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

[daver]

Just ahead of Jagr in the 12 to 15 range. In the conversation for #2 Winger all-time after Hull.

 

[VanIslander]

Between Lafleur & Bossy.
Ahead of Makarov but behind Jagr.
None of these guys top-10 all time.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

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?

No. not top 20.

For all of his talent, I don't believe he has anything close to an all around game, and that -imo- is what makes him less than what he probably could be. Then again, Alex is Alex. If he just wants to score goals, good on him. Others can have the rest, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No. not top 20.

For all of his talent, I don't believe he has anything close to an all around game, and that -imo- is what makes him less than what he probably could be. Then again, Alex is Alex. If he just wants to score goals, good on him. Others can have the rest, which is exactly what happened.

Did Gretzky or Mario have close to all around games?

 

[jigglysquishy]

I don't think there's anything wrong with valuing different things in rankings as long as you're consistent.

C1958 heavily valued two way play and durability. He ranked Gretzky and Ovechkin low. He had Beliveau and Brodeur high. It was consistent.

If you put very high value on two way play I think you could argue Ovechkin out of the top 20. But you also won't have Gretzky at 1.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Did Gretzky or Mario have close to all around games?

Like I said, let Alex be Alex. But his selfishness comes with a price, and that's should affect his overall ranking. Then again, I'm reminded at how much more focused posters here on the ranking thing, so I'll walk back my original reply and say 'maybe' Alex is top 20. That said, I've often felt like I would choose Malkin over him, as Gino was just as good as Crosby on so many occasions and he seemed, to me, more involved than Ovechkin.

At this point I'd probably say that Alex is 'the' greatest goal scorer, and hats off to him for that. But here's one place where he paid for being a cherry picker and all of the hype that goes with that, something to do with team play. I wasn't the least bit surprised by these lines:

*NHL.com’s unofficial Alex Ovechkin Game Total: 21:15 Time on Ice: 0 points, 3 shots, -2 rating, 3 hits

 

[Vilica]

Like I said, let Alex be Alex. But his selfishness comes with a price, and that's should affect his overall ranking. Then again, I'm reminded at how much more focused posters here on the ranking thing, so I'll walk back my original reply and say 'maybe' Alex is top 20. That said, I've often felt like I would choose Malkin over him, as Gino was just as good as Crosby on so many occasions and he seemed, to me, more involved than Ovechkin.

At this point I'd probably say that Alex is 'the' greatest goal scorer, and hats off to him for that. But here's one place where he paid for being a cherry picker and all of the hype that goes with that, something to do with team play. I wasn't the least bit surprised by these lines:

*NHL.com’s unofficial Alex Ovechkin Game Total: 21:15 Time on Ice: 0 points, 3 shots, -2 rating, 3 hits

I think it is actively hilarious that in your attempt to promote Malkin over Ovechkin, your 1 game sample of a random Canada-Russia Olympics game in 2010, shows both of Ovechkin's goals against on ice to be the direct result of Malkin turnovers. I was going to do screenshots, but here's the full game for everybody to watch (I'm sure the Canadians here will enjoy watching [edit: apparently the Olympics don't like embeds, but click-through will work]).



The first goal against sequence is around the 27 minute mark (the shift starts at 26:30ish, goal 27:10ish). Ovechkin contributes both a controlled exit and a controlled entry, and there were 3 Russians in front of him after Malkin is stripped of the puck at the top of the zone.

The second goal against sequence is around the 53 minute mark (the shift starts at 52:30ish, goal just before 53:30). I'm not sure Ovechkin managed to touch the puck on this shift, and he could have cut off the pass to Weber, but Malkin turned the puck over twice and loses Toews at center to create the 2 on 1.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I think it is actively hilarious that in your attempt to promote Malkin over Ovechkin, your 1 game sample of a random Canada-Russia Olympics game in 2010, shows both of Ovechkin's goals against on ice to be the direct result of Malkin turnovers. I was going to do screenshots, but here's the full game for everybody to watch (I'm sure the Canadians here will enjoy watching [edit: apparently the Olympics don't like embeds, but click-through will work]).



The first goal against sequence is around the 27 minute mark (the shift starts at 26:30ish, goal 27:10ish). Ovechkin contributes both a controlled exit and a controlled entry, and there were 3 Russians in front of him after Malkin is stripped of the puck at the top of the zone.

The second goal against sequence is around the 53 minute mark (the shift starts at 52:30ish, goal just before 53:30). I'm not sure Ovechkin managed to touch the puck on this shift, and he could have cut off the pass to Weber, but Malkin turned the puck over twice and loses Toews at center to create the 2 on 1.

Malkin v Ovechkin:

Not a big fan of your micro approach which seems lawyerly to me. You can nitpick all you want, but Ovie had 21 minutes to do something in that game.

Body of work is what matters to me, as that accounts for trends within a game. I can't think of any time when Ovechkin really stood out, other than in Juniors and IIHFs which is not best on best. The different style of play between Malkin and Ovechkin speaks to their difference in Cups,, and perhaps the difference between playing for bestie wins vs. individual accolades.

