Do You Consider Ovechkin Generational?

[JianYang]

Absolutely. We may never see an ovechkin type again in our lifetimes.

 

[Zuluss]

Just pointing out that counting a Richard as a "major" trophy and ignoring Hart nominations creates a misleading picture.

Crosby has a better a Hart record than OV despite missing three opportunities to win or garner a nomination.

I would not call Crosby's Hart record better. He has more nominations, OV has more wins and a better peak (back-to-back wins followed by a narrow miss).

Ovechkin also had at least two seasons derailed by injuries (10/11 and 15/16), which could have well improved his Hart record. The fact that he played through them does not mean he was healthy. Not to mention the 09/10 Hart he lost because of a little injury here, a short suspension there.

But yes, a Richard winner does not always win the Hart and sometimes is not even nominated. Just like the Art Ross winner does not always win (Jagr being a prime example, Iginla being probably the most controversial example) or sometimes is not even nominated (MSL 12/13, Benn 14/15).

Or take Vezinas: Hasek, Roy, Brodeur did not win a Hart for each of their Vezinas, and there were years when each one of them won Vezina, but was not nominated for Hart. Should we somehow sweep their Vezinas under the rug because of that? Of course not. Many people will tell you Hasek should rank above Crosby all-time, and a one-sentence answer for why would be six Vezinas.

 

[Coffey]

Easily.

 

[Linda Bacon]

hell yes

 

[Zuluss]

For those now turning this into Crosby Is Not Generational; similar to my last example of Ovechkin being in the elite goal scoring class of Richard, Hull, Esposito and Gretzky based on many years of leading the league in goals, here are the leaders for seasons leading the league in points-per-game.

Gretzky 11
Lemieux 7
Howe 7
Esposito 5
Crosby 5

So Esposito is generational too? (And keep in mind that he actually played the full seasons listed above and got 5 Art Rosses out of his ppg numbers, while Crosby got only 2, and 2 of Crosby's seasons you list above add up to 77 games combined).

Also, "the elite goal-scoring class" Ovechkin belongs to includes Howe and not Esposito.

 

[Evergreen]

I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. When we look back on this era of the sport, we will be looking at Crosby and Ovechkin as the players who defined the generation. That is what "generational" means to me.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Before Crosby and this generational frenzy, only Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux were considered generational. So 100 years of hockey and only three guys. Nowdays people argue for Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, Matthews, Laine and the list keeps on growing. So the last 10-15 years seem to have a particularly great gene pool...

If Bobby Hull isn't considered generational then neither is Ovechkin. As simple as that. And Bobby never was considered generational until the recent eroded version of the term came to use.

That's an odd standard, especially considering how Ovechkin has passed Hull and is, at least IMO, a better player than Hull was.

 

[Andrei79]

I consider any player who scores over 100 points more than once or before 20 generational.

That said, the treshold becomes 40 goals if he's 18, but only if he's a center playing for the Maple Leafs.

For defensemen, he needs to score 70 points twice and be Swedish.

For goaltenders, it's not really possible unless he plays for the Canadiens.

For this generation only, I'm at 6 generational players, maybe 7, but I'm sure more could develop the next few years and maybe we could catch up to the dozens of generational players we saw in the 90s.

 

[1specter]

Neither Crosby nor Ovechkin are generational in my eyes. While Cros has come out ahead in the end run, he hasn't been that much better than OV and was for a period behind him.

For me, generational would describe a player far above his peers. Gretzky, Orr, etc.

Ovechkin is the best goal scorer of this generation and it's not even close. Era adjusted he's arguably the best goal scorer of all time. How the hell is that not far above his peers?

The people who are seriously saying nope are beyond delusional. You are watching the potential greatest goal scorer ever.

 

[enthusiast]

Ovechkin is the best goal scorer of this generation and it's not even close. Era adjusted he's arguably the best goal scorer of all time. How the hell is that not far above his peers?

The people who are seriously saying nope are beyond delusional. You are watching the potential greatest goal scorer ever.

By this logic you'd have the best passer/shooter/hitter/etc as "generational." I think the term ought to apply to the complete player. I think your definition is valid, I just don't agree with it.

 

[olli]

Of course.

