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

[Dallas Winston]

He's ample opportunities to go deep in the playoffs. He's played on three president trophy winning teams.... If ovechkin never wins a cup that will be a huge cloud on his legacy. He will go down as a great goal scorer

 

[Sentinel]

Prime example would be Ovechkin when Adam Oates moved him to RW, a move which would have given Ovi extra protection carrying the puck up ice since being a RHS his body would be between the puck and checkers.

Did not work since Ovi did not adapt. Yet great wingers like Howe,Hull, and others were comfortable on both wings.

Even if you didn't watch the Caps, you can at least be bothered to look at his stats. Ovy did great as a RWer, scoring 50 goals. In fact, I can't remember a single winger in the last twenty years who switched wings and remained just as prolific.

In playoffs he is not without fault, but not nearly to the same degree as the rest of his team. Year after year no other Cap elevates his game at all. The only time Ovechkin was clearly inferior to his teammate was last year's. Every other time he delivers, but his teammates (and coaches) don't.

 

[JackSlater]

Ovechkin in his Bobby Hull phase was a very strong playoff performer, but his team didn't follow suit. Ovechkin in his Brett Hull phase is underwhelming in the playoffs, probably because he is so much less versatile. Overall Ovechkin's playoff shortcomings are usually exaggerated.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Even if you didn't watch the Caps, you can at least be bothered to look at his stats. Ovy did great as a RWer, scoring 50 goals. In fact, I can't remember a single winger in the last twenty years who switched wings and remained just as prolific.

dany heatley

Ovechkin in his Bobby Hull phase [...] Ovechkin in his Brett Hull phase [...]

a very nice way of putting it

 

[Canadiens1958]

Even if you didn't watch the Caps, you can at least be bothered to look at his stats. Ovy did great as a RWer, scoring 50 goals. In fact, I can't remember a single winger in the last twenty years who switched wings and remained just as prolific.

In playoffs he is not without fault, but not nearly to the same degree as the rest of his team. Year after year no other Cap elevates his game at all. The only time Ovechkin was clearly inferior to his teammate was last year's. Every other time he delivers, but his teammates (and coaches) don't.

Even if you do not watch the rest of the NHL teams or haven't watched NHL hockey for for over 60 seasons you should not miss the obvious like a Dany Heatley doing the same thing, 50 goals on both wings.

 

[Big Phil]

Hmmm..............this is very hard to figure out. On one hand we all know the Ovechkin that looked darn near unstoppable for a few years. He had that run pretty much from the time he stepped on the ice until 2010. After that, while he had big goal scoring seasons, he never threatened leading the NHL in points, and he seemed to tame down a bit physically. That being said, if we just judge him on his regular season, it is still excellent and how do you keep him out of the top 25 from that?

However............he has that nagging thing attached to him. Call it a monkey..........on his back. When a player of his caliber never gets out of the 2nd round, that needs some investigation. Not only that, but when your teams led the NHL in points three times it means you had everything set up for you to succeed. Home ice, good teammates, etc. It is true that there were the Mike Greens and Alex Semins that haven't produced in the past and Holtby hasn't exactly shone as a clutch goalie either. However, there still has to be some blame at the feet of Ovechkin.

He's played in 3 Olympics and one World Cup with nothing to show for it, not even reaching the final. We haven't really seen him carry the Capitals on his back with that legendary Cup run - I mean even just one - and we didn't see that with Russia either. It is almost as if he gets this deer in the headlights type of look when he's playing the Pens and you compare the success of Malkin and Crosby to him. 2009 was an exception, he produced. 2010 he was good statistically and got 10 shots in Game 7 against the Habs, so what else could he have done? But whatever you want to say, as a captain there has to be a time you get it done when you are that good.

Have him at #25 or so, and see what he'll do in the postseason the rest of the way. He can't do a whole lot more in the regular season that he hasn't already.

 

[daver]

Ovechkin has 3 Harts. Crosby has 2.

3 > 2.

That's the most important metric.

