Ovechkin vs Lindsay

[Canadiens1958]

Quaint

Irrelevant as TEAMS win cups not individuals

Patrick Roy, Bernie Parent, and a host of other goaltenders say hi.

Fact of the matter is the while a point may be made that teams win cups - 1960's Leafs,late 1960's / early 1970's Canadiens 1970's Flyers, 1986,1993 Canadiens come to mind immediately. The parallel point that individuals failing to perform or adapt will lose opportunities for a team to win a cup is more evident.

Goaltending failures - see Bruins, Rangers, Blackhawks,amongst many teams, Joe Thornton, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr - prime teams that significantly underachieved.

The parallels with AO and the aforementionned are much greater than with Ted Lindsay.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Patrick Roy, Bernie Parent, and a host of other goaltenders say hi.

Fact of the matter is the while a point may be made that teams win cups - 1960's Leafs,late 1960's / early 1970's Canadiens 1970's Flyers, 1986,1993 Canadiens come to mind immediately. The parallel point that individuals failing to perform or adapt will lose opportunities for a team to win a cup is more evident.

Goaltending failures - see Bruins, Rangers, Blackhawks,amongst many teams, Joe Thornton, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr - prime teams that significantly underachieved.

The parallels with AO and the aforementionned are much greater than with Ted Lindsay.

So, if you put Bernie Parent on the Minnesota North Stars, they would have won the cup in 74 and 75? If Roy was a Winnipeg Jet, he would have captured cups in 86 and 93?

TEAMS win cups. Goaltenders are probably the most important piece of the cup winning teams but, without a good team around them, they win nothing.

Ovechkin cannot be held responsible for the job his GM does.

What if Ovechkin was a Penguin and Crosby was a Capital? Do the Penguins still win the 2009 Stanley Cup? Of course they do. Not Ovechkin's fault the shortcomings of George McPhee.

 

[pappyline]

Larger Canadian population and inlux of American/European talent swelled the talent pool by 09-10. Just look at the difference between 1st and 20th. Howe has 2.17 times the point total of the 20th place scorers. Sedin only has 1.47 times the point total of 20th.

You may be correct about the talent pool but comparing the top scorer to #20 certainly doesn't prove it. If you go back through the years, it is all over the board. Look at 10-11 where Crosby is at 186%. Back in 67-68, it was only 152%.

In looking at the 2 years that I put up I would take the bottom guy in 56-57 (Delvecchio) over 09-10 (Perry).

 

[LAX attack*]

I disagree, Delvecchio was pretty good but Perry is truly the best player on his team, and he doesn't have a player like Howe to feed the puck to

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So, if you put Bernie Parent on the Minnesota North Stars, they would have won the cup in 74 and 75? If Roy was a Winnipeg Jet, he would have captured cups in 86 and 93?

TEAMS win cups. Goaltenders are probably the most important piece of the cup winning teams but, without a good team around them, they win nothing.

Ovechkin cannot be held responsible for the job his GM does.

What if Ovechkin was a Penguin and Crosby was a Capital? Do the Penguins still win the 2009 Stanley Cup? Of course they do. Not Ovechkin's fault the shortcomings of George McPhee.

What? Pretty big assumption there, and IMO there's no way the Penguins win that Cup without Crosby.

Teams do win Cups, most definitely, but C1958's point is very valid. So far Ovechkin has been unable to do what's necessary for his team to win outside of accumulating gaudy personal stats. Last spring's embarrassment at the hands of Montreal has raised legitimate questions about both Ovechkin and the Capitals as a whole. Are they willing to make the proper adjustments to their game and win in the playoffs? Or just continue to make fantasy-leaguers proud for a round or two? Time will tell.

 

[Noldo]

You are arguing a completely different thing with little relevance to my premise.

If a guy is truly worthy of competing for the top 10 in NHL scoring, he will not be sitting in the AHL or anyplace else - an NHL team will bring him in and give him quality ice time.

Adding a bunch of mediocre players has no effect on the scoring race.

Adding a bunch of mediocre players has no effect, but adding bunch of top level opportunities might well have, increasing possibility of a freak year (although interestingly, also decreasing the average level of players a top player will have change to play with).

I am first to admit that effect is far from linear. Doubling the number of teams does not double the number of prime contenders for Art Ross (although it might happen over time), but due to more players benefiting from favorable circumstances, there will definitely be more contenders even for Art Ross and considerably more for top-10 and top-20 finishes.