 

[1specter]

By this logic you'd have the best passer/shooter/hitter/etc as "generational." I think the term ought to apply to the complete player. I think your definition is valid, I just don't agree with it.

Scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in hockey. Scoring goals is literally how you win a game as the game is counted by number of goals. Both Crosby and OV are generational IMO. Hockey has also greatly changed with rules and play style, one player can't do it all anymore (though even back in the day Gretz had a stacked team). Agree to disagree though I guess.

 

[GlitchMarner]

By this logic you'd have the best passer/shooter/hitter/etc as "generational." I think the term ought to apply to the complete player. I think your definition is valid, I just don't agree with it.

Not hitter. Hitting isn't that important.

 

[jetsfan91]

Not even the biggest Ovie fan but yes absolutely.

 

[Fire Benning]

Generational goal scorer absolutely.

 

[BlueBaron]

I think he has damn good case. Dominant goal scorer of his era. Probably ends up near the top all time in goals. He currently sits 20th but is 100 goals out of the top ten, doable in this and two more seasons. We'll see at what rate he declines. I'd say he qualifies as generational considering the only guy ahead of him within a decade of his age is Iginla.

Poor Jagr was just 35 shy of Gordie.

 

[Future GOAT]

Yep.

 

[AD1066]

If I'm telling my future kids/grandkids about the post-lockout era, that story begins with Crosby and Ovechkin.

 

[psycat]

Moreso than Crosby atleast, although I would argue neither qualifies. Ovechkin at the minimum is a generational goal scorer. Crosby idk, generational compiler maybe? (in a positive way, compiling team success by being part of great teams, compiling individual trophys+stats through insane consistency)

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Top 5 goal scorer of all time, 3 harts, 3 lindsays, 7x 1st AST, etc.. Pretty easy yes.

For people saying there can't be 2 generational players at the same time, that would mean Lemieux wasn't generational either because of Gretzky.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

As a goal scorer yes.

As a complete player...nope.

 

[Zuluss]

I really do not get those "he is just a generational goal-scorer" comments.
What next? "Jagr, a generational point-producer"? "Lidstrom, a generational Norris-winner"?

Ovechkin has three Harts and three Lindsays. He won an Art Ross and was mere 3 points behind the winner two more times (and within 6 points of the winner another two times). He has more assists than any winger drafted in the three years before or three years after him, and it may even remain this way when he hangs them up. It is not like goals are the only thing going on for Ovechkin.

Yes, his goals are so far into the stratosphere that everything else on his resume pales in comparison. But everything else on anyone else's resume except for Big 4 also pales in comparison to Ovechkin's goals. He is top5 (and probably now top3) goal-scorer all-time for a reason.

 

[Stan Galiev]

Yes. Crosby and Ovechkin are both the players that defined post lockout hockey. Definitely generational players. I don’t really understand why people say Ovi is a generational goal-scorer but not as a complete player. Ovi is literally the best at the hardest thing to do in hockey. And his defense may not be elite but it is more then adequate.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Are people including defense in "all-around" play or just the offensive aspects of hockey?

Let's not forget Lemieux was hardly known for his defense. After his Oilers' tenure, I'm not sure Wayne was any better defensively than Ovie.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I really do not get those "he is just a generational goal-scorer" comments.
What next? "Jagr, a generational point-producer"? "Lidstrom, a generational Norris-winner"?

Ovechkin has three Harts and three Lindsays. He won an Art Ross and was mere 3 points behind the winner two more times (and within 6 points of the winner another two times). He has more assists than any winger drafted in the three years before or three years after him, and it may even remain this way when he hangs them up. It is not like goals are the only thing going on for Ovechkin.

Yes, his goals are so far into the stratosphere that everything else on his resume pales in comparison. But everything else on anyone else's resume except for Big 4 also pales in comparison to Ovechkin's goals. He is top5 (and probably now top3) goal-scorer all-time for a reason.

It's also pretty funny how people are so quick to give Crosby credit for ~30 game seasons in 10/11 and 11/12 "he would've 100% won the ross and hart, look at his PPG!". But when Ovechkin led the league in PPG over 70+ games in 08/09 and 09/10, people act like it never happened.