Finishes are secondary to that. Crosby has 6 top three finishes to Ovechkin's 5. Ovechkin has 7 top six finishes - same as Crosby. Ovechkin will finish ahead of Crosby this year as well.

In 13 seasons, Ovechkin has finished ahead of Crosby 8 times for the Hart. Crosby has finished ahead of Ovechkin 4 times. (neither had consideration in 2012).

When it comes to Harts, the advantage is clearly Ovechkin's.

This does nothing to back up your argument that goals, not points, are the primary metric of greatness. But kudos to OV for finishing ahead of Crosby when he was injured. That`s something to really hang your hat on.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Ovy has to be in the conversation with the top 5 forwards of all time.

 

[Big Phil]

Ovy has to be in the conversation with the top 5 forwards of all time.

Should he? I think Crosby should get there, but Ovi?

Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Jagr............that's 7 right there and Crosby is ahead of him. Lots of arguments that Mikita, Messier, Esposito, Morenz, etc. are at least equal with him now too. That's a lot of mustard to penetrate and I am afraid he needs some postseason success because when you compare him to these guys he lacks it.

 

[Boxscore]

IMO, Ovechkin is a modern-day Rocket Richard in ways. He's an elite goalscorer who will have a greater legend because of his cultural significance. The Rocket was a folk hero in Quebec Province and for all French Canadians and Ovechkin was an iconic figure for modern day Russians in the NHL and for the "New NHL" alongside Crosby. His flashy, bombastic and passionate personality resonated with this era's fan more than anyone, including Crosby. Ovechkin was perfect for the YouTube, Social Media, Marketing Golden Era NHL... down to the highlights, flashy style, colored laces, dark visor, sniping ability.

I guess to answer the OP's question: I would put Ovechkin in the Top 15 for sure - even higher IF he would ever manage to win that Cup.

Like many of the all-time greats, we remember their legacy, the stories, the highlights, and as time goes by, those memories age like fine wine. In 20 years, many of us are going to look back and completely marvel about Alex Ovechkin. As great as Crosby is, Ovechkin is the most "exciting" player to enter the NHL since a rookie Eric Lindros.

As for pure goal scoring ability, Ovechkin is the 3rd best I've ever seen in person... behind Lemieux and Bossy. I think Ovechkin is a better pure shooter than Gretzky, Brett Hull, Bure, Neely, Selanne, etc.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Prime example would be Ovechkin when Adam Oates moved him to RW, a move which would have given Ovi extra protection carrying the puck up ice since being a RHS his body would be between the puck and checkers.

Did not work since Ovi did not adapt. Yet great wingers like Howe,Hull, and others were comfortable on both wings.

OV won the hart and rocket that season...

 

[Canadiens1958]

OV won the hart and rocket that season...

So, partial work stoppage season. He did not sustain the RW level of performance. Next season reverted back and had his worst season defensively. Not won a Hart since.

 

[Theokritos]

IMO, Ovechkin is a modern-day Rocket Richard in ways. He's an elite goalscorer who will have a greater legend because of his cultural significance. The Rocket was a folk hero in Quebec Province and for all French Canadians and Ovechkin was an iconic figure for modern day Russians in the NHL and for the "New NHL" alongside Crosby.

I doubt Ovechkin is close to being a legend in Russia like Richard is in Quebec. His international resume isn't good enough for that. You'll find quite a few Russian fans who will flat out call him a disappointment and overrated.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This does nothing to back up your argument that goals, not points, are the primary metric of greatness.

That's not my argument.

And whatever the case, I need not appeal to authority, especially when said authorities regard Malkin as outside the top 100 players of all time while Jesus Toews is comfortably in.

But kudos to OV for finishing ahead of Crosby when he was injured. That`s something to really hang your hat on.

Ovechkin has finished ahead of a healthy Crosby (4 times) just as many times as Crosby has finished ahead of a healthy Ovechkin. And actually an unhealthy Ovechkin missed 10 games in 2010 and still finished ahead of a healthy Crosby.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So, partial work stoppage season. He did not sustain the RW level of performance. Next season reverted back and had his worst season defensively. Not won a Hart since.