 

[Reds4Life]

Patrick Roy, Bernie Parent, and a host of other goaltenders say hi.

So they scored all the goals for their team?

Of course that a player can't win the Cup by himself.

If yeah, then Gretzky sucks because he couldn't win in LA; Lemieux and Jagr won by fluke; Bourque is not even top 100 player ever..even Draper has more Cups

Henri Richard is probably the best ever, right?

 

[Big Phil]

Ovechkin is a fine talent, one of the finest ever, but as a whole his career is not up there with Terrible Ted's yet. And why would it be? He's only in his 6th season so far. Lindsay had a whole career to play with. Prime vs. Prime is a different story and if you prefer Ovechkin I can live with that.

By the way, last time I checked the Capitals have had the best offensive d-man (Green), a superb center (Backstrom) and a winger although inconsistent (Semin) who flirts with 40 goals. The Capitals haven't won a Cup because they just simply haven't won a Cup. Blame the fact that they don't have a star goalie, but I certainly wouldn't blame goaltending for the loss last year to Montreal. Ovechkin is no different than any other generational superstar, he'll be criticized until he leads his team to victory.

 

[JackSlater]

You may be correct about the talent pool but comparing the top scorer to #20 certainly doesn't prove it. If you go back through the years, it is all over the board. Look at 10-11 where Crosby is at 186%. Back in 67-68, it was only 152%.

In looking at the 2 years that I put up I would take the bottom guy in 56-57 (Delvecchio) over 09-10 (Perry).

I compared the top scorer to #20 mainly because you brought that example up. I would say that high scoring placements are generally harder today, although obviously in some years in the 1950s with Howe, Richard and Beliveau around it may have been harder to be a top scorer than today. There will be fluctuations from year to year but with talent pool increases it clearly gets more difficult to have a high scoring finish on average.

For anyone who claims that an increase in the number of teams doesn't impact scoring finishes... come on. NHL scouting and coaches aren't perfect, and there are going to be plenty of cases where a guy wouldn't get a chance in the smaller league. The Martin St. Louis example basically destroys this assumption quite easily.

Teams do win Cups, most definitely, but C1958's point is very valid. So far Ovechkin has been unable to do what's necessary for his team to win outside of accumulating gaudy personal stats. Last spring's embarrassment at the hands of Montreal has raised legitimate questions about both Ovechkin and the Capitals as a whole. Are they willing to make the proper adjustments to their game and win in the playoffs? Or just continue to make fantasy-leaguers proud for a round or two? Time will tell.

Ovechkin has put up gaudy personal stats in the playoffs... which is what his job is. He has done what is necessary for his team to win, which is score lots of points. Unless you believe he has been causing loads of goals against, there is no reason to believe that Ovechkin has performed poorly at all. That the Capitals have not performed well enough in the playoffs is not evidence that Ovechkin himself has not, since as has already been said it is the team that wins or loses. It's pretty clear that unlike Lindsay, Ovechkin does not have the luxury of finishing 9th or even 4th in team scoring and still making the Stanley Cup finals.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yes, see post 84.

Your premise suggests that winning a scoring title is like winning a lottery.

Post 84 has one basic flaw in it's premise in that it assumes that the talent available for the NHL was exactly the same today as it was in the 06 league and this simply is not true.

the posts that follow 84 shed a ton of light on this but I'll add my usual 2 cents in that the US College system and Europe is providing the NHL with a much larger talent base to work fro in 2010 than in the 06 era, even after you take into account the increase in the size of teams.

the basic fact remains that it is harder for almost everyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux who besides being great players had special circumstances to play under as well to dominate year in and year out and this become even harder in the ever expanding NHL from the 06 era to where we are today.

Lindsay was a great player but when we compared to what AO did in his 1st 5 years it's not even close.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ovechkin has put up gaudy personal stats in the playoffs... which is what his job is. He has done what is necessary for his team to win, which is score lots of points. Unless you believe he has been causing loads of goals against, there is no reason to believe that Ovechkin has performed poorly at all. That the Capitals have not performed well enough in the playoffs is not evidence that Ovechkin himself has not, since as has already been said it is the team that wins or loses. It's pretty clear that unlike Lindsay, Ovechkin does not have the luxury of finishing 9th or even 4th in team scoring and still making the Stanley Cup finals.