 

[Vilica]

Malkin v Ovechkin:

Not a big fan of your micro approach which seems lawyerly to me. You can nitpick all you want, but Ovie had 21 minutes to do something in that game.

Body of work is what matters to me, as that accounts for trends within a game. I can't think of any time when Ovechkin really stood out, other than in Juniors and IIHFs which is not best on best. The different style of play between Malkin and Ovechkin speaks to their difference in Cups,, and perhaps the difference between playing for bestie wins vs. individual accolades.

What do you mean my micro lawyerly nitpicking approach? You're the one who literally cited an anonymous NHL article from 2010 summarizing exactly 20 minutes of the nearly 35000 minutes of hockey Ovechkin's played in the past 20 years. I just pointed out in that game the player you promoted, Malkin, contributed more to Canada's goals than he did to Russian goals.

 

[MadLuke]

Not a big fan of your micro approach

I was going to say, I mean, you are the one that used a single game sample has a comparison here.

And we are picking a game that could be the best team display in the first period of any team I ever saw live in my life team Canada that day (and after the first perdio it was trying to score 4 goals on that d-core prime Luongo affair) and Malkin did not do much and ended minus 2 in that same game, both got flatted by a compressor, so it does not help the Ovechkin Vs Malkin conversation much.

 

[rmartin65]

Did Gretzky or Mario have close to all around games?

I think their games were more well-rounded than Ovechkin's. While all three are best termed offense-only guys, Gretzky and Lemieux could hurt you shooting or passing for their entire careers. Ovechkin, outside of a very small period of time early in his career, was never that much of a threat as a passer, at least at an all time great level of discussion. Likewise, I think they were better puck carriers over the totality of their careers than Ovechkin was/is.

To Ovechkin's credit, he brings (or brought) a physicality that the other two didn't. However, I'm not convinced that the Ovechkin special of hitting guys 2 seconds after they got rid of the puck really helped his team all that much, but I may be in the minority there.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

What do you mean my micro lawyerly nitpicking approach? You're the one who literally cited an anonymous NHL article from 2010 summarizing exactly 20 minutes of the nearly 35000 minutes of hockey Ovechkin's played in the past 20 years. I just pointed out in that game the player you promoted, Malkin, contributed more to Canada's goals than he did to Russian goals.

I mean just what I said. "You can nitpick all you want, but Ovie had 21 minutes to do something in that game." You cite a couple of plays. Not me.

Not only was this a game trend, but I believe it reflects a wider trend in Ovie's best-on-best senior men's career which I confine to Stanley Cups, best on best Olympics and NHL worlds (excluding 2016).

Perhaps you can prove me wrong. I can face that. If you can, show me how Ovechkin lived up to the hype, hype, hype on these counts.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I think their games were more well-rounded than Ovechkin's. While all three are best termed offense-only guys, Gretzky and Lemieux could hurt you shooting or passing for their entire careers. Ovechkin, outside of a very small period of time early in his career, was never that much of a threat as a passer, at least at an all time great level of discussion. Likewise, I think they were better puck carriers over the totality of their careers than Ovechkin was/is.

To Ovechkin's credit, he brings (or brought) a physicality that the other two didn't. However, I'm not convinced that the Ovechkin special of hitting guys 2 seconds after they got rid of the puck really helped his team all that much, but I may be in the minority there.

Yes, Ovechkin is also an outstanding hitter. This is what I like about him most. He came over to the NHL and dominated in both scoring and hitting. This is not what North Americans had been conditioned to expect from Europeans post 1972.

You're dead-on with the assists thing. There's no legit way to break down Gretzky's and Lemieux's game without considering their assists and the effects that that had on their team's defence overall. And there is no comparison between Lemieux's and Gretzky's assist-rate compared to Ovechkin.

 

[Garl]

Top 25

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think their games were more well-rounded than Ovechkin's. While all three are best termed offense-only guys, Gretzky and Lemieux could hurt you shooting or passing for their entire careers. Ovechkin, outside of a very small period of time early in his career, was never that much of a threat as a passer, at least at an all time great level of discussion. Likewise, I think they were better puck carriers over the totality of their careers than Ovechkin was/is.

To Ovechkin's credit, he brings (or brought) a physicality that the other two didn't. However, I'm not convinced that the Ovechkin special of hitting guys 2 seconds after they got rid of the puck really helped his team all that much, but I may be in the minority there.

All-around game doesn't mean a player can do different things on offense. Half of the game is played when the other team has the puck. Early in their career's Gretzky & Mario literally played no defense at all. Not a lot better than that later. But they are both consensus top 4 players of all-time. Not being an all-around player shouldn't automatically keep Ovechkin out of the top 20.

