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

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I don't think it is. Richard had a lot of help from his teammates - much more than Ovie ever did (not close).

Anyway, it's a good exercise to see who was more integral to their team:

So basically Ovechkin was far more integral to his team than Richard was to his, and you can't blame this on age.

Ovechkin led his team in regular season goals 100% of the time, and points 78% of the time. For Richard it's 50% and 28%. (Richard was also simultaneously out-pointed and out-goaled in his prime by teammates Elmer Lach, Toe Blake, and someone named Billy Reay).

In the playoffs Ovechkin is at 64% for both. For Richard it's 24% and 41%.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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

I had a guy on here show me through so-called "advanced" stats that Ovechkin was a FAR better player in 2016 than 2009.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I had a guy on here show me through so-called "advanced" stats that Ovechkin was a FAR better player in 2016 than 2009.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[Bleedred]

If he breaks the goals record, it’s kind of hard to leave the guy out of the top-5 (at least skaters only) all time.

 

[Victorias]

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,

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).

I don't think it is. Richard had a lot of help from his teammates - much more than Ovie ever did (not close).

Anyway, it's a good exercise to see who was more integral to their team:

View attachment 742067

So basically Ovechkin was far more integral to his team than Richard was to his, and you can't blame this on age.

Ovechkin led his team in regular season goals 100% of the time, and points 78% of the time. For Richard it's 50% and 28%. (Richard was also simultaneously out-pointed and out-goaled in his prime by teammates Elmer Lach, Toe Blake, and someone named Billy Reay).

In the playoffs Ovechkin is at 64% for both. For Richard it's 24% and 41%.

I think Midnight Judges has nicely illustrated that they were equally dominant in their respective eras.

I certainly would not rank a modern player ahead by default. The only active players I would rank ahead of Rocket are Ovechkin, Crosby, and McDavid.

The whole aura thing is an issue to me. As BacktotheBasics said, it’s much easier to scrutinize a player whose career is unfolding in front of us than one who played 50+ years ago.

Both guys were the best playoff goal scorers of their time by GPG. You could argue that Richard was one of the absolute best playoff performers of his time while Ovi was not, but you have to consider the number of players who could reasonably compete for that honor. As the number of teams in the playoffs has increased, the opportunity for any particular player to make a deep run and thus build his reputation has decreased. For example, the early Smythe (and Retro-Smythe) winners are mostly big stars, while now we see random guys like O’Reilly and Marchessault stand out because their teams get significantly further than those of better players.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

If he breaks the goals record, it’s kind of hard to leave the guy out of the top-5 (at least skaters only) all time.

It's really not though.

A great comp for Ovechkin is Hank Aaron. Despite having the most HR and RBI in baseball history pretty much no one ever had him in the top 5 players ever.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You could argue that Richard was one of the absolute best playoff performers of his time while Ovi was not...

Agree with the thrust of your post. Nitpicking here:

I don't see how anyone can argue that Ovechkin wasn't one of the best playoff performers of his era. I mean, they do, all the time, but it's bogus.

Ovie was #1 in playoff GPG and playoff #3 in PPG through age 33 (min 45 games played).

Ovechkin also led his team in playoff goals and playoff points more times than Sidney Crosby or Patrick Kane.

And unlike Crosby, Hull, Richard, Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Orr, Esposito, Messier, Yzerman, Howe, Kelly, Lidstrom, Kane, Malkin, Mikita, Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Harvey, Lafleur, etc he never had any other top 200 players to help out. So every defense focused primarily on stopping Ovie in every playoff series he ever played.

 

[Bleedred]

It's really not though.

A great comp for Ovechkin is Hank Aaron. Despite having the most HR and RBI in baseball history pretty much no one ever had him in the top 5 players ever.

Fair

Definitely some perspective for me.

I would still have to put him in the top-10 though. If not closer to 10 than to 5.

 

[Dallas Winston]

Agree with the thrust of your post. Nit picking here:

I don't see how anyone can argue that Ovechkin wasn't one of the best playoff performers of his era. I mean, they do, all the time, but it's bogus.

Ovie was #1 in playoff GPG and playoff #3 in PPG through age 33 (min 45 games played).

And unlike Crosby, Hull, Richard, Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Orr, Esposito, Messier, Yzerman, Howe, Kelly, Lidstrom, Kane, Malkin, Mikita, Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Harvey, Lafleur, etc he never had any other top 200 players to help out. So every defense focused primarily on stopping Ovie in every playoff series he ever played.

