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

[wetcoast]

I agree with your point, but cant get on board with Crosby being the #2 goal scorer since he only has 2 seasons over 40 goals vs Stamkos with 60-51-45-45-43-42 and Kovalchuck with 52-52-43-42-41

I really think that the point to keep in mind that Crosby was actually an extremely good goal scorer as he does have 2 Richard trophies not just 18 full seasons of 15-30 finishes that just add up time wise.

He is no Mike Gartner or Dave Andreychuk of goal scoring.

 

[Acallabeth]

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.

For all these players including Gretzky, it's a full career number, so on first glance it's easy to say "yeah right how is that possible dynasty oilers blah blah" but he was only on a Dynasty caliber team for a third of his career. And he was the prime reason they were Dynasty caliber.

For example, during the 1982-1988 period, his R-off was 1:20, indicating that during that one-third of his career, he had a better supporting cast than OV did during his career. Outside of that time, it was just 0.95, which was much worse. Average it out and it's not hard to see why it's accurate to say that, on average, on a career basis, he didn't have the supporting cast of Hull or Lidstrom (and is a little behind OV but OV's average will drop precipitously through seasons 19 & 20 and be pretty much on par with Gretz by then; in fact, 2022-23 already dropped his career average by one point to 1.06).

I'm surprised how often in this thread people are just name-dropping players to prove other players did or didn't have a good supporting cast, when the proof of what happened when they weren't on the ice is right there for them to see.

I expected this point to emerge. I disagree: Gretzky isn't 'The Great One' because of his twilight seasons. His legacy was built in his peak seasons on the Oilers dynasty. Ovechkin's legacy was primarily built in his peak seasons too, when Ovechkin obviously had some of the worst supporting casts for any Hall of Famer.
Also, you highlight that Gretzky was the biggest reason for the Oilers being a dynasty, which is of course true, but your own R-off shows that the Oilers era Gretzky had the strongest teammates of all the players you listed.

Do I still think he's the most unbalanced player to be in the argument for a top 10 player? Yes.

I also dont think it's that outlandish to say that for a very brief time, Ovechkin was an elite playmaker.. just like how Crosby was elite at goalscoring for a brief time period. (Ofc, Crosby did it better and his goalscoring didn't decline to the same degree)

In the 2009-2010 season Ovechkin was at his most versatile and seemed like one of the complete offensive forces in hockey. Then Olympics happened, and everyone knows what followed.

Re: 'the most unbalanced player': even if we only speak of forwards, sorry to bring him up again, but do you really believe Maurice Richard was a more balanced player than Ovechkin? He was a notoriously pass-averse player.

 

[daver]

I guess peak Ovi might be his best argument but is it really top 5 of all time using 3 consecutive years?

Heck off the top of my head I think I can make a really good argument that Doug Gilmour in his first 2.5 Maple Leaf seasons has a better "peak."

What's the argument because it certainly isn't better offensively. If he put up similarly dominant offensive numbers as OV, then all around play puts him ahead but he really isn't close.

Peak OV was arguably as good offensively as any other Non Big Four forward. That he contributed almost zero on the defensive side was justified given how defenses always had to be aware of him breaking out.

Peak Crosby was as good or better offensively while being much more of a contributor defensively.

 

[daver]

Not sure why we are equating OV's assist totals with "playmaking" in the traditional sense. At his peak, he created offensive opportunities with his style of play and should get full credit for it.

To position him as being a better "playmaker" than his numbers indicate if only he got the chance to wear the playmaking hat more than he did without immediately positioning him as a worse "goalscorer" than his numbers indicate is one of the blindest arguments made on HF.

Full marks to OV for putting up goal totals that clearly place him among the top Goalscorers of all-time but to argue that he hasn't been positioned to put up those totals like no player has in hockey history is plain ignorance.

At his his best, he was an GOAT athletic talent with great instincts to max out that talent to score goals. He will not be mistaken for having a great hockey IQ that is the foundation of a great playmaker.