 

[Felidae]

I see Ovechkin as the Kobe Bryant of hockey

He scored more than anyone else because he shot way, way more than anyone else, but his overall impact/value to his team over the majority of his career hasn't come close to a level that warrants consideration among the top 10 all-time


From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin had 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that (approx.) age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135

It just doesn't make sense that a top 10 player of all-time would go entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

I'm a bit surprised to see a post using +/- with little to no context not challenged on HOH of all places..

In that same timeframe you've used, Nicklas Backstrom is also a -6, barely better than Ovechkin. A player who is recognized as an above average two way player to those who watch him, alongside the occasional selke votes thrown his way.

So while you wont find anyone disagreeing with the notion that Ovechkin brought little besides goalscoring from ages 26 to now (comparatively speaking) im not sure we should be using the +/- stat straight up to prove that point.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Ovechkin is a hard one to rank in comparison to someone like Crosby (or even McDavid in a few years) where you can kinda just start putting them head to head with guys like Beliveau and make arguments for top 5-7, leapfrogging people like Roy, Jagr, etc.

With Ovechkin, I feel like you need to kind of start him around 15th and put him head-to-head with the players who fall in that area and see how far you can get.

Ovechkin vs Jagr
Ovechkin vs Lidstrom
Ovechkin vs Shore
Ovechkin vs Hasek
Ovechkin vs Morenz
Ovechkin vs Roy
Ovechkin vs Bourque
Ovechkin vs Richard
Ovechkin vs Hull

All of those would be debatable, and while it's conceivable for him to come out on top, I'd need to see well-reasoned arguments for him over each of them.

 

[Albatros]

I don't have him on my list.

 

[frisco]

I see Ovechkin as the Kobe Bryant of hockey

Kobe won five titles and made another two Finals.

I see Ovechkin as a rich man's Brett Hull. And that isn't an insult, by any means.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

If we're talking greatest as in best resume, Ovechkin almost certainly falls into the top 10 all-time

But I don't think his overall impact puts him among the top 10 best players of all-time

For example, if given a choice heading into a 7-game series, is anyone taking Ovechkin over Pronger?

Or what about someone like Datsyuk? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if over the majority of their careers, Datsyuk's well-rounded game had a greater positive impact on games than Ovechkin's

Outside of a few elite seasons early in his career, I don't see much of a difference between Ovechkin and Kovalchuk

Kobe won five titles and made another two Finals.

I see Ovechkin as a rich man's Brett Hull. And that isn't an insult, by any means.

My Best-Carey

Team accomplishments are irrelevant in a discussion about individual players

 

[Noldo]

Ovechkin is a hard one to rank in comparison to someone like Crosby (or even McDavid in a few years) where you can kinda just start putting them head to head with guys like Beliveau and make arguments for top 5-7, leapfrogging people like Roy, Jagr, etc.

With Ovechkin, I feel like you need to kind of start him around 15th and put him head-to-head with the players who fall in that area and see how far you can get.

Ovechkin vs Jagr
Ovechkin vs Lidstrom
Ovechkin vs Shore
Ovechkin vs Hasek
Ovechkin vs Morenz
Ovechkin vs Roy
Ovechkin vs Bourque
Ovechkin vs Richard
Ovechkin vs Hull

All of those would be debatable, and while it's conceivable for him to come out on top, I'd need to see well-reasoned arguments for him over each of them.

But couldn’t you arguably start with comparison/debate against Hull and Richard for the second best winger of all time and pivot back to lower positions only if it’s clear that Ovechkin has not reached the similar heights as them?

Comparison and arguments versus Hull are especially interesting as I feel that they are very similar in terms of style and role so the question boils down to the issue which of them did it better.

 

[daver]

Kobe won five titles and made another two Finals.

I see Ovechkin as a rich man's Brett Hull. And that isn't an insult, by any means.

My Best-Carey

He started out as Bobby Hull then morphed into Brett.

 

[Dallas Winston]

06-10 ovechkin was certainly a top 10 player of all time. Something happened to him mentally after he was suspended in 2010 and he was never the same. I can't even count how many games I've watched where he is literally gliding around with his back arched straight and it's the same thing on the power play. Top 25 but he doesn't belong In the top 10

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

But couldn’t you arguably start with comparison/debate against Hull and Richard for the second best winger of all time and pivot back to lower positions only if it’s clear that Ovechkin has not reached the similar heights as them?

Comparison and arguments versus Hull are especially interesting as I feel that they are very similar in terms of style and role so the question boils down to the issue which of them did it better.

Should probably include Jagr in that opening comparison.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If we're talking greatest as in best resume, Ovechkin almost certainly falls into the top 10 all-time
But I don't think his overall impact puts him among the top 10 best players of all-timeFor example, if given a choice heading into a 7-game series, is anyone taking Ovechkin over Pronger?Or what about someone like Datsyuk? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if over the majority of their careers, Datsyuk's well-rounded game had a greater positive impact on games than Ovechkin'sOutside of a few elite seasons early in his career, I don't see much of a difference between Ovechkin and Kovalchuk


Team accomplishments are irrelevant in a discussion about individual players

Wow!