You'd be hard pressed to find 200 players better than Backstrom, semin, varlamov

 

[rmartin65]

You'd be hard pressed to find 200 players better than Backstrom, semin, varlamov

All time? No you wouldn’t.

 

[Victorias]

It's really not though.

A great comp for Ovechkin is Hank Aaron. Despite having the most HR and RBI in baseball history pretty much no one ever had him in the top 5 players ever.

You would be surprised!

To be fair, I think it’s much more reasonable to have him at the top than guys like Ruth, Cobb, and Gehrig who played pre-integration…but baseball rankings are laughable.

 

[MadLuke]

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

1) Lemieux could be the best powerplay player of all time, he could be more impactful even if he is a lesser even strength player
2) this includes twilight of his career year, always to keep in mind when you compare Gretzky/Lemieux with active player like Crosby
3) Some season, the R-off was the best line in the league with Jagr-Francis (but should compensate when he was scoring 200 pts on a weak team), Gretzky was some time Messier or 150 pts Nicholls/Robitaille scoring 50, when you compare with second-third pair of Defenseman on the Bruins for most of his career it could correctly how much better Bourque pair was.
4) Like someone mentioned, and my mind is not good enough but it could be better to be a R-on 1.6 than 1.7 if the goal count is much higher, the absolute number of goal lead created being larger, but I am not so sure.
5) Ice time, Gretzky-Lemieux ice time was probably larger than modern player (but that make Bourque even more impactful), if your R-on is better than your R-off the more minute you play the bigger the impact

Gretzky got no Hart vote winning the Art Ross in 94, he was -25 while scoring 130pts, would we keep it to pre 1991 Gretzky the numbers could be quite different, he was -86 post 1991, +606 before

 

[Victorias]

Agree with the thrust of your post. Nitpicking here:

I don't see how anyone can argue that Ovechkin wasn't one of the best playoff performers of his era. I mean, they do, all the time, but it's bogus.

Ovie was #1 in playoff GPG and playoff #3 in PPG through age 33 (min 45 games played).

Ovechkin also led his team in playoff goals and playoff points more times than Sidney Crosby or Patrick Kane.

View attachment 742113

And unlike Crosby, Hull, Richard, Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Orr, Esposito, Messier, Yzerman, Howe, Kelly, Lidstrom, Kane, Malkin, Mikita, Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Harvey, Lafleur, etc he never had any other top 200 players to help out. So every defense focused primarily on stopping Ovie in every playoff series he ever played.

One issue here is that you are saying simultaneously that he didn’t have support and that he led his team in these stats more often.

Not having support also means not having competition as the top scorer on his team.

 

[Midnight Judges]

One issue here is that you are saying simultaneously that he didn’t have support and that he led his team in these stats more often.

Not having support also means not having competition as the top scorer on his team.

Yep. Fair point.

 

[MadLuke]

Both guys were the best playoff goal scorers of their time by GPG.

It depends how we look at it (not sure if there a clean way to do so over long period of time like this).

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Ovechkin is 8th during his career (player with 25games or more), between Scheifele and Point, third for the at least 50, first for the at least 80.

Richard has the most among players with more than 5 games if you include his 1 goals in 11 games at the end of his career.

If we remove peak Richard during ww2 years, start in 46-47 until his 36 years old seasons (22-36):

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

First over Beliveau by an hair, but a really good gap with Gordie Howe/Lindsay +50%

Ovechkin 22-36:

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Third behind Guentzel, MacKinnon with a good gap, but he played more games.

Peak 08-10 Ovechkin was, 5 years windows GPG rating, player with at least 15 playoff games

Ovechkin
06-10: 1 (18% above second place Kessel)
11-15: 15 (77% of first place Briere)
16-20: 7 (77% of first place Scheifele)

Richard:
43-47: 1 (82% over second place Lach)
48-52: 1 (7% over second place, 12% over Howe)
53-57: 3 (82% of first place Geoffrion)
58-62: 3 (83% of first place Toppazzini)

Ovechkin has a good argument in that regard, but it is not has clear than it is with Richard and not the same type of gap with the competition.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

You would be surprised!

View attachment 742112

To be fair, I think it’s much more reasonable to have him at the top than guys like Ruth, Cobb, and Gehrig who played pre-integration…but baseball rankings are laughable.