He has an unusual drop from his peak level in the middle of his prime that no other forward in the Top 10-15 had.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

ovechkin’s first two years are very similar to early years mario. in year three they gave ovechkin backstrom and he jumped a level. in year four they gave mario coffey and he jumped a level.

It obviously has its flaws but it's just another tool to use to compare players who played in completely different eras. Every tool we use to compare such players will have its flaws because of how many things need to be taken into consideration.

it’s a line of reasoning, but removing every non-canadian player and seeing how the rankings look isn’t an analytical tool.

it is true that there are a number of posters who treat it like it’s legitimately a tool though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

it’s a line of reasoning, but removing every non-canadian player and seeing how the rankings look isn’t an analytical tool.

it is true that there are a number of posters who treat it like it’s legitimately a tool though.

It is just a way to prop up more modern players using a method derived from a false premise. Expansion has made up for changes in nationality.

 

[The Panther]

I have no dog in this fight (I actually find this forum's obsession with arguing over individual player rankings kind of fascinating), but I was also going to say that this recent line of "Here's-how-so-and-so-would-have-ranked-in-an-all-Canadian-League" more than a little ridiculous.

-- In the days of the all-Canadian League, other countries' players (with the possible exception of the very best players in the USSR) could not compete with Canadian players. Obviously, there's no way to prove this, but I think it stands to reason. The few European countries enthusiastic about the sport were way behind Canadian passion and development, and had gone through two World Wars on home soil. All of this is to say, if Howie Morenz or Rocket Richard had played their prime years in a larger league with more Europeans... they'd probably have scored more and dominated at exactly the same level. So, that right there kind of destroys the whole premise...

-- You can't just subtract European-competition from scoring results and assume things would otherwise be the same. In Ovechkin's case, for example, putting him in an all-Canadian League means that players like Backstrom are no longer his teammates. Actually, a bunch of his teammates are no longer his teammates. So, who would be? We have no way of knowing. Maybe there were great Canadian linemates and teammates to help him along to the same results, or maybe there weren't and it affected his scoring results negatively, so he left the NHL in 2011 and went home...

 

[seventieslord]

I expected this point to emerge. I disagree: Gretzky isn't 'The Great One' because of his twilight seasons. His legacy was built in his peak seasons on the Oilers dynasty. Ovechkin's legacy was primarily built in his peak seasons too, when Ovechkin obviously had some of the worst supporting casts for any Hall of Famer.
Also, you highlight that Gretzky was the biggest reason for the Oilers being a dynasty, which is of course true, but your own R-off shows that the Oilers era Gretzky had the strongest teammates of all the players you listed.

That's fine if you want to talk about peak, but we have to do it for all players, not just Gretzky. Yes, his best 7-year period had better teammates than these other players' career averages, but that doesn't really tell us much.

Here are each of their prime R-on, R-off, and ratio. I shifted to using 8-year stretches as that seems to capture the best years for most players, including OV. Of course, in the case of Howe, I just took the first 8 years of data, as those are at least as close as possible to his actual peak.

Lidstrom: 1.51, 1.22, 1.24
Hull: 1.31, 1.22, 1.07
Gretzky: 1.67, 1.15, 1.50
Orr: 2.19, 1.10, 1.99
Crosby: 1.64, 1.03, 1.59
Ovechkin: 1.40, 0.97, 1.44
Lemieux: 1.41, 0.95, 1.48
Jagr: 1.45, 0.92, 1.58
Bourque: 1.47, 0.91, 1.62
Howe: 1.25, 0.86, 1.45

It's true that when prime periods are isolated, Gretzky's teammate support looks better and OV's looks worse. However, 1.15 and 3rd out of 10, doesn't scream "wow this guy had all the help in the world, no wonder he won 4 cups" and 0.97 & 6th/10 doesn't scream "oh, woe is he". It's right in line with what many other all-time greats had to deal with in their primes. Ray Bourque, for example, had a lower R-off and a higher R-on.

Ovechkin's "impact" number of 1.44 during this time, despite itself being a simply outstanding number, is 3rd-lowest on this list. That's how great all-time greats are.

