei Fedorov
55 games by age 43 Zdeno Chara

Ovechkin's also been coached by a player in the Hall of Fame:

130 games by Adam Oates

Ovechkin's literally been coached for more games by a Hall of Fame player than he has had Hall of Fame-level teammates.

Discounting Malkin, Letang, and Fleury for the moment, Crosby has played with Recchi (37-39), Lemieux (40), Hossa (29), and Iginla (35).

One of the problems with just looking at HOFers is you lose guys who had a HOF peak/prime but maybe not longevity.

For example, Mike Green had 2 Norris-2 finishes (higher than any of Letang) and Holtby had Vezina-1 and Vezina-2 finishes while being much better than Fleury in the playoffs. Then you have Kuznetsov who was looking like a future HOF after his play in the Cup run but fell apart.

 

[psycat]

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?

That's quite likely yes.

 

[seventieslord]

Hard to see a case, in light of this and everything else, for Hull over Ovechkin.

I'm surprised this is what you took from that.

Just to make sure we're clear, you know that the last list is "on divided by off", as in, how much better has the team been with them, versus without. Right?

 

[MadLuke]

One of the problems with just looking at HOFers is you lose guys who had a HOF peak/prime but maybe not longevity.

And you can include guys that were not playing at the level that made them HOFers, like Fedorov, Chara, Lemieux, Reechi.

Other than Hossa no one was their prime version, and volume obviously Iginla scored 10 goals as a penguin.

It is quite possible that Ron Hainsey/Dumoulin in 2017 are more important team support and relevant to Crosby legacy than all the HOF (already in it) listed were for Ovechkin-Crosby combined.

 

[norrisnick]

No, no, no, we're discounting the guys that hurt Ovechkin's case...ya know, just for the sake of argument... if you disagree with that approach, you're biased.

You don't have to discount anyone. Count Backstrom, count Green, count Kuznetsov, count Holtby, count Fedorov, count Chara, it's still less than what Hull/Mikita ran with in the 60s or what Mario ran with in the late 80s and 90s. And to pretend otherwise is certainly something. Bourque and Hasek have legitimate claims to having less help than Ovechkin, moreso Dom than Ray. But Mario/Jagr/Hull/Mikita? No chance.

 

[daver]

The proper question to answe

You don't have to discount anyone. Count Backstrom, count Green, count Kuznetsov, count Holtby, count Fedorov, count Chara, it's still less than what Hull/Mikita ran with in the 60s or what Mario ran with in the late 80s and 90s. And to pretend otherwise is certainly something. Bourque and Hasek have legitimate claims to having less help than Ovechkin, moreso Dom than Ray. But Mario/Jagr/Hull/Mikita? No chance.

To what end is this being brought up? Hull was better in the playoffs than OV was in case the argument is "put OV on the Hawks in the "60s and he would be rated higher".

 

[Michael Farkas]

You don't have to discount anyone. Count Backstrom, count Green, count Kuznetsov, count Holtby, count Fedorov, count Chara, it's still less than what Hull/Mikita ran with in the 60s or what Mario ran with in the late 80s and 90s. And to pretend otherwise is certainly something. Bourque and Hasek have legitimate claims to having less help than Ovechkin, moreso Dom than Ray. But Mario/Jagr/Hull/Mikita? No chance.

You might be the biggest Chico Maki and Ab McDonald fan I've ever met.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

You don't have to discount anyone. Count Backstrom, count Green, count Kuznetsov, count Holtby, count Fedorov, count Chara, it's still less than what Hull/Mikita ran with in the 60s or what Mario ran with in the late 80s and 90s. And to pretend otherwise is certainly something. Bourque and Hasek have legitimate claims to having less help than Ovechkin, moreso Dom than Ray. But Mario/Jagr/Hull/Mikita? No chance.

While true, this would be more relevant if the argument being brought against Ovechkin was Cups and team success. It isn't. The big knock on him is the large portion of his career where he was greatly 1 dimensional. Quality of teammates doesn't really effect this.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, so even if we go by the whole better/worse teammates thing, Ovechkin isn't exactly the best utilizer of teammates...so their effects on him would need to be investigated. Naturally, him having another puck carrier in Kuznetsov was instrumental in getting a Cup in Washington. But I don't know if we're equipped to go down this road...

 

[Victorias]

I'm surprised this is what you took from that.

Just to make sure we're clear, you know that the last list is "on divided by off", as in, how much better has the team been with them, versus without. Right?