I've always hated that point. Mays and Aaron capitalized greatly a number of years, when they were playing against an almost entirely white field of competitors. It's interesting to see that their numbers are similar in the 50's, as they would be in the '60s; '60s being when there was more integration.

I wonder how many more home runs Bonds and Mays would have hit, if they hadn't played the majority of their careers in extreme pitcher's parks.

 

[wetcoast]

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?

I think part of the "problem" over time is that a top 10 finish just isn't the same thing in the 06 era to say today with a 32 team league and there needs to be some consideration for the differences for the league dynamics and composition right?

We can look at top 10 finishes and look at them in the same manner ie against all Canadians as this is a common thread over time but one doesn't have to take the second look as gospel just like one shouldn't take top 10 finishes as equal or the same in the first place.

How is using a common standard throughout time a misuse in the first place?

Doesn't it add context for comparison and if not why not?

The defiance against looking at a Canadian standard seems to tell more than either standard does really IMO.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Everyone here knows that top 10s in a six team league have a different context than in a 32 team league. This is all ancient history on the ahem.. history board.

That is why the more popular way of ranking offensive seasons to their peers is now some form of VsX and it has been for a long time.

As always, how you compare across groups of peers or seasons across time needs even more content.

 

[Victorias]

I've always hated that point. Mays and Aaron capitalized greatly a number of years, when they were playing against an almost entirely white field of competitors. It's interesting to see that their numbers are similar in the 50's, as they would be in the '60s; '60s being when there was more integration.

I wonder how many more home runs Bonds and Mays would have hit, if they hadn't played the majority of their careers in extreme pitcher's parks.

I’m kind of confused. Are you saying that integration didn’t make a difference? If Aaron and Mays were dominating against “an almost entirely white field of competitors” doesn’t that tell you something about what was happening in the 40’s and earlier?

Regardless of race, the level of competition was so microscopically small in the early 1900’s that it makes no sense to have 3-4 top 10 all-time players from then. Imagine having Taylor, Morenz, and Nighbor in the top 10 or saying Georges Vezina (Walter Johnson equivalent) is the greatest goalie ever.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

I’m kind of confused. Are you saying that integration didn’t make a difference? If Aaron and Mays were dominating against “an almost entirely white field of competitors” doesn’t that tell you something about what was happening in the 40’s and earlier?

Regardless of race, the level of competition was so microscopically small in the early 1900’s that it makes no sense to have 3-4 top 10 all-time players from then. Imagine having Taylor, Morenz, and Nighbor in the top 10 or saying Georges Vezina (Walter Johnson equivalent) is the greatest goalie ever.

If we're taking credit away from Ruth, Cobb, and Gehrig because they played vs only white competition, then perhaps we should also attempt to cut into Mays and Aaron's greatness too, since a healthy portion of their careers, they also played vs (almost) only white competition too. What's the cutoff? It can't just be the moment after Jackie Robinson played his first game?

Ted Williams per AB, wasn't that much different in the '40s than it was in the '50s. When there was (some) integration by 1957, he still managed to hit .388 with 1.257 OPS at the age of 38. I don't think there's a substantial difference between the league that Lou Gehrig played in, than the one that Mays, Aaron played in, outside of there being integration (and a raised mound for a period of time). I think the competition by that point in time (let's say 1935), was fierce enough, you had to be really good/great to make a roster.

I'll agree with throwing out names like Cap Anson being in the Top 10, for example, just because I think of baseball being a game in its infancy stages when he was playing. At the same time, the more people put qualifiers on championships, and breaking records, and discrediting previous generations all too readily, the more I start to make more decisions involving greatness with a greater emphasis on how did they impact THEIR period vs the competition. And just as importantly, did they win over the fans? I'm not a Babe Ruth fan, but it's hard for me to NOT consider him in the Top 10; or frankly, outside of the Top 3.

 

[Victorias]

If we're taking credit away from Ruth, Cobb, and Gehrig because they played vs only white competition, then perhaps we should also attempt to cut into Mays and Aaron's greatness too, since a healthy portion of their careers, they also played vs (almost) only white competition too. What's the cutoff? It can't just be the moment after Jackie Robinson played his first game?

Ted Williams per AB, wasn't that much different in the '40s than it was in the '50s. When there was (some) integration by 1957, he still managed to hit .388 with 1.257 OPS at the age of 38. I don't think there's a substantial difference between the league that Lou Gehrig played in, than the one that Mays, Aaron played in, outside of there being integration (and a raised mound for a period of time). I think the competition by that point in time (let's say 1935), was fierce enough, you had to be really good/great to make a roster.

