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

[Midnight Judges]

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...

You can't name a single player born from 1977 to 1987 that has played their way onto the list based on their post age 32 exploits.

Patrice Bergeron, for example, aged beautifully, and it was nearly unanimous among this forum that he's still not a top 100 player. I don't know that there is a better example of a candidate.

Unless the forum flat out changes its opinions to be more equitable towards the first majority international generation, it's going to remain at 6 players for 1977-1987.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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?

The purpose of the thread and the trajectory of the discussion are different things. Thus you snapping it back to direct Ovechkin placement and shedding expansion/talent pool talk. If that was the trajectory of the conversation, you wouldn't have needed this reset haha

I've stated a number of times in this thread and others where I have Ovechkin. So, I didn't think (for those following the conversation...heh) it would need to be re-stated, so I didn't.

It's been several years since we've really dug in on this. But Ovechkin is probably in the 20 area at this point - which is up from where I had him in 2018. Hard to get him too far away from Maurice Richard for obvious reasons, similar players. Playoff success of one versus another needs some context - player vs team. Richard's flaws could more easily be covered for by teammates vs Ovechkin. Also, Richard was the most technically skilled player in the NHL in his time, Ovechkin was not (not that he was terribly far off though). I'm not sure if I can get him over Richard, even though I like to lower his clout here. It's hard to measure Ovechkin's checked out years. He's not really trying...but damn, he still leads the best league in the world in goals. What do you do with that information?

Even if he eclipses Richard, he's not better than Jagr. That's a stopper. Jagr was a more balanced attacker and was dealt some horrid situations (also some good ones). But I don't think there's any legitimate way to slice Ovechkin as a better player, a better talent, I don't think he had a better career. Maybe if you go the weird binary, cognitive dissonance route you can frame that way...but that's not how it went for me. With Jagr being in the 10-15 area, that's the ceiling for Ovechkin.

I think another good-ish ride-along for Ovechkin is Dominik Hasek. I also don't think any goalie ever was a top 15 player of all time. I just don't think that's how the position works. I'd like really re-evaluate goaltenders under the context of position evolution. I think I get too easily sucked into the "conventional wisdom" stuff...I think the whole thing needs to be re-done. I don't know if Hasek or Roy is actually #1 anymore. We say it to being and repeat it until it sticks, but I'm not sure anymore. It might be. It might be Hasek by a zillion percent...but I'd like to go back and really dive in. Right now though, Hasek/Ovechkin/Richard should be in pretty close company and that company is in the 20ish area, give or take. Might well throw Eddie Shore in that mix too.

You can't name a single player born from 1977 to 1987 that has played their way onto the list based on their post age 32 exploits.

Patrice Bergeron, for example, aged beautifully, and it was nearly unanimous among this forum that he's still not a top 100 player.

Unless the forum flat out changes its opinions to be more equitable towards the first majority international generation, it's going to remain at 6 players.

It might. It's hard to figure out, but we might be in the best era of hockey ever right this second. I'm warming to the idea quickly. If we establish that with any sort of normalcy - and I tend to be quite the salesman here, as you may well know - it will have reverberating effects. Patience, fella. Unlike with Ovechkin, I'm a little bit more on your side here than I think I get credit for...

 

[Victorias]

The purpose of the thread and the trajectory of the discussion are different things. Thus you snapping it back to direct Ovechkin placement and shedding expansion/talent pool talk. If that was the trajectory of the conversation, you wouldn't have needed this reset haha

I've stated a number of times in this thread and others where I have Ovechkin. So, I didn't think (for those following the conversation...heh) it would need to be re-stated, so I didn't.

It's been several years since we've really dug in on this. But Ovechkin is probably in the 20 area at this point - which is up from where I had him in 2018. Hard to get him too far away from Maurice Richard for obvious reasons, similar players. Playoff success of one versus another needs some context - player vs team. Richard's flaws could more easily be covered for by teammates vs Ovechkin. Also, Richard was the most technically skilled player in the NHL in his time, Ovechkin was not (not that he was terribly far off though). I'm not sure if I can get him over Richard, even though I like to lower his clout here. It's hard to measure Ovechkin's checked out years. He's not really trying...but damn, he still leads the best league in the world in goals. What do you do with that information?