I have nowhere claimed that Ovechkin has performed poorly. Merely, he hasn't yet made the adjustments to his game that will result in playoff wins. He's the leader and captain of the team, and it's his example that will be followed by the rest.

Simply grabbing the puck, putting your head down, and charging towards the net repeatedly has not yet proven to be an effective strategy, regardless of the points it may yield. Washington's entire offense functions in a similar, individualistic manner. In a seven game series, it becomes increasingly easy to defend against, as the great Hal Gill will attest to.

Some of this is undoubtedly on Bruce Boudreau, but the whole team needs to buy in to a winning formula, and it starts with the captain. The desire to excel is clearly there, as are the physical tools. Once discipline and the willingness to adapt are embraced, if they are embraced, Washington will soar to great heights. And if they do, Ovechkin will probably go down as one of the game's all-time greats. But until that happens, Ted Lindsay is safely in front.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

When expansion happened is irrelevant. In a smaller NHL, the best players in the world would be in the league. Expand the NHL and you get less talented players in the league.

With six teams you have the 18 best scorers playing first line minutes. With 30 teams, you have more guys playing first line minutes but the 18 best are still likely going to be your 18 top scorers but, certainly the top 7-10 will be the same if there are 6 teams, 30 teams or 100 teams.

Only if winning a scoring title was random chance would expansion have an effect on who wins the Art Ross. Adding less talented players changes nothing.

Your premise is that the talent pool hasn't expanded. Yes, the 18 best are the 18 best. But the 18 best from Canada when it had a population of 18 million is very different from the 18 best from Canada (30+ million), America, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia etc...

 

[Ogopogo*]

Your premise is that the talent pool hasn't expanded. Yes, the 18 best are the 18 best. But the 18 best from Canada when it had a population of 18 million is very different from the 18 best from Canada (30+ million), America, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia etc...

No, my premise is that the size of the talent pool is completely irrelevant.

With six teams in the NHL, the best 18 players are on the first lines. With 30 teams in the NHL, the best 90 players are on first lines.

If Canada had a population of 500 million and the talent pool was 15X what it is today, how does that change the fact that the best players would be in the NHL and ones that don't make it are not as good?

 

[arrbez]

No, my premise is that the size of the talent pool is completely irrelevant.

With six teams in the NHL, the best 18 players are on the first lines. With 30 teams in the NHL, the best 90 players are on first lines.

If Canada had a population of 500 million and the talent pool was 15X what it is today, how does that change the fact that the best players would be in the NHL and ones that don't make it are not as good?

But it does change the fact that the best players would likely be better (as there are more of them to choose from), and thus harder to compete against.

Example:

If Quebec had separated from Canada, would our national team have still been as good? No, we wouldn't. If Martin Brodeur was starting for Team Canada, it's because he was the best goalie we had. If he disappeared, whoever we rolled out there would still be the best goalie we had, but he wouldn't be as good as Brodeur. As a result, our national team would be weaker, despite still employing the best goalie out there.

Just like the NHL would be weaker if we cut the Canadian population in half, or Europeans stopped playing hockey. The best would still be the best, simply because someone will always be the best. But if you double the talent pool they're playing against, things obviously get tougher.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No, my premise is that the size of the talent pool is completely irrelevant.

With six teams in the NHL, the best 18 players are on the first lines. With 30 teams in the NHL, the best 90 players are on first lines.

If Canada had a population of 500 million and the talent pool was 15X what it is today, how does that change the fact that the best players would be in the NHL and ones that don't make it are not as good?

Again, though:

You're assuming that the top 18 players can always be evaluated correctly and that they can be swapped out for one another as soon as one is #19. Either that or you are assuming their situations and performance are quite static.

Both are not true in experience.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Strawman Position

So, if you put Bernie Parent on the Minnesota North Stars, they would have won the cup in 74 and 75? If Roy was a Winnipeg Jet, he would have captured cups in 86 and 93?

TEAMS win cups. Goaltenders are probably the most important piece of the cup winning teams but, without a good team around them, they win nothing.

Ovechkin cannot be held responsible for the job his GM does.

What if Ovechkin was a Penguin and Crosby was a Capital? Do the Penguins still win the 2009 Stanley Cup? Of course they do. Not Ovechkin's fault the shortcomings of George McPhee.

Wow - great strawman arguments that prove absolutely nothing and waste keystrokes.

Reality is that more often than not SCs are lost not won.Happens because a player or playres fail to adapt, compensate, