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

[jigglysquishy]

Wrong. When he said "largest demographic of 0-15" ever, he was referring to the boomers, who were born mainly after the war, through the 50s. They would ahve been 15 by the time the early/mid 60s rolled around.

I was born in 1976, and I was playing mainly in the 80s. The peak enrolment for hockey has to be ages 7-13.. Do the math, Einstein.
.

My specific quote was about people being born in the early 60s, hence why I used the phrase born in the early 60s.

 

[MadLuke]

Wrong. When he said "largest demographic of 0-15" ever, he was referring to the boomers, who were born mainly after the war, through the 50s.

The largest would have been significantly after the war

Births: Analysis

The peak was 1953-1967 that were 13-27 in 1980, the Roy-Bourque-Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, etc...

 

[Jets4Life]

The largest would have been significantly after the war

Births: Analysis

The peak was 1953-1967 that were 13-27 in 1980, the Roy-Bourque-Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, etc...

Exactly. As I said- after the war, and through the 50s.

However, if we want to get technical about it, the Baby Boomer period was from 1946-64. The number of newborns fell dramatically by the beginning of Generation X.

 

[Midnight Judges]

-US hockey male youth participation has actually decreased slightly since 2002/03

-Canadian male youth participation
today: 361,666
2000/01: 442,891

Enrolment in Hockey Canada teams is currently 572,000 players, down more than 200,000 from its peak. And the prospects are grim. In the next decade, some say there could be 200,000 fewer kids playing the game.

From this decade old article: The future looks bleak for Canadian minor hockey
They are counting female players and adults into the final tally as well hence the 572 thousand. If it peaked more than 200k higher we're talking about near 800k. How many of those were women and adults back in the 80s or so? Likely not many. So we could be 50% down from the peak.

-Finnish participation is down 20% from 2001

-Afaik Russia is up from what it was 20 years ago but still way down compared to the days of the USSR. Hockey is almost dead in Slovakia and it's not doing too well in Czechia either.

So where are the hard facts?

You are correct about the current data I think.

But in a thread about Ovechkin, it's his talent pool we're talking about. Youth leagues from 2001, not 2021, are relevant to Ovechkin's era. Youth players from roughly 1997-2013 are largely the ones he played against. The youth participation likely impacts the NHL 5, 10, 15 years later (depending on which ages we're talking about). 2001 youth hockey is squarely Ovechkin's peer group.

So if you want to compare Ovechkin's generations to previous generations, then compare the 2001 data to the 1979 data for Lemieux, or the 1975 data for Gretzky, or 1990 data for Forsberg, etc. For hockey in the USA, it is quite obvious that participation was significantly higher during Ovechkin's generation than in previous generations.

 

[Jets4Life]

My specific quote was about people being born in the early 60s, hence why I used the phrase born in the early 60s.

You went on about rinks being constructed in Regina from 1950-65 at record pace, to the extent that more had been built at that time, than in the nearly 60 years since. When a city builds that many rinks, they do not do so on a hunch. They do so, since there is a demand for them.

The number of newborns rose dramatically in the 1940s. By the 50s, there would have been a big demand for rinks, and that would continue to increase throughout the Baby Boomer years. Once the number of newborns started to fall by the early 60s, the city of Regina had built enough rinks to accommodate the population, whom most were in their youth.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But his achievements as time goes on are less and less impressive because the talent pool is drying up...?

 

[jigglysquishy]

You went on about rinks being constructed in Regina from 1950-65 at record pace, to the extent that more had been built at that time, than in the nearly 60 years since. When a city builds that many rinks, they do not do so on a hunch. They do so, since there is a demand for them.

The number of newborns rose dramatically in the 1940s. By the 50s, there would have been a big demand for rinks, and that would continue to increase throughout the Baby Boomer years. Once the number of newborns started to fall by the early 60s, the city of Regina had built enough rinks to accommodate the population, whom most were in their youth.

We know births in Canada peaked in the early 60s, with 1960-1965 being the largest 5 year bracket of births in Canadian history.

Yes, births picked up in 1946, peaking in 1961.

The 1955-1965 birth years represents prime years in the NHL of roughly 1975 to 1995. The latter half is considered the deepest time of Canadian talent.

Births started to fall in the mid 60s, before bottoming out in the late 1970s early 1980s. It rose again in the early 90s before dropping and stabilizing.

 

[Jets4Life]

We know births in Canada peaked in the early 60s, with 1960-1965 being the largest 5 year bracket of births in Canadian history.