Even if he eclipses Richard, he's not better than Jagr. That's a stopper. Jagr was a more balanced attacker and was dealt some horrid situations (also some good ones). But I don't think there's any legitimate way to slice Ovechkin as a better player, a better talent, I don't think he had a better career. Maybe if you go the weird binary, cognitive dissonance route you can frame that way...but that's not how it went for me. With Jagr being in the 10-15 area, that's the ceiling for Ovechkin.

I think another good-ish ride-along for Ovechkin is Dominik Hasek. I also don't think any goalie ever was a top 15 player of all time. I just don't think that's how the position works. I'd like really re-evaluate goaltenders under the context of position evolution. I think I get too easily sucked into the "conventional wisdom" stuff...I think the whole thing needs to be re-done. I don't know if Hasek or Roy is actually #1 anymore. We say it to being and repeat it until it sticks, but I'm not sure anymore. It might be. It might be Hasek by a zillion percent...but I'd like to go back and really dive in. Right now though, Hasek/Ovechkin/Richard should be in pretty close company at that company is in the 20ish area, give or take. Might well throw Eddie Shore in that mix too.


It might. It's hard to figure out, but we might be in the best era of hockey ever right this second. I'm warming to the idea quickly. If we establish that with any sort of normalcy - and I tend to be quite the salesman here, as you may well know - it will have reverberating effects. Patience, fella. Unlike with Ovechkin, I'm a little bit more on your side here than I think I get credit for...

It’s not a reset - in fact it’s the precise opposite. We are talking about competition pool and Ovechkin. I rank Ovi higher because of the competition pool but I do not see how you are factoring - or not factoring it - into your ranking.

To be specific: you say Richard was the most technically skilled player while Ovi never was. But Rocket’s competition pool was significantly smaller, both in terms of the history of the league to that point and in terms of his peers. So to me, that’s not a valid point of comparison or reason to put Rocket over Ovi. It’s like saying Morenz was considered the best skater ever but Coffey wasn’t.

“Richard's flaws could more easily be covered for by teammates vs Ovechkin”
This I don’t know about as I only watched Rocket from the 1950’s Cup finals. However, he played in a dynastic team so I don’t know how you can make this comparison.

I agree that Jagr is a better all around player and that’s why I have Jagr > Ovechkin > Hull > Richard. Jagr was a more or equally dominant player for longer. I think Jagr is top 10 and Ovechkin slightly behind but maybe still in the top 10.

We disagree about goalie placement; no need to rehash that.

 

[daver]

To be specific: you say Richard was the most technically skilled player while Ovi never was. But Rocket’s competition pool was significantly smaller, both in terms of the history of the league to that point and in terms of his peers. So to me, that’s not a valid point of comparison or reason to put Rocket over Ovi. It’s like saying Morenz was considered the best skater ever but Coffey wasn’t.

So what? How can you possibly figure this into a comparison. We have no clue as to how Richard would do in OV's era and vice versa.

If Richard was the statistically superior player, with some statistical recognition of league size, then placing him below a lesser player due to the time they entered the league seems very suspect.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So what? How can you possibly figure this into a comparison. We have no clue as to how Richard would do in OV's era and vice versa.

If Richard was the statistically superior player, with some statistical recognition of league size, then placing him below a lesser player due to the time they entered the league seems very suspect.

Ovechkin is statistically superior to Richard relative to his contemporaries and Ovechkin's era's talent pool was 350% the size of Richard's.

You have been posting falsehood after falsehood in this thread - which is not surprising since you are the biggest Crosby fan on HFBoards.

 

[Victorias]

So what? How can you possibly figure this into a comparison. We have no clue as to how Richard would do in OV's era and vice versa.

I’m not doing that. I’m saying that people hadn’t seen anyone with Richard’s skill partly because there hadn’t been that many great hockey players. Nothing wrong with saying he was the best through 1950, but there have been 70 years of players since, many of whom have competed in larger talent pools - in which it is more difficult to stand out. So, I think that the “most technically gifted” anecdote is only meaningful if comparing Richard with other players from his era and perhaps before.