Yes. And Hull and Ovi are at the same level here (115 vs 113 is not a significant difference). In other words, I haven’t seen any evidence that Hull was a more impactful player.

He won a couple more Art Rosses, but that was without international competition and as shown earlier, Ovi would have had 3 as well with exclusively Canadian competition. Obviously that’s not a perfect measure as his own linemate Backstrom is Swedish and boosted Ovi. But I think players in a Canadian only league are overrated when so many of the absolute best players in the league now are not Canadian.

Now, the fact that Mikita and Hull played on separate lines is something I did not know and that will obviously lessen the impact of Hull. If he and Mikita played together there might be a bigger on/off effect. On that note, what was the effect for Mikita? And what were the two lines?

I have only watched one game with Bobby Hull and it was after his prime, so I’m not an expert on him. I’m just saying I haven’t seen anything to convince me he was better than Ovi. If someone wants to demonstrate, feel free.

 

[MadLuke]

Mario ran with in the late 80s and 90s.

No one saying that Ovechkin had in general support that look like what Mario had with the 92-93 Penguins.

But to note even the 89/90-to 92/93 Penguins were "only" 5th in pts and

with Lemieux: 27+14+34+45 = 120 wins in 209 games (57.4%) / 28+9+23+10 = 70 lost in 209 games (33.5%)
without Lemieux: 48 wins in 115 games (41.7%) / 50 lost in 115 games (43.5%)

The Penguins were not a winning team when he was not playing, that still nice support for a superstar and adding one will make them a cup contender, McDavid would have probably loved in the past a team able to get close to .500 without him and it is always a bit of a dangerous thing to blindly look at it like that (a team can be built around the presence of a big minute piece or can rally in its absence, playoff hockey is different than regular season hockey, usually small sample size here is it is a rare case with Lemieux missing but also playing good amount of games)

But it can be easy to see Coffey or 18 years old Jagr on a roster and overrate how good of a team support it is versus Las Vegas roster.

in 96 and 97
with Lemieux: 80 wins in 146 games, 56 lost in 146 games
without : 7 wins in 18 games, 9 lost in 18 games

Not bad specially with him missing 2 night in a row situation a bit more than regular games, but nothing special and I do not imagine we would suggest he had great team support for the half of the rest of his career.

The pens were 16w-16L before he came back in 2001, nothing special, 26w-12L with him (and re-motivated Jagr).

For this (looking at team support) we have team result, team result with him on the bench, I am not sure we need to look at the big name involved that much or at the very least not only at those. The end of the free agents spendings NY Rangers had a lot of great names, Lemaire Wild were arguably a better team to win with if you were a star to pick one.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If Ovechkin had been on a bunch of crappy teams you guys would have claimed it proved Ovechkin wasn't very good for the team.

But since Ovechkin's team had a ton of success with him always as the #1 unrivaled focal point (and ZERO other top 200 players) - that too is held against him.

 

[MadLuke]

If Ovechkin had been on a bunch of crappy teams you guys would have claimed it proved Ovechkin wasn't very good for the team.

But since Ovechkin's team had a ton of success with him always as the #1 unrivaled focal point - that too is held against him.

Not sure it is being held up against him to point out how good the Caps have been in average the last 17 years

 

[seventieslord]

Now, the fact that Mikita and Hull played on separate lines is something I did not know and that will obviously lessen the impact of Hull.

If what you mean is, it makes Hull's impact appear smaller, yes, that's correct.

Mikita had similarly high numbers, in fact, due to his typical second line opponents, I believe he actually posted the best numbers of the 1960s. I don't have those exact numbers handy right now because I'm no longer at home.

You see this phenomenon play out in the career numbers of many all-time greats. Gretzky and Messier served to deflate each other in on-off numbers. Howe deflated Ullman, Crosby deflated Malkin, Sakic and forsberg deflated eachother, etc. On the other hand, teams that historically liked to put all their best players together on one line, or even in one five-man unit, typically have hugely inflated on/off numbers. Marcel Dionne's kings and the mid 1980s Flyers are a couple of examples.

Assuming they actually would work well together, I shudder to think of what the on/off numbers might have been for a Bobby Hull and Stan mikita line over the course of a decade or more. It might top this list, but then of course just like Bobby Hull's numbers as they are come with a big caveat because he had such a great off ice counterbalance, they also would require some mental adjustments in the other direction if he had that great of a long-term linemate.