 

[Victorias]

It is just a way to prop up more modern players using a method derived from a false premise. Expansion has made up for changes in nationality.

I’m confused what expansion has to do with it.

This is how I see things: if you have a talent pool of 100, the top 5% is 5 players. However, if you have a talent pool of 1000, the top 5% is now 50 players. It’s clearly more difficult for any elite (top 5%) player to dominate in the latter because you have more guys at that talent level (eg an Ovechkin for Crosby) and more guys who can have a big season (eg Kucherov).

From what I’ve read on here, the Canadian talent pool seemed to peak in the 90’s, but the overall global talent pool has certainly continued to grow. It may not be 10x what it was 60 years ago, but it’s some multiple.

Expansion has made it easier for fringe players to get to the NHL (or at least not made it more difficult), but I don’t see how that affects the competition for Art Ross trophies, for example. In recent years you have guys like Sedin and Draisatl winning who wouldn’t have been a part of the smaller group of competitors in the past.

I have no dog in this fight (I actually find this forum's obsession with arguing over individual player rankings kind of fascinating), but I was also going to say that this recent line of "Here's-how-so-and-so-would-have-ranked-in-an-all-Canadian-League" more than a little ridiculous.

-- In the days of the all-Canadian League, other countries' players (with the possible exception of the very best players in the USSR) could not compete with Canadian players. Obviously, there's no way to prove this, but I think it stands to reason. The few European countries enthusiastic about the sport were way behind Canadian passion and development, and had gone through two World Wars on home soil. All of this is to say, if Howie Morenz or Rocket Richard had played their prime years in a larger league with more Europeans... they'd probably have scored more and dominated at exactly the same level. So, that right there kind of destroys the whole premise...

-- You can't just subtract European-competition from scoring results and assume things would otherwise be the same. In Ovechkin's case, for example, putting him in an all-Canadian League means that players like Backstrom are no longer his teammates. Actually, a bunch of his teammates are no longer his teammates. So, who would be? We have no way of knowing. Maybe there were great Canadian linemates and teammates to help him along to the same results, or maybe there weren't and it affected his scoring results negatively, so he left the NHL in 2011 and went home...

It’s not a Negro Leagues type situation - the best players of the era were very likely Canadian. It’s just a matter of there being much more competition at the top now, just like you have baseball players from Latin America and Japan dominating in baseball who weren’t part of the talent pool in the 50’s.

The second point is obviously true and maybe that’s why vadim is saying it’s not a “tool”. However, I think competition at the top - not just overall competition for jobs - is being under appreciated. If you consider international sports like soccer and basketball, it’s clear that even players who seem to be generationally good are matched or exceeded by those in other countries.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Expansion has made it easier for fringe players to get to the NHL (or at least not made it more difficult), but I don’t see how that affects the competition for Art Ross trophies,

Players don't put up points in a vacuum. There's competition that they have to go through to achieve points.

 

[Victorias]

Players don't put up points in a vacuum. There's competition that they have to go through to achieve points.

What does that have to do with what I said? My entire post is about the amount of competition in the top 5%

You seem to keep quoting a small part of what I write and respond to it out of context.

 

[MadLuke]

What does that have to do with what I said? My entire post is about the amount of competition in the top 5%

You seem to keep quoting a small part of what I write and respond to it out of context.

Could be that some player would score more in a different league than others.

We can see that between AHL-NHL-KHL, good correlation but not perfect, a bit like the Bossy vs Gretzky goal scoring conversation in different opposition strength.

Would it be possible that the winner in a tight 06 league and the one in a more pond hockey free floating could change ?

Expansion has made up for changes in nationality.

Not sure if I get the point here. If we talk about looking at absolute numbers of goal scored ? But who is doing that.

The expansion seem to make sure no Canadian player that could compete for a top 10 spot are left out of the league because of euro taking their spot.

 

[Victorias]

Could be that some player would score more in a different league than others.

We can see that between AHL-NHL-KHL, good correlation but not perfect, a bit like the Bossy vs Gretzky goal scoring conversation in different opposition strength.