Dude, Ovechkin was the top skater in the NHL in 2015, 2nd in Hart voting only to Carey Price. Same as the Lindsay award.

The evidence against the "did not adapt" critique is overwhelming.

 

[Boxscore]

I doubt Ovechkin is close to being a legend in Russia like Richard is in Quebec. His international resume isn't good enough for that. You'll find quite a few Russian fans who will flat out call him a disappointment and overrated.

You may be right - I didn't mean to compare Ovechkin's significance "in Russia" to Rocket's in "Quebec Province" - I meant globally... Ovechkin represented the new wave Russian player and the NHL like no other Russian before him. He took the excitement and flash of Bure, combined it with a huge frame, more intensity and physical play, and sprinkled an engaging, dynamic personality on top of it - at the perfect time in history - when the league was re-packaging itself as the "New NHL". He is the first Russian NHLer to be a household name and known by the masses.

 

[Sentinel]

So, partial work stoppage season. He did not sustain the RW level of performance. Next season reverted back and had his worst season defensively. Not won a Hart since.

"Worst season defensively"? Who cares?

You are really reaching.

 

[Zuluss]

I am not sure how one can put Ovechkin outside of top20 all-time, given how close he is to Bobby Hull and Richard, who are certainly top10 and many people have one of them at #5 for different reasons.

Here is the comparison with Bobby Hull I did two weeks ago in another thread:

Bobby Hull is from a six-team all-Canadian league, and Ovechkin is from a 30-team international league. It seems that it is much easier in the former case to accumulate things like top10 finishes and open wide leads over #10, since #10 in a six-team league is just an average first-line player.

The numbers bear it out: in 1944-1970, the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #5 was 45%. In 1996-2017, the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 was 44%, almost exactly the same.
Similarly, an average Art Ross winner of 1944-1970 led #5 in points by 30%, which is exactly by how much an average Art Ross winner led #10 in points in 1996-2017.

So, leads over #5 (and top5 finishes) from 06 era are comparable to leads over #10 from the current era. One can probably even cut modern players a bit more slack when comparing them to 06 stars, since the goal-scoring title in 1944-1970 was won, in 17 out of 26 seasons, by either Richard, or Howe, or Bobby Hull, and in 1997-2017 only Ovechkin is comparable to them. But I am not going to adjust for that.

Bobby Hull's points leads, in %
29-23-19-19-18-3-0
Ovechkin's points leads, in %
29-27-25-14-14-11-0

Suprisingly, Ovechkin comes out with an edge in points.

Bobby Hull's goals leads, in %
86-80-56-54-44-32-30-26-10-9-0
Ovechkin's goals leads, in %
63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

Bobby Hull is still ahead, mainly on the strength of his two-year peak. Is this gap in goals enough to compensate for the gap in points? Probably yes. Does it put Bobby Hull far ahead? Probably not. Can Ovechkin catch up? Even a 35% lead over #10 this year will make it closer, 1-2 years like this one, and Ovechkin is at least tied with Bobby Hull.

Here are more things to ponder: if you sum Hart vote shares for the full career, Ovechkin is way ahead of Bobby Hull (397 vs. 294), http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/104180715/
That might be time-specific to an extent, but one also cannot exclude the fact that the difference is due to the fact that Ovechkin has 3 Harts and Hull has 2, and peak Ovechkin was winning his Harts in a more dominant fashion (against peak Malkin and peak Datsyuk, who are a strong competition).

What Hull has over Ovechkin is all-star teams places (10*1st, 2*2nd vs. 7*1st, 4*2nd), but then again, in a six-team league many players would not play first-line minutes and significant PP time, and that would not give them a chance to succeed. E.g., last year Ovechkin was 3rd in all-star team voting behind Marchand and Panarin - would both of them be playing on the first line in a six-team league (especially Panarin)?

So if Ovechkin is so close to Bobby Hull, how can he be out of top20? He must be on the cusp of entering top10.