Fewer people competing -> fewer elite talents -> easier for any one elite talent to dominate

So, if the players were equally dominant - like Ovi and Rocket - I side with the one who had tougher competition. Howe also had less competition but was much more dominant, so I take Howe.

 

[Dallas Winston]

Ovechkin is statistically superior to Richard relative to his contemporaries and Ovechkin's era's talent pool was 350% the size of Richard's.

You have been posting falsehood after falsehood in this thread - which is not surprising since you are the biggest Crosby fan on HFBoards.

What about me? I'm a fan

 

[MadLuke]

Ovechkin is statistically superior to Richard relative to his contemporaries and Ovechkin's era's talent pool was 350% the size of Richard's.

Is this double-dipping talent pool a little bit ?

Richard from his rookie year to his 37 years old season had the most points in the nhl:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

No one close in goals or points in the playoff:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

He was only below Gordiw Howe (and not by much) in ppg among players with 500 games or more
Howe: 1.07
Richard: 1.0

Ovechkin his second in points and 4th in playoff points, he his 7th in ppg and 18 in the playoff ppg


Richard adjusted relative to canadian player in the league goal per game career wise are higher, I think.

Top 10 finish
Richard.: 2-2-2-2-2-3-3-4-5-6-7
Ovechkin: 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8

Richard led the league in goals in the playoff 5 times, Ovechkin 1, in pts 2 times, Ovechkin 0

It is after adjusted for talent pool difference that Ovechkin his statistically superior relative to his contemporaries (if that the case).

 

[Victorias]

Is this double-dipping talent pool a little bit ?

Richard from his rookie year to his 37 years old season had the most points in the nhl:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

No one close in goals or points in the playoff:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

He was only below Gordiw Howe (and not by much) in ppg among players with 500 games or more
Howe: 1.07
Richard: 1.0

Ovechkin his second in points and 4th in playoff points, he his 7th in ppg and 18 in the playoff ppg


Richard adjusted relative to canadian player in the league goal per game career wise are higher, I think.

Top 10 finish
Richard.: 2-2-2-2-2-3-3-4-5-6-7
Ovechkin: 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8

Richard led the league in goals in the playoff 5 times, Ovechkin 1, in pts 2 times, Ovechkin 0

It is after adjusted for talent pool difference that Ovechkin his statistically superior relative to his contemporaries (if that the case).

There isn’t necessarily a big advantage to Ovi, but you also have to consider the disparity between the Habs and other teams, especially in the 40s. Part of that was *because of* Richard, but part of it (like better goaltending leading to more playoff games) was not.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Is this double-dipping talent pool a little bit ?

Richard from his rookie year to his 37 years old season had the most points in the nhl:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

No one close in goals or points in the playoff:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

He was only below Gordiw Howe (and not by much) in ppg among players with 500 games or more
Howe: 1.07
Richard: 1.0

Ovechkin his second in points and 4th in playoff points, he his 7th in ppg and 18 in the playoff ppg


Richard adjusted relative to canadian player in the league goal per game career wise are higher, I think.

Top 10 finish
Richard.: 2-2-2-2-2-3-3-4-5-6-7
Ovechkin: 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8

Richard led the league in goals in the playoff 5 times, Ovechkin 1, in pts 2 times, Ovechkin 0

It is after adjusted for talent pool difference that Ovechkin his statistically superior relative to his contemporaries (if that the case).

It depends on which stats you look at.

Times led NHL in Goals
Ovechkin: 9
Richard: 5

Times led the NHL in GPG
Ovechkin: 9
Richard: 5

Times led the NHL in points
Ovechkin: 1
Richard: 0

Times led NHL in PPG
Ovechkin: 3
Richard: 1

MVPs
Ovechkin: 3
Richard: 1

Hart Finalist
Ovechkin: 5
Richard: 6

Ovechkin from his rookie season through age 36 (2021-2022) also had the most points in the NHL (I realize you did 37 for Richard).

But yes, aside from these, Richard has some big leads over his era. For example, Richard scored 166% more goals than the 10th place goal scorer of his first 15 seasons. Ovechkin achieved an 86% margin for this same stat. I think this likely says more about Richard's era than Richard himself.