Births in Canada peaked in the late 50s. The number of births in Canada began to drop dramatically by 1964..

Yes, births picked up in 1946, peaking in 1961.

It peaked in 1959.

Births started to fall in the mid 60s, before bottoming out in the late 1970s early 1980s. It rose again in the early 90s before dropping and stabilizing.

Births in Canada started to decline in 1960 slowly, but accelerated by 1964, bottoming out in 1973. Then it gradually increased, until hitting another peak in 1990, before declining throughout the 90s, and bottoming out in 2000.

source: Population Births in Canada 1950-2023 & Future Projections

 

[jigglysquishy]

Yes, we're in broad agreement. I don't understand the need for continued hostility.

 

[Overrated]

You are correct about the current data I think.

But in a thread about Ovechkin, it's his talent pool we're talking about. Youth leagues from 2001, not 2021, are relevant to Ovechkin's era. Youth players from roughly 1997-2013 are largely the ones he played against. The youth participation likely impacts the NHL 5, 10, 15 years later (depending on which ages we're talking about). 2001 youth hockey is squarely Ovechkin's peer group.

So if you want to compare Ovechkin's generations to previous generations, then compare the 2001 data to the 1979 data for Lemieux, or the 1975 data for Gretzky, or 1990 data for Forsberg, etc. For hockey in the USA, it is quite obvious that participation was significantly higher during Ovechkin's generation than in previous generations.

I would agree then. Ovechkin's prime was in a very strong era although I do think that there was a small decline from the absolute peak of competition during the 1990s.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is probably not a very popular and might even be a little too in the weeds for macro level discussion. I actually think there was a bit of a "micro downburst" in league quality from roughly 2009 or 2010 until somewhere between 2015 to 2017. It was a recoiling against the hyper-speed game that came out of the 2005 lockout. The game became too fast for its own good and actually had a negative effect on quality because of the comparatively few players that could play with the puck at speed. Mostly because those players grew up in a slower game and while rule changes are quick to be pushed down to youth levels, the development and coaching advents are not. I'd wager that around this time, it was as close as the NHL and KHL ever got (which isn't to say "very close", just as close as it got) in terms of league quality.

It wasn't just limited to skaters either. Goaltending got very low during this micro downburst as well, as the high end talents started to age (hell,, Brodeur got to a Final at age 40) and a wave of new goalies had yet to really take over. I mean, Christ, we had a Michael Leighton vs Antti Niemi Final, we had a minor leaguer win two Vezinas, etc.

It's still a little difficult for me to figure out if it felt as down as it did because I lived it every day, would I consider it so pronounced if I didn't? I'm not sure on that yet because I'm not sure if I've seen the peak of the current era. But this game right now is markedly better than, say, the 2010 season.

Also, this isn't to say that 2010ish is anything nearly as bad as the early 80's or the WWII era, not even close...but it's not as good as the seasons immediately coming out of the lockout nor the last 5 or so seasons for my tastes.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think there was some great defenders in the early 2010s, but as a whole, yes, I think it was lower quality of play than 2005-2010 and 2016-now.

Just look at the 2008-2014 drafts. 7 draft years. All players who would have started playing hockey in the DPE, but had their junior careers post red line removal.

Who is a HHOF level forward?
2008 - Stamkos
2009 - No one. Tavares and O'Reilly get closest
2010 - No one. Hall and Seguin get closest.
2011 - Kucherov. Gaudreau and Huberdeau are outside
2012 - No one.
2013 - Mackinnon. Maybe Barkov
2014 - Draisaitl. Maybe Pastrnak

Then we get a stacked year of forwards in 2015

In those 7 draft years only 3 HHOF forward locks.

And in the 2011-2016 time period you get major injuries to Crosby, Stamkos, and Malkin. A slowdown from Ovechkin. And slow starts to Kucherov and MacKinnon.

 

[Regal]

You are correct about the current data I think.

But in a thread about Ovechkin, it's his talent pool we're talking about. Youth leagues from 2001, not 2021, are relevant to Ovechkin's era. Youth players from roughly 1997-2013 are largely the ones he played against. The youth participation likely impacts the NHL 5, 10, 15 years later (depending on which ages we're talking about). 2001 youth hockey is squarely Ovechkin's peer group.