 

[Zuluss]

Here is a similar comparison of Maurice Richard vs. Ovechkin (again, comparing % leads over #5 for Richard vs. % leads over #10 for Ovechkin, because the league was 6 times smaller in Richard's days and the average leads of Art Ross/goal-scoring title winner over #5 back then are almost exactly the same as average leads of Art Ross/goal-scoring title winner over #10 from 1997 on).

Best 7 seasons, % point leads
Richard
35-29-19-18-10-8-8
Ovechkin
29-27-25-14-14-11-10

Both 3-year peak and 7-year prime are very close, and that's not adjusting for the fact that Richard's best 35% lead came from 1944/45, when the league was depleted by war.

Best 10 seasons, % goal leads
Richard
79-62-61-59-42-31-31-8-6-4
Ovechkin
63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-27*-15
(star is for the current season so far)

3-year peak is Richard, but again 79% lead is for 1944/45. Epic season, first 50-in-50 and all, but again, the war years.

Hart finishes:
Richard
1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3
Ovechkin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 6

I'd take Ovechkin's record: more victories, more Hart-relevant seasons, in a smaller league the 6th places could have been nominations, one of Richard's 2nd places is from 1944/45.

Sum of Hart voting shares:
Ovechkin - 397
Richard - 222

All-star teams
Richard
8*1st, 6*2nd
Ovechkin
7*1st, 4*2nd, 1*3rd

Seems close: in a smaller league, even Ovechkin's 3rd last year (behind Marchand and Panarin) could have been a 1st; one 1st and one 2nd by Richard are from the war years (and one more 1st is from 1945/46).

Overall, I think at the age of 32 Ovechkin begins to open the gap vs. Richard in regular season. Richard, of course, has the playoff legend, and has to be ranked ahead, but a couple of more strong seasons by Ovechkin (like the current one), and the playoff legend of Richard might not be enough to keep them separated.

After all, if A is better than B over a sample of 1000+ games, for me it is hard to close my eyes on that because there is a sample of 100 more games when B is better than A. Yes, those 100 games are very important, but on the other hand, the observations are not independent (the independent observation would be a playoff series, not a playoff game), and the difference may be luck rather than "big game X factor".

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Bobby Hull is from a six-team all-Canadian league, and Ovechkin is from a 30-team international league. It seems that it is much easier in the former case to accumulate things like top10 finishes and open wide leads over #10, since #10 in a six-team league is just an average first-line player.

An alternative interpretation would be that the average first-liner in the O6 era would be of higher quality than the average first-liner now due to talent compression.

The numbers bear it out: in 1944-1970, the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #5 was 45%. In 1996-2017, the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 was 44%, almost exactly the same.
Similarly, an average Art Ross winner of 1944-1970 led #5 in points by 30%, which is exactly by how much an average Art Ross winner led #10 in points in 1996-2017.

By normalizing everything to the outlier (i.e. first-place) scorer, you're artificially flattening the difference between outliers while moving the rest of the field.

Let's take the Art Ross winners from, say 1980-81 to 1990-91:

Season	#1	#2	Ratio
1981	164	135	1.21
1982	212	147	1.44
1983	196	124	1.58
1984	205	126	1.63
1985	208	135	1.54
1986	215	141	1.52
1987	183	108	1.69
1988	168	149	1.13
1989	199	168	1.18
1990	142	129	1.10
1991	163	131	1.24
Avg.	187	136	1.39

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So the average Art Ross winner beat the #2 scorer by 39%, which is roughly the same as the Art Ross winner over the 15th place scorer last season. That indicates that the typical #2 scorer in the 21-team era is roughly the equivalent of the 15th place scorer of today... which means that the 21-team semi-international league had less depth than the 6-team mostly-Canadian league???

Yeah, I know it's literally prime Gretzky and Lemieux. But Gretzky and Lemieux together in points is basically what Richard, Howe, and Hull together were to goals.