Richard also played on a dynasty team that had no problem winning a cup basically without him when he sat out all but 3 games and then contributed 0 points in those 3 games. This is not something Ovechkin's team was ever capable of. So yeah, Richard's cumulative playoff stats are going to be boosted.

However, Ovechkin led his era in playoff GPG as well (if we apply any reasonable minimum games played).

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I’m not doing that. I’m saying that people hadn’t seen anyone with Richard’s skill partly because there hadn’t been that many great hockey players. Nothing wrong with saying he was the best through 1950, but there have been 70 years of players since, many of whom have competed in larger talent pools - in which it is more difficult to stand out. So, I think that the “most technically gifted” anecdote is only meaningful if comparing Richard with other players from his era and perhaps before.

Fewer people competing -> fewer elite talents -> easier for any one elite talent to dominate

So, if the players were equally dominant - like Ovi and Rocket - I side with the one who had tougher competition. Howe also had less competition but was much more dominant, so I take Howe.

Larger talent pool doesn't equal better.

Secondly, you are ignoring that in the O6 era every team was the equivalent of an all star team today.

Hell, in Howe's day 5 of the 6 teams started a HOF goalie in their prime

 

[Victorias]

Larger talent pool doesn't equal better.

Secondly, you are ignoring that in the O6 era every team was the equivalent of an all star team today.

Hell, in Howe's day 5 of the 6 teams started a HOF goalie in their prime

So, the talent pool increases in size but somehow the proportion of elite players decreases?

100 players - top 5% = 5 players
1000 - top 5% = 50 players - but you say it’s still 5 elite players?

You’re making a major logical error. Those guys were all All-Stars and HOF’s partly *because* the league was so small. And *because* the talent pool was so small. In the 100 player example, it will be much easier for any of the top players to stand out. And if any of them falter, it will be easier for someone in the 5-10% best range to fill in. You don’t have to pass 50 elite guys to be the best - you only have to pass 5.

If there are only 5 elite goalies in the world vs 50, it’s much easier for you to build a HOF resume.

 

[The Panther]

And yes, Richard played on a dynasty team that had no problem winning a cup when he sat out all but 3 games and then contributed 0 points in those 3 games. This is not something Ovechkin's team was ever capable of.

In the season you specify, Maurice Richard was almost 38 years old and had passed his prime. The 1958-59 and 1959-60 seasons have no bearing on Richard's all-time ranking in anyone's eyes---they're his two irrelevant seasons.

The fact that the '59 and '60 Canadiens could win back-to-back Cups with him in decline has no logical correlation with how important Richard was to the 1958 or earlier Cups. This is a logical fallacy.

In the unlikely event that the Washington Capitals win the Stanley Cup in, say, 2025, and 40-year-old Ovechkin scores 1 goal and 4 points, it doesn't mean the 2018 Caps' Cup team could have won easily without him.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Gilmour really elevated the players around him by quite a bit, Glenn Anderson and Dave Andreychuck and also led his teams in the playoffs and was playing a tremendous 2 way game as well placing first and second in Selke voting those 2 years.

Sure the first half season drops down the overall 3 year peak thing but Gilmour literally transformed that Maple Leaf franchise for 2 seasons.

Andreychuck had 12 playoff goals with the sabers in 41 games, with Gilmour he scores 12 goal in his first Maple Leaf postseason.

Glenn Anderson was literally wasting away and just collecting a paycheck his first 3 months with the Leafs that year and then Gilmour shows up and he is better than a PPG for the rest of the year.

All too often the focus is too much on points and not enough on overall play when discussing peaks IMO.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Agree with this.

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's literally semantics as the 2 things here
1 Line of reasoning
2 analytical (legitimately) tool)

There are no defined definitions for those 2 terms and most posters are going to have a particular viewpoint that probably blends the 2.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Man it's not very often that I pretty much agree with every word here and I would switch need to to reconsider it again.

 

[njdevils1982]

as per OP question..

my personal list includes this:

MINIMUM one slot above crosby.

...if sid is 10....ovi is 9

...if sid is 8 ....ovi is 7

...if sid is 87 ...ovi is 86


etc...

 

[njdevils1982]

as per OP question..

my personal list includes this:

MINIMUM one slot above crosby.