So if you want to compare Ovechkin's generations to previous generations, then compare the 2001 data to the 1979 data for Lemieux, or the 1975 data for Gretzky, or 1990 data for Forsberg, etc. For hockey in the USA, it is quite obvious that participation was significantly higher during Ovechkin's generation than in previous generations.

How do we account for the cost and specialization though? Participation is one thing, but I’d say ice time in the last 20-25 years has become more sparse and the additional training and travel typically required to go on to pro has become more of a burden, particularly with the cost of living increases. Hockey’s financial burden has increased. I would bet that a greater percentage of kids that might have made it didn’t have the resources in recent generations moreso than in the past.

Also, the rise in popularity of other sports doesn’t just show up in the number of MH participants, but also in their priorities. How many kids play hockey but it’s not their number 1 focus in terms of sports compared to previous generations?

I think enrolment is an important factor to look at, it there’s a lot of question marks on top of it

 

[Regal]

This is probably not a very popular and might even be a little too in the weeds for macro level discussion. I actually think there was a bit of a "micro downburst" in league quality from roughly 2009 or 2010 until somewhere between 2015 to 2017. It was a recoiling against the hyper-speed game that came out of the 2005 lockout. The game became too fast for its own good and actually had a negative effect on quality because of the comparatively few players that could play with the puck at speed. Mostly because those players grew up in a slower game and while rule changes are quick to be pushed down to youth levels, the development and coaching advents are not. I'd wager that around this time, it was as close as the NHL and KHL ever got (which isn't to say "very close", just as close as it got) in terms of league quality.

It wasn't just limited to skaters either. Goaltending got very low during this micro downburst as well, as the high end talents started to age (hell,, Brodeur got to a Final at age 40) and a wave of new goalies had yet to really take over. I mean, Christ, we had a Michael Leighton vs Antti Niemi Final, we had a minor leaguer win two Vezinas, etc.

It's still a little difficult for me to figure out if it felt as down as it did because I lived it every day, would I consider it so pronounced if I didn't? I'm not sure on that yet because I'm not sure if I've seen the peak of the current era. But this game right now is markedly better than, say, the 2010 season.

Also, this isn't to say that 2010ish is anything nearly as bad as the early 80's or the WWII era, not even close...but it's not as good as the seasons immediately coming out of the lockout nor the last 5 or so seasons for my tastes.

I tend to agree as well, and I don’t think these things are necessarily going to show up when just looking at participation numbers. We do have to remember that we’re dealing with a very small percentile of population here, so variance can have some large impacts. Statistically we wouldn’t expect the two best goaltenders ever to be born in the same year, but here we are. So even while statistically it might seem likely that period should have a lot of talent, I don’t think we should be chained to that idea.

 

[Midnight Judges]

How do we account for the cost and specialization though? Participation is one thing, but I’d say ice time in the last 20-25 years has become more sparse and the additional training and travel typically required to go on to pro has become more of a burden, particularly with the cost of living increases. Hockey’s financial burden has increased. I would bet that a greater percentage of kids that might have made it didn’t have the resources in recent generations moreso than in the past.

This idea that generations in the past were more privileged is largely bogus.

This forum put 15 players from the great depression era decade into the top 100 players project vs 6 players for Ovechkin and Crosby's birth decade. I don't recall single participant questioning the economic privilege for the generation of Beliveau/Howe/Harvey/Lindsay/Kennedy/Kelly/Bathgate/Sawchuk/Plante/Horton/Gadsby/Pilote/Hall/Geoffrion/Moore - a generation that was MASSIVELY impacted by the Great Depression.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I tend to agree as well, and I don’t think these things are necessarily going to show up when just looking at participation numbers.

Yeah, whether it's this thread or the zillion others about this, I've said the same thing - looking at population or even youth participation numbers is just the "easy" button on this, but I wouldn't expect a very high correlation. I know that the numbers are "objective facts" (your honor), but I don't think those facts are terribly related to the talent pool and quality of the league that we're talking about...

You can't just take the easy way out on this kind of thing, unfortunately...

 

[Regal]

This idea that generations in the past were more privileged is largely bogus.

This forum put 15 players from the great depression era decade into the top 100 players project vs 6 players for Ovechkin and Crosby's birth decade. I don't recall single participant questioning the economic privilege for the generation of Beliveau/Howe/Harvey/Lindsay/Kennedy/Kelly/Bathgate/Sawchuk/Plante/Horton/Gadsby/Pilote/Hall/Geoffrion/Moore - a generation that was MASSIVELY impacted by the Great Depression.