So, leads over #5 (and top5 finishes) from 06 era are comparable to leads over #10 from the current era. One can probably even cut modern players a bit more slack when comparing them to 06 stars, since the goal-scoring title in 1944-1970 was won, in 17 out of 26 seasons, by either Richard, or Howe, or Bobby Hull, and in 1997-2017 only Ovechkin is comparable to them. But I am not going to adjust for that.

I think you've got that in reverse. Let's assume that the only outlier goal-scorer in that era was Hull (just like the only outlier goal-scorer since Lemieux's first retirement is Ovechkin). As such, I'm pretending that Howe and Richard didn't exist.

Spoiler

Season	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10
1969-70	43	42	39	38	38	36	35	33	33	33
1968-69	58	49	49	45	43	35	35	34	34
1967-68	44	40	35	35	35	32	31	30	30
1966-67	52	35	31	28	28	26	25	25	25
1965-66	54	32	31	31	30	30	29	29	28
1964-65	42	39	28	27	26	26	25	25	25
1963-64	43	39	39	29	28	26	25	24	24
1962-63	37	36	35	33	31	31	28	27	26
1961-62	50	33	33	32	28	27	26	26	26
1960-61	50	48	35	32	31	29	28	28	27	26
1959-60	39	39	34	32	30	30	29	26	24
1958-59	45	41	40	33	33	32	29	27	27
1957-58	36	32	32	30	30	28	28	27	27
1956-57	33	32	31	30	29	27	26	24
1955-56	47	37	29	27	25	24	24	24
1954-55	38	37	33	29	25	24	23	22
1953-54	29	27	26	24	22	22	21	21
1952-53	32	30	27	23	23	22	22	20
1951-52	31	30	30	27	26	25	24	24
1950-51	31	30	26	24	23	23	22	21
1949-50	34	29	27	25	24	24	23	23
1948-49	28	26	26	26	26	23	22	22	22	21
1947-48	33	30	27	26	26	25	25	24	24
1946-47	30	30	29	28	27	27	27	27	25
1945-46	37	31	29	26	24	23	22	20	20
1944-45	32	29	29	28	26	26	25	24	23
Averages	40	35	32	30	28	27	26	25
Ratios	1.00	1.14	1.24	1.34	1.39	1.46	1.51	1.56

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The #7 scorer (after removing Howe and Richard but leaving Hull) in the O6(-ish) era is roughly equivalent to the #10 scorer of the modern era (with Ovechkin).

Personally, I think the presence of even one outlier in each era is enough to skew it. Using the #2 or #3 scorer rather than the Art Ross/Rocket winner as the baseline for your adjustments would reduce the flattening effect.

1944-70:

Spoiler

Season	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10
1969-70	43	42	39	38	38	36	35	33	33	33
1968-69	58	49	49	45	44	43	35	35	34	34
1967-68	44	40	39	35	35	35	32	31	30	30
1966-67	52	35	31	28	28	26	25	25	25	25
1965-66	54	32	31	31	30	30	29	29	29	28
1964-65	42	39	29	28	27	26	26	25	25	25
1963-64	43	39	39	29	28	26	26	25	24	24
1962-63	38	37	36	35	33	31	31	28	27	26
1961-62	50	33	33	33	32	28	27	26	26	26
1960-61	50	48	35	32	31	29	28	28	27	26
1959-60	39	39	34	32	30	30	29	28	26	24
1958-59	45	41	40	33	33	32	32	29	27	27
1957-58	36	33	32	32	30	30	28	28	27	27
1956-57	44	33	33	32	31	30	29	27	26	24
1955-56	47	38	38	37	29	27	25	24	24	24
1954-55	38	38	37	33	29	29	25	24	23	22
1953-54	37	33	29	27	26	24	22	22	21	21
1952-53	49	32	30	28	27	23	23	22	22	20
1951-52	47	31	30	30	27	27	26	25	24	24
1950-51	43	42	31	30	26	24	23	23	22	21
1949-50	43	35	34	29	27	25	24	24	23	23
1948-49	28	26	26	26	26	23	22	22	22	21
1947-48	33	30	28	27	26	26	25	25	24	24
1946-47	45	30	30	29	28	27	27	27	27	25
1945-46	37	31	29	27	26	24	23	22	20	20
1944-45	50	32	29	29	28	26	26	25	24	23
Averages	44	36	34	31	30	28	27	26	25	25
Ratios	0.83	1.00	1.08	1.15	1.21	1.27	1.33	1.38	1.42	1.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1997-2017:

Spoiler

Season	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10
2016-17	44	40	40	39	39	37	36	35	35	34
2015-16	50	46	41	40	38	37	36	36	34	33
2014-15	53	43	42	38	37	37	37	37	35	33
2013-14	51	43	41	39	37	37	36	35	34	34
2012-13	32	29	28	26	23	23	23	22	22	21
2011-12	60	50	41	40	38	37	37	37	37	36
2010-11	50	45	43	41	41	37	36	34	34	34
2009-10	51	51	50	44	42	41	40	39	38	35
2008-09	56	46	45	43	40	40	40	40	39	39
2007-08	65	52	50	47	43	43	42	41	40	40
2006-07	52	50	48	46	43	43	43	42	41	40
2005-06	56	54	52	52	50	48	47	45	43	40
2003-04	41	41	41	38	38	36	35	35	34	33
2002-03	50	48	46	45	44	41	38	37	37	37
2001-02	52	41	41	41	40	39	38	38	37	37
2000-01	59	54	52	45	44	43	41	41	41	40
1999-00	58	44	43	42	42	41	40	38	36	36
1998-99	47	44	44	44	43	41	40	40	40	39
1997-98	52	52	51	51	45	40	39	36	35	33
Averages	52	46	44	42	40	39	38	37	36	35
Ratios	0.89	1.00	1.04	1.09	1.14	1.18	1.21	1.23	1.26	1.30

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Using the #2 goal-scorer as the baseline, the #5 scorer in the O6(-ish) era is roughly the same as the #7 scorer now.

 

[bobholly39]

Ovechkin is the best player of his generation by virtue of scoring 48% more goals than the second place guy. That is a level of dominance unmatched by anyone outside the very best players of all time. Goal scoring is the most difficult thing to be consistent at. Look at the variances across player's careers, then look at Ovie's. Guy is a rock.

No other player of this generation has achieved such an eye-popping level of dominance over their peers in any regard that is even close to this.

IMO hockey fans credit and fault individual players for championships too much and this leads to a lot of stupid rankings (and the absurdly gargantuan overratedness of Toews). No single player can carry a hockey team to a cup. It has never happened. To credit individuals for championships is to give them credit for building their own teams - which they positively don't do.

Crosby gets tons of credit for being on Malkin's team and vice-versa. Without Malkin, Crosby has zero cups, the Pens likely never get past the Caps. And yet his legacy is 50% built on this arbitrary criteria.

Crediting Crosby for having Malkin is arbitrary. You hear it all the time "it's not fair but this is the way players are judged." Nonsense. The judgements need not be arbitrary.

What's not arbitrary are individual player's actual contributions. Not pace, but actual goals scored, actual assists, actual defense played, actual hits that caused a turnover, etc.

I'd rank Ovechkin in the top 10 players of all time, with a decent possibility that he could end up ahead of Bobby Hull.

Since the sarcasm in my earlier post wasn't obvious enough - i'll actually address your claim that supposedly Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer by 48% than anyone else in his generation, and that this huge % is enough to make him a top 10 player of all time.

To fairly assess how Ovechkin looks vs his peers in terms of goal-scoring, it's fair to compare him to the best goal-scorers of his era. Stamkos & Kovalchuk. Unsurprisingly - Ovechkin is #1, but by nowhere near the ridiculous 48% margin you try to pass off as significant.

We'll only look at stretches during Ovechkin's career - won't look at years before he started.