...if sid is 10....ovi is 9

...if sid is 8 ....ovi is 7

...if sid is 87 ...ovi is 86


etc...

i f***ed up that post big time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's literally semantics as the 2 things here
1 Line of reasoning
2 analytical (legitimately) tool)

There are no defined definitions for those 2 terms and most posters are going to have a particular viewpoint that probably blends the 2.

ok but the “semantic” difference between those two things nicely illustrates some people’s wild misuse of the canada-only thought experiment

is the difference between a theory and a ruler semantic?

is the difference between hegel’s philosophy of spirit and a calculator semantic?

is the difference between a screwdriver and some boomer asking us to allow him to play devil’s advocate semantic?

ygwim?

 

[Acallabeth]

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.

This metric seems to be telling us Crosby, Bourque and Jagr were all more 'impactful' than prime Lemieux, places Crosby above Gretzky and Bourque as the 2nd most impactful player. I'm confused about how to interpret it. Do you agree it reflects their all-time standing?

Orr XD

 

[daver]

I’m not doing that. I’m saying that people hadn’t seen anyone with Richard’s skill partly because there hadn’t been that many great hockey players. Nothing wrong with saying he was the best through 1950, but there have been 70 years of players since, many of whom have competed in larger talent pools - in which it is more difficult to stand out. So, I think that the “most technically gifted” anecdote is only meaningful if comparing Richard with other players from his era and perhaps before.

Fewer people competing -> fewer elite talents -> easier for any one elite talent to dominate

So, if the players were equally dominant - like Ovi and Rocket - I side with the one who had tougher competition. Howe also had less competition but was much more dominant, so I take Howe.

Were they equally dominant? By what metric are you measuring dominance?

I can be on board with the giving an edge to the player who dominated in a similar fashion in the current era but only an edge. Bringing a player up a clear level statistically is not reasonable. Automatically using "era played in" as a negative is not reasonable.

I am also on board with the statistical recognition that league size matters when comparing Top 3, 5, 10 finishes from different eras. Crosby's Top X points and PPG finishes compare well with Hull and Beliveau but he was significantly closer to the leaders than they were.

Like Hull vs. OV, Richard vs. OV has a aura of OV wasn't peak/close to peak OV long enough to move past Richard. Playoff Richard is also a heavy factor,

 

[daver]

Gilmour really elevated the players around him by quite a bit, Glenn Anderson and Dave Andreychuck and also led his teams in the playoffs and was playing a tremendous 2 way game as well placing first and second in Selke voting those 2 years.

Sure the first half season drops down the overall 3 year peak thing but Gilmour literally transformed that Maple Leaf franchise for 2 seasons.

Andreychuck had 12 playoff goals with the sabers in 41 games, with Gilmour he scores 12 goal in his first Maple Leaf postseason.

Glenn Anderson was literally wasting away and just collecting a paycheck his first 3 months with the Leafs that year and then Gilmour shows up and he is better than a PPG for the rest of the year.

All too often the focus is too much on points and not enough on overall play when discussing peaks IMO.

When talking about GOAT forwards, pure offense has to be the starting point with putting the puck in the net given an edge over overall offensive production.

I don't think OV's peak is Top 5 among forwards but recognize that some can make an argument for it if strictly focused on goalscoring. In terms of physical gifts specific to goalscoring (not including hockey IQ), he is Top 5 IMO. The guy loved to score and hit and had the tools to do it at a GOAT level. What he didn't have at his peak was the willingness or maturity to do whatever it took to win; that came later.

Gilmour's level of play with the Leafs is legendary and likely does get overlooked. Obviously his whole body of work brings him quickly of the Top 10/20 player all-time conversation.

 

[rmartin65]

Gilmour's level of play with the Leafs is legendary and likely does get overlooked. Obviously his whole body of work brings him quickly of the Top 10/20 player all-time conversation.

Wait, what?

 

[bobholly39]

Wait, what?

Im sure its a typo and he meant "out of the top 10/20 conversation"

 

[Dallas Winston]

Just finished watching a video of ovechkins 65 goals in 2008. Now that guy Is a slam dunk top 10 player of all time. Also watched his 52 from 2006. The difference between that guy and say even a 25 year old ov in 2011 is striking