I was mainly thinking of the baby boomers, but the point wasn’t about privilege but about disparity. Wealth inequality only matters in development if those with money are using it to have a significant advantage. This has been happening more and more the last couple decades from what I’ve seen and I’m not sure something similar was happening during the depression era. Affording equipment still would have been a problem, but that was the reality for a lot of families. Unless a portion of the pool was being given the best equipment and outside training and access to year round ice, then it’s not the same.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think you needed to be "privileged" to play back in the day. Equipment is way more expensive now, rink time is way more expensive now...it's not nearly as easy to play on a frozen pond as it was.

In 1912, you could buy a dozen hockey sticks for $1 (~$30 today). Goalie pads were about $3.50 a pair.

 

[Victorias]

This thread is about Ovi, not the 1960s. Yes, the American pool has grown since the 60s, but not as much since the 90s when they had their 1st so-called golden generation and won the World Cup (1996) in impressive fashion. This is 10 years prior to Ovi even entering the league.

Sweden's pool also isn't stronger today than in the 90s/early 00s, but probably a bit tamer/thinner. Neither is the Czech or the Slovak pool.

The Finnish pool doesn't have a Selänne anymore, but it's a bit deeper now, but probably not dramatically deeper, they've lost a bit of their goalie magic.

The Russian pool is pretty much as it always is, skilly dilly.

Then we have some Swiss (Josi, Meier), German (Drai, Stütz), and Slovenian (Kopitar) high-end players sprinkled in.

All in all it's pretty much a wash.



I don't even know what this is.

The comparison was between Ovechkin (2010’s) and Richard (1950’s).

I’m not arguing the talent pool has grown since the 90’s. I’m arguing it’s grown significantly since the 50’s and therefore we cannot use performance against peers to validly assert that Richard was more (or equally) dominant.

Moreover, I think players who played in that era - not players born in that era - are overrepresented in the top 10-15-20 players. Participation and therefore competition has only recently plateaued (based on IIHF numbers) after rising for decades. The evidence for that rise is in the internationalization of the league’s top scorers. The evidence to the contrary is anecdotal if it exists at all.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's not so much evidence as it is an observation. Now, it could be used as evidence...perhaps. But it could also be used as evidence against your case just as easy...

2000-01 scoring leaders:
Jagr 121 (CZE)
Sakic 118 (CAN)
Elias 96 (CZE)
Allison 95 (CAN)
Straka 95 (CAN)
Kovalev 95 (RUS)
Bure 92 (RUS)
Weight 90 (USA)
Palffy 89 (SVK)
Forsberg 89 (SWE)

Six different countries represented in the top 10 scorers. Super great!

Five seasons later...
2006-07 scoring leaders:
Crosby 120 (CAN)
Thornton 114 (CAN)
Lecavalier 108 (CAN)
Heatley 105 (CAN)
St. Louis 102 (CAN)
Sakic 100 (CAN)
Hossa 100 (SVK)
Savard 96 (CAN)
Jagr 96 (CZE)
Briere 95 (CAN)

Canadian dominated top 10.

But Christ on a cracker, you're telling me you'd want that 2001 group? I don't even think it's a little bit close.

Just because you have more, doesn't mean that you have better. You might, I'm not saying that you definitely don't. But the all time high in Russians being in the NHL, as I've posted, is at a time when the league was at a time when the league was considered to be in a dead puck era. Now that there's less than half as many, the league has maybe never been better. Should we surmise that the league is better with less Russians because of that "evidence"? No, of course not, that would be ridiculous. But that's what the "evidence" suggests. Far less Russians in the game now - it's great. No Russians in the game in the early 60's, the game is great then too.

No one in the NHL is playing against guys that aren't in the NHL. They're out there against who they're playing against. If we can't determine their level of competency or skill based on their on-ice contributions, generally, we're just guessing at the talent pool and then taking that virtually blind guess and then applying it to things that actually happened and folks recorded those things for us haha

 

[The Panther]

No one in the NHL is playing against guys that aren't in the NHL. They're out there against who they're playing against. If we can't determine their level of competency or skill based on their on-ice contributions, generally, we're just guessing at the talent pool and then taking that virtually blind guess and then applying it to things that actually happened and folks recorded those things for us haha

Yes, I agree with this.

I checked into this thread only to see it was now endless pages of "talent pool" and sports-participation population analysis... none of which tells us how good Ovechkin was/is.

If a guy was the most dominant player, at the highest level, for a long and extended period of time (ideally more than one mini-era), then he was the best guy. End of.