Between 2005 and 2013 - Kovalchuk scored 309 goals in 589 games. Between 2005 and 2013 - Ovechkin scored 371 goals in 601 games. That is 20% more than Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk had an extremely lousy 2013, his last year before bolting to the KHL. If we remove that year - Ovechkin is only ahead by 13%.

Stamkos. He entered the league in 2009. From 2009 until this year, Stamkos had 348 goals in 658 games. Ovechkin in that stretch has 438 goals in 748 games. A very big advantage of 25% over Stamkos. But Stamkos did play 100 games less. If you want a more accurate comparison of Ovi's domination vs Stamkos, let's prorate Stamkos's GPG to 748 games for 395 goals had he played as many games as Ovi. 438 goals vs 395 goals is 10% advantage.

It's very easy to make the numbers lie and look better than they seem. The ridiculous notion that Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer by 48% than anyone else and that should be foundation for him to be a top 10 player of all time doesn't hold. Sidney Crosby is still a better player than him, with a better career, and an overall higher player ranking. Ovechkin is close to 20th slot all time.

 

[Zuluss]

An alternative interpretation would be that the average first-liner in the O6 era would be of higher quality than the average first-liner now due to talent compression.

That's true, but I was saying that only 18 players got to be first-liners back then. Others did not get enough ES and especially PP time to have a break-out season. E.g., going into the current season MacKinnon, Gaudreau, Voracek, Hall were not really thought of as top20 forwards. In a six-team league, they would have been buried on the second or third line at least for a while in the beginning of the season, and Ovechkin would have had his path cleared to another 1st all-star team and another top10 finish in points. And now either one are far from certainty.

The #7 scorer (after removing Howe and Richard but leaving Hull) in the O6(-ish) era is roughly equivalent to the #10 scorer of the modern era (with Ovechkin).

Using the #2 goal-scorer as the baseline, the #5 scorer in the O6(-ish) era is roughly the same as the #7 scorer now.

I was going for simplicity. "Top10 is the new top5" is an easy mnemonic rule.

"Top7 in O6 era is top10" (or "top5 in O6 era is the current top7" - which is it?) invites the questions "why top7 and not top8", and questions like that can never a 100% satisfactory answer, since it is all approximation and not at all exact science.

I once did a similar kind of analysis looking at the margins by which #2 in goals/points led #10 in goals/points in 1944-1970 and 1997-2017 (which should be immune from outliers).

I figured "2nd over 10th" lead in goals was 45% in 1944-1970 and 30% in 1997-2017 (implying that Hull/Richard leads over #10 need to be multiplied by 0.65 to be comparable with Ovechkin's leads) and "2nd over 10th" lead in points was 39% in 1944-1970 and 21% in 1997-2017 (so the point leads over 10th from 1944-1970 need to be multiplied by 0.53 to be comparable with the point leads from today).

I will try to find the results tomorrow.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Since the sarcasm in my earlier post wasn't obvious enough - i'll actually address your claim that supposedly Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer by 48% than anyone else in his generation, and that this huge % is enough to make him a top 10 player of all time.

Your sarcasm in this post - among others - was obvious. I would have thought so was my refusal to engage you in this manner.

I never said Ovechkin was a 48% better goal scorer than anyone else in this generation. I said he has 48% more goals, which is an objective fact, and an eye-popping one. The rest of your post is based on this (obvious) misrepresentation.

The second and third best goal scorers were able to come close to Ovechkin for stretches. Sure, but Ovie's been doing it for 13 seasons now and that cumulative consistency is part of what is so impressive. Goal scoring is volatile. Sustaining goal scoring is difficult, which is what separates him in addition to peak goal scoring.

You also have this habit of ignoring injuries as if they are a neutral event. I don't blame you, you're just parroting the hockey media - which inexplicably does the same. In no other sport is a half season or a quarter season treated as a neutral event. Stamkos missed games because he is not durable. Same for Crosby. In those time spans those guys provided zero value to their teams while incurring huge cap hits. That is bad. It reduces their values as players. Crosby's 37 point season is a disaster for a $9M cap hit. Stamkos's 17 and 37 game seasons were terrible years for him. To say otherwise punishes the players who actually show up every night to the detriment of their PPGs. Per game stats pretend negative events didn't happen and pretend negative attributes don't exist. It is history revision, pure and simple, and that is what you base your rankings on.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your sarcasm in this post - among others - was obvious. I would have thought so was my refusal to engage you in this manner.