I'll agree with throwing out names like Cap Anson being in the Top 10, for example, just because I think of baseball being a game in its infancy stages when he was playing. At the same time, the more people put qualifiers on championships, and breaking records, and discrediting previous generations all too readily, the more I start to make more decisions involving greatness with a greater emphasis on how did they impact THEIR period vs the competition. And just as importantly, did they win over the fans? I'm not a Babe Ruth fan, but it's hard for me to NOT consider him in the Top 10; or frankly, outside of the Top 3.

Yeah, I have no problem applying the same criticism to Mays and Aaron or anyone from the 50’s. It’s still a degree of difference in the sense that Josh Gibson may have hit as many HR’s as Ruth, for example, but I certainly don’t advocate for a strict integration cutoff.

Even post-integration, the game has become more competitive with Latin American and Japanese players arriving and dominating. Hockey has gradually become more competitive too, though not as abruptly due to a lesser integration effect (except maybe the international integration effect of the 80’s/90’s).

I don’t think Ruth has to be outside the top 10 but saying he’s still the greatest is a joke. No one will ever dominate like that because no one will ever have such a tiny pool of competition.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yeah, I have no problem applying the same criticism to Mays and Aaron or anyone from the 50’s. It’s still a degree of difference in the sense that Josh Gibson may have hit as many HR’s as Ruth, for example, but I certainly don’t advocate for a strict integration cutoff.

Even post-integration, the game has become more competitive with Latin American and Japanese players arriving and dominating. Hockey has gradually become more competitive too, though not as abruptly due to a lesser integration effect (except maybe the international integration effect of the 80’s/90’s).

I don’t think Ruth has to be outside the top 10 but saying he’s still the greatest is a joke. No one will ever dominate like that because no one will ever have such a tiny pool of competition.

Competition pool or not, you can't overlook someone having seasons where he alone hit more HR than every team in baseball. That's a level of dominance no athlete has touched, regardless of circumstances

 

[Victorias]

Competition pool or not, you can't overlook someone having seasons where he alone hit more HR than every team in baseball. That's a level of dominance no athlete has touched, regardless of circumstances

So what? How many great power hitters were alive at that time? And what if Gibson was in the MLB?

There are other instances like that and they all occur in sports with small talent pools, like early 1900’s baseball.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

Yeah, I have no problem applying the same criticism to Mays and Aaron or anyone from the 50’s. It’s still a degree of difference in the sense that Josh Gibson may have hit as many HR’s as Ruth, for example, but I certainly don’t advocate for a strict integration cutoff.

Even post-integration, the game has become more competitive with Latin American and Japanese players arriving and dominating. Hockey has gradually become more competitive too, though not as abruptly due to a lesser integration effect.

I don’t think Ruth has to be outside the top 10 but saying he’s still the greatest is a joke. No one will ever dominate like that because no one will ever have such a tiny pool of competition.

Recently, I was thinking about players across all of the 4 majors sports, who were born in the early '60s (or let's say '59 to '65), and how (IMO) they seem be the greatest generation of athlete/sports stars. To be clear, I'm not from that generation. But I wondered if it was the peak point of some sort of combination of alpha-male, athleticism, creativity (and kids still playing outdoors with other neighborhood kids and such), and everything not being as rigid as today. Maybe kids (in their teens) growing up in the '70s, had it best in terms of balance.

So while we have more people, you'd think that the competition is greater (I would think this could be true), but, I find that things like music, TV, film, video games, a lot of the sports that I watch, have become duller and way too synthetic. Yet, there's MORE competition, in everything today. There's a law of diminishing returns, and I think it kicked in a while back.

There was that clip of Maruk yesterday, but we viewed that clip differently. I thought there was a lot more character in hockey at that point in time, that everything about it was more entertaining.

For example, AAU strips a lot original creativitely out of a young basketball player, and I can't help but think similar things are being done in all of sport. I mean with hockey, just the fact that it's priced-out so many people from playing over the years, leads me to believe that while there are more people today than say 40 years ago, there are fewer people of lower classes involved in the sport. You might have passed on a number of great players in the process, not to mention, generation talents.

 

[daver]

I think Midnight Judges has nicely illustrated that they were equally dominant in their respective eras.

Assuming this is regular season stats, then Richard's playoff resume puts him clearly ahead.