Would it be possible that the winner in a tight 06 league and the one in a more pond hockey free floating could change ?

When you’re comparing players across eras, there are so many variables that have changed - including the size and style of play of the league - that any attempt you make will have caveats and require assumptions.

One assumption that I choose to make is that the increased competition at the top would have affected everyone equally. Maybe Gretzky is an exception because he was SO dominant that increased competition at the top 5% wouldn’t have made a difference. But even the existence of Lemieux puts that into question.

I personally used to have Morenz and Shore in my top 10 simply because I took the best player or two from each era. But I realized that they faced less competition than the best of later decades, so I moved them down. Each approach can be considered valid, but I personally believe logic supports the latter.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What does that have to do with what I said? My entire post is about the amount of competition in the top 5%

You seem to keep quoting a small part of what I write and respond to it out of context.

I don't need to quote the whole post, as there isn't a need to. The first two paragraphs don't say anything and the last two paragraphs are largely agreeable and I'm not responding to any of that.

You said "I'm confused..." and I took that part and responded to it. Seems like a fairly straightforward means of communication.

Point being is that different leagues and league structures produce different results. In large part, because of the "below the line" folks. Note the differences in scoring leaders at various times of expansion. When the league doubled in size in the late 60's, the immediate few years afterwards was business as usual. The league didn't structurally change all that much. Despite the wording ("doubling"), the talent level was so high and the development channels were so full that the league hardly wobbled. Not the case later in the 70's/early 80's. Much less predictable, fly-by-night players, bigger scoring gaps, have/have not teams, etc. Somewhat similar in the early 90's, but also influenced by having two of the most technically skilled players at the wheel.

Star power matters. But this board sometimes underestimates what the level of competition of the players that we don't talk about represents...star players aren't a random number generator. Lemieux was rarely out there to stop Gretzky. Larry Murphy was out there to stop Gretzky. When Larry Murphy is replaced with, say, Pat MacLeod - that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Dallas Winston]

Two things that make Crosby particularly hard to evaluate as a goal-scorer:

First, despite him clearly being a better playmaker than goal-scorer, he has two goal-scoring titles, but only led the league in assists once. Is there any other player in NHL history who led the league in their weaker area (looking at goals vs assists), more times than they led the league in their stronger area?

Second, Crosby led the league in goals twice, but only placed in the top ten two more times (a pair of 7th place finishes). No player in NHL has such an odd record. Iginla might be the closest ("only" four top ten finishes - but at least he had two years in 3rd place).

Going back to consolidation (1927), 22 players have led the league in goals at least twice. The average number of top five finishes amongst these players is 6.6. 20 of these 22 players have at least four years in the top five. Aside from Crosby, the only other player without 4+ years in the top five is Doug Bentley (and he needs an asterisk, since his only two top five finishes were during the talent-depleted WWII).

That's why it's important to look beyond the binary of yes/no did someone lead the league. Crosby is up 2-0 on Jagr in terms of goal-scoring titles. But Jagr is pretty clearly the better goal-scorer (he was runner up 4 times, and also has seasons finishing 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9th).

Let's not forget crosby also has a playoff goal scoring title

 

[Victorias]

I don't need to quote the whole post, as there isn't a need to. The first two paragraphs don't say anything and the last two paragraphs are largely agreeable and I'm not responding to any of that.

You said "I'm confused..." and I took that part and responded to it. Seems like a fairly straightforward means of communication.

Point being is that different leagues and league structures produce different results. In large part, because of the "below the line" folks. Note the differences in scoring leaders at various times of expansion. When the league doubled in size in the late 60's, the immediate few years afterwards was business as usual. The league didn't structurally change all that much. Despite the wording ("doubling"), the talent level was so high and the development channels were so full that the league hardly wobbled. Not the case later in the 70's/early 80's. Much less predictable, fly-by-night players, bigger scoring gaps, have/have not teams, etc. Somewhat similar in the early 90's, but also influenced by having two of the most technically skilled players at the wheel.