I never said Ovechkin was a 48% better goal scorer than anyone else in this generation. I said he has 48% more goals, which is an objective fact, and an eye-popping one. The rest of your post is based on this (obvious) misrepresentation.

You also have this habit of ignoring injuries as if they are a neutral event. I don't blame you, you're just parroting the hockey media - which inexplicably does the same. In no other sport is a half season or a quarter season treated as a neutral event. Stamkos missed games because he is not durable. Same for Crosby. In those time spans those guys provided zero value to their teams while incurring huge cap hits. That is bad. It reduces their values as players. Crosby's 37 point season is a disaster for a $9M cap hit. Stamkos's 17 and 37 game seasons were terrible years for him. To say otherwise punishes the players who actually show up every night to the detriment of their PPGs. Per game stats pretend negative events didn't happen and pretend negative attributes don't exist. It is history revision, pure and simple, and that is what you base your rankings on.

Of course performance relative to cap hit,common metric in the NFL unheard of in the NHL.

 

[Zuluss]

OK, here is the analysis with O6-era leads modified according to the ratio of "2nd over 10th" average leads in 1944-1970 and 1997-2017. The results with leads over #10 replaced by leads over #5 for O6-era players are also reported for comparison.

Bobby Hull's 7 best points leads over #5, in %
29-23-19-19-18-3-0
Bobby Hull's 7 best points leads over #10, in % (modified)
33-24-24-20-19-15-14
Ovechkin's 7 best points leads over #10, in %
29-27-25-14-14-11-0

Bobby Hull's point leads done this way got a boost, especially on the tail end. Three-year peak is now a wash, outside of that it is Bobby Hull pretty clearly, though the distance is not immense (5% of #10 totals for 4th-6th best seasons - less than 4 points in an 82-game season).

Bobby Hull's 10 best goals leads over #5, in %
86-80-56-54-44-32-30-26-10-9
Bobby Hull's 10 best goals leads over #10, in % (modified)
70-60-60-51-46-41-36-30-21-14
Ovechkin's 10 best goals leads over #10, in %
63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-27*-15
(star is for the current season so far)

Now Bobby Hull's goal-scoring arc is flattened: he no longer has huge dominance in the two-year peak, but the rest of his seasons look better. Still, Ovechkin maintains the edge in longevity, though not a strong one.

Summing up (and adding up the Hart finishes and All-star teams in my post above), Bobby Hull is ahead of Ovechkin, but the difference is not dramatic, definitely not something that would open 15-20 places gap in the all-time rankings.

Richard's 7 best points leads over #5, in %
35-29-19-18-10-8-8
Richard's 7 best points leads over #10, in % (modified)
24-21-21-21-20-19-16
Ovechkin's 7 best points leads over #10, in %
29-27-25-14-14-11-0

Richard's points arc is much flatter now, three-year peak goes to Ovechkin, longevity to Richard, overall probably a wash.

Richard's 10 best goals leads over #5, in %
79-62-61-59-42-31-31-8-6-4
Richard's 10 best goals leads over #10, in % (modified)
76-65-57-52-50-47-38-26-24-23
Ovechkin's 10 best goals leads over #10, in %
63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-27*-15
(star is for the current season so far)

Again, Richard gets a big longevity boost, which seems to suggest that probably adjusting seasons when someone was 4th or 5th by the "2nd over 10th multiple" is not exactly correct. Anyway, with the new adjustment Richard still has the three-year peak (with the same qualifier that his best season is the war season), but the longevity edge Ovechkin had under the old adjustment now disappears.

So probably no gap so far between Ovechkin and Richard in the regular season under the new adjustment, but even a tie in regular season we observe should speak volumes.