I was thinking about how it excluded his peak, but it also excludes several of the best players he played with - Kelly, Abel, and Lindsay. I know he played on a line with Abel and Lindsay, so that one line probably would have dominated over the rest of the team. I’m not sure how often Kelly would have been on the ice with them and therefore his effect on this stat.
the fact you can go from 216 to 554 in one row, could it how many players were ahead in some stats, is it about player best teammate or themselves ?
Sure I apply the same criteria to each and every player I don't make special considerations for one player and then become inconsistent with that metric.
This might apply to others nut I have been very critical of Mario being the weak link in the Big 4 and also of Richard 50 in 50 and playoff goal scoring getting a huge WWII bump.
It's one metric Bobby Hull played on a team with Stan Mikita on the other line, Crosby Malkin part of the time so it's a metric to take into consideration with all of the other metrics but no Ovi didn't have a poor supporting cast this notion has been dispelled in that Backstom has been in on more scorings plays with Ovi than the often brought up Malkin/Crosby stuff.
The thing is (and I do not agree with it) Ovi does get a bump from some because of that SC even without it it doesn't change his all time status IMO.
Far left column is assist finishes for Ovi but I wonder what assist finishes the other 2 guys are?
Did you figure out middle or right? I think I have the right one.
The one I figured out isn't assist finishes.
That’s an interesting demonstration. I agree that Ovi does not get any boost from playmaking at this level of competition.
Using this criterion to compare linemates to non-linemates, like, screams bias.
Maybe Ovechkin's great leadership has been inspiring his teammates to score more?
Yet 3 players who have won the most Art Ross trophies are considered 3 best forwards of all time. And if McDavid sweeps awards one more year (and especially if he adds a Cup on top of that), 4 players who have won the most Art Ross trophies will be considered 4 best forwards of all time. And of all those legends, only Howe can be considered a complete player.
Honestly I think it's a bit too crowded after 'big 4' ('big 5' soon if McDavid doesn't slow down significantly). The separation between players is far less than the matter of personal preference and eras difference. Ovechkin's resume is as good as anyone's in the tier after 'big 5', but I find it too difficult to decide whether I would rather have, say, Ovechkin, Hasek or Eddie Shore.
And IMO I don't think that group is crowded enough. I don't think there is a significant difference between those two groups after the top 4.
I'm surprised you would take exception to it that much. It's nothing more than an exact description of what happened during each player's career when they were not on the ice.
Totally agreed. Just like how on a similar not, Crosby will finish top-20 in goals in his career, but he is not a top-20 goalscorer of all-time.
"Crosby is arguably the 2nd greatest (using some of the criteria to rate OV as the possibly the "greatest goalscorer ever") goalscorer of his era while arguably being the best playmaker; a combo which makes him the best offensive player of his era."
| Crosby | Stamkos | Kovalchuk | Heatley | Iginla | Matthews | McDavid | Draisaitl |
1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
7 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 |
7 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
2 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 4 | |||
4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | ||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
9 | 8 |