Star power matters. But this board sometimes underestimates what the level of competition of the players that we don't talk about represents...star players aren't a random number generator. Lemieux was rarely out there to stop Gretzky. Larry Murphy was out there to stop Gretzky. When Larry Murphy is replaced with, say, Pat MacLeod - that needs to be accounted for.

The fact that you say the first two paragraphs don’t say anything means you have not been following the discussion. I was responding to the claim that we don’t need to worry about the talent pool because of expansion. You took things in a different direction.

And how exactly are you accounting for that? Obviously I’m aware of how the league has changed. My assumption is that all the elite players would be affected equally by expansion. Is that necessarily correct? No, of course not. But ultimately you have to either accept that or make a different assumption. There is not going to be a flawless method no matter how many variables you account for.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It is just a way to prop up more modern players using a method derived from a false premise. Expansion has made up for changes in nationality.

The talent pool is larger now than ever before. To fail to acknowledge this is to punish modern players.

This forum has a history of doing precisely that, and so you guys came to the result that Canada alone, with a population of 4-5 million people, put out significantly more elite talent from 1884 to 1894 (8 top 100 players) than the modern international talent pool put out from 1977-1987 (6 top 100 players). The modern talent pool is likely 10 or more times larger.

I think some of you need to recalibrate accordingly.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Heh, yeah, I'm not following the discussion.

This is all more art than science. Proper talent evaluation is the way to go...always. It's not easy, but that's the way to go. A structured league hurts unstructured players. One way, incomplete players don't generally thrive in a well rounded league. That's a big part of the reason why we didn't see a lot of random nonsense players suddenly emerge in the first expansion. The league was full of well rounded players, play was structured, player development followed a model, and the channels to get into pro hockey were (right, wrong, or indifferent) more challenging.

We see the league deteriorate as we get further from the sponsorship era, coupled with vast expansion and the absorption of a minor league into a top level league created a very unstructured league. Unstructured leagues are anti-parity and create random chaos. One way, incomplete players come and go, highs and lows...unpredictable. Weird events (200 point seasons, absurd swings, absurd dominance by the haves over the have nots (two teams owned the Cup from the 1976 until 1984), etc.). Development model gets busted. There was, what, 8 Americans in the NHL in 1973 or whatever and then in 1984 there are 18 year olds straight out of high school winning Vezinas and biting at the Norris...come on. That's silly. Especially because a lot of those guys didn't capitalize on it later. You don't peak at 18. (Well, maybe I did, but an NHL player wouldn't, except for extreme circumstances that don't apply here).

The measurement of this, as it were, can start at the top and be made easier. It's still proper talent evaluation based, but it's easier than trying to gauge the entire league. First you find out how good the players at the top are in the context of the generation before and after them. You start to draw some lines and make some connections about position and player evolution and you get a pretty good foundation pretty quickly. But it takes work. It's not something we can just punch into a calculator real quick unfortunately...

 

[BraveCanadian]

The talent pool is larger now than ever before. To fail to acknowledge this is to punish modern players.

This forum has a history of doing precisely that, and so you guys came to the result that Canada alone, with a population of 4-5 million people, put out significantly more elite talent from 1884 to 1894 (8 top 100 players) than the modern international talent pool put out from 1977-1987 (6 top 100 players). The modern talent pool is likely 10 or more times larger.

I think some of you need to recalibrate accordingly.

Wrong. Where are the players from 1884 to 1894 on the all time lists made here in comparison to the ones from 1977-1987?

 

[Victorias]

Heh, yeah, I'm not following the discussion.

This is all more art than science. Proper talent evaluation is the way to go...always. It's not easy, but that's the way to go. A structured league hurts unstructured players. One way, incomplete players don't generally thrive in a well rounded league. That's a big part of the reason why we didn't see a lot of random nonsense players suddenly emerge in the first expansion. The league was full of well rounded players, play was structured, player development followed a model, and the channels to get into pro hockey were (right, wrong, or indifferent) more challenging.