 

[daver]

No one in the NHL is playing against guys that aren't in the NHL. They're out there against who they're playing against. If we can't determine their level of competency or skill based on their on-ice contributions, generally, we're just guessing at the talent pool and then taking that virtually blind guess and then applying it to things that actually happened and folks recorded those things for us haha

One would assume there is some statistical anomaly that needs a deeper dive into "the talent pool". Instead, generally speaking, we have seen the best pro league in the world expand to accommodate more NHL-caliber players over the decades as, generally speaking, the game has spread internationally and the population of Canada has grown.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that, generally speaking, the best player (s), specifically the best offensive forward (s), from any era would do better or worse in another era when one starts a trail of the best players backwards:

For example, peak McDavid >/=* peak Crosby, We saw an overlap of a pre-peak McDavid against a post-peak Crosby in 2016/17 and 2017/18. No reason to think that, generally speaking, McDavid would do any better or worse if he started in 05/06 or that Crosby does any better or worse if he started in 15/16.

*very close when looking at per game production

You then can start the trail backwards using overlapped career paths:

peak Crosby >/= Ovechkin

Ovechkin =/< Jagr

Jagr </<< Mario

Mario =/< Wayne

Wayne >> Guy Lafleur

Guy Lafleur = Esposito

Esposito =/< Hull

Hull = Beliveau

Beliveau < Howe

Howe > Richard


Other than blindly applying a talent pool argument, I don't see how you can argue that the best players from the past wouldn't potentially have the same level of relative domination in any other era; it doesn't pass the statistical smell test.

 

[Victorias]

That's not so much evidence as it is an observation. Now, it could be used as evidence...perhaps. But it could also be used as evidence against your case just as easy...

2000-01 scoring leaders:
Jagr 121 (CZE)
Sakic 118 (CAN)
Elias 96 (CZE)
Allison 95 (CAN)
Straka 95 (CAN)
Kovalev 95 (RUS)
Bure 92 (RUS)
Weight 90 (USA)
Palffy 89 (SVK)
Forsberg 89 (SWE)

Six different countries represented in the top 10 scorers. Super great!

Five seasons later...
2006-07 scoring leaders:
Crosby 120 (CAN)
Thornton 114 (CAN)
Lecavalier 108 (CAN)
Heatley 105 (CAN)
St. Louis 102 (CAN)
Sakic 100 (CAN)
Hossa 100 (SVK)
Savard 96 (CAN)
Jagr 96 (CZE)
Briere 95 (CAN)

Canadian dominated top 10.

But Christ on a cracker, you're telling me you'd want that 2001 group? I don't even think it's a little bit close.

Just because you have more, doesn't mean that you have better. You might, I'm not saying that you definitely don't. But the all time high in Russians being in the NHL, as I've posted, is at a time when the league was at a time when the league was considered to be in a dead puck era. Now that there's less than half as many, the league has maybe never been better. Should we surmise that the league is better with less Russians because of that "evidence"? No, of course not, that would be ridiculous. But that's what the "evidence" suggests. Far less Russians in the game now - it's great. No Russians in the game in the early 60's, the game is great then too.

No one in the NHL is playing against guys that aren't in the NHL. They're out there against who they're playing against. If we can't determine their level of competency or skill based on their on-ice contributions, generally, we're just guessing at the talent pool and then taking that virtually blind guess and then applying it to things that actually happened and folks recorded those things for us haha

That’s fair. But do you really think there weren’t way more people playing hockey in the 2010’s than in the 1950’s? That would be pretty sad for the game if true.

I think either way, there should be assessment of size of the talent pool. There has to be better information out there…

 

[ManofSteel55]

We've discussed Crosby extensively on here but Ovechkin is also an interesting case, obviously. To me, he is kind of tricky to really nail down in history. There is a solid argument that he's the best goalscorer ever but his lack of playoff success is concerning. His all-around game is also questionable.

Where do you put Ovechkin? Is he a top 20 player, for instance?

He is absolutely a top 20 player. He probably should rank ahead of Crosby. Lack of playoff success arguments were outdated the moment he won a cup.

 

[daver]

He is absolutely a top 20 player. He probably should rank ahead of Crosby. Lack of playoff success arguments were outdated the moment he won a cup.

By what metrics is he a Top 20 player?

What players would you rank ahead of him?

And why wouldn't the reasons for other players to be ranked ahead of OV apply to Crosby?