We see the league deteriorate as we get further from the sponsorship era, coupled with vast expansion and the absorption of a minor league into a top level league created a very unstructured league. Unstructured leagues are anti-parity and create random chaos. One way, incomplete players come and go, highs and lows...unpredictable. Weird events (200 point seasons, absurd swings, absurd dominance by the haves over the have nots (two teams owned the Cup from the 1976 until 1984), etc.). Development model gets busted. There was, what, 8 Americans in the NHL in 1973 or whatever and then in 1984 there are 18 year olds straight out of high school winning Vezinas and biting at the Norris...come on. That's silly. Especially because a lot of those guys didn't capitalize on it later. You don't peak at 18. (Well, maybe I did, but an NHL player wouldn't, except for extreme circumstances that don't apply here).

The measurement of this, as it were, can start at the top and be made easier. It's still proper talent evaluation based, but it's easier than trying to gauge the entire league. First you find out how good the players at the top are in the context of the generation before and after them. You start to draw some lines and make some connections about position and player evolution and you get a pretty good foundation pretty quickly. But it takes work. It's not something we can just punch into a calculator real quick unfortunately...

The purpose of this discussion, in my opinion, is to state where you rank Ovechkin and what method you are using. You’ve written several long post which can be summarized as: the game is very complicated, has changed significantly, and cannot be adequately represented with any numbers. I certainly do not disagree but this has not given me any insight. You are not educating people who are naive about these things.

Quite simply: I believe you said you rank Ovechkin 20-25. So, who are the players you have immediately before and immediately after and why? And where does he rank among the top wingers and why?

Even if you watched every game of every top player and read everything about them, you would be required to make some assumptions when comparing across eras. So, what assumptions are you making?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Wrong. Where are the players from 1884 to 1894 on the all time lists made here in comparison to the ones from 1977-1987?

I'm not wrong.

In the top 100 players project, these are the players born from 1884 to 1894:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. Newsy Lalonde
3. Georges Vezina
4. Sprague Cleghorn
5. Joe Malone
6. Cy Dennenny
7. Clint Benedict
8. Frank Nighbor

From 1977 to 1987:

1. Zdeno Chara
2. Joe Thornton
3. Duncan Keith
4. Alex Ovechkin
5. Evgeny Malkin
6. Sidney Crosby

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm not wrong.

In the top 100 players project, these are the players born from 1884 to 1894:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. Newsy Lalonde
3. Georges Vezina
4. Sprague Cleghorn
5. Joe Malone
6. Cy Dennenny
7. Clint Benedict
8. Frank Nighbor

From 1977 to 1987:

1. Zdeno Chara
2. Joe Thornton
3. Duncan Keith
4. Alex Ovechkin
5. Evgeny Malkin
6. Sidney Crosby

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse but the placement of them relative to one another should be a hint to you, not the absolute number.

 

[Victorias]

I'm not wrong.

In the top 100 players project, these are the players born from 1884 to 1894:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. Newsy Lalonde
3. Georges Vezina
4. Sprague Cleghorn
5. Joe Malone
6. Cy Dennenny
7. Clint Benedict
8. Frank Nighbor

From 1977 to 1987:

1. Zdeno Chara
2. Joe Thornton
3. Duncan Keith
4. Alex Ovechkin
5. Evgeny Malkin
6. Sidney Crosby

Is there a reason you chose those cutoffs as opposed to 1890s vs 1970s or something?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Is there a reason you chose those cutoffs as opposed to 1890s vs 1970s or something?

I chose 1884 simply because that's when the oldest player on the list was born. But you can do whatever cutoffs you want and the results will be more or less the same: The list is inequitably skewed towards the older generations and biased against modern players - either that or it's just a wild anomaly that the Ovechkin/Crosby generation is by far the most pathetically awful generation in all of hockey history. This is shown in the "top 100 players per million" column which shows a massive increased likelihood of older players making the list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, players born in, say, the 1980's didn't have their careers fully settled yet when the list was made...in 2018, 880 of 890 skaters were born in the 1980's...I bet we'll have some more 80's born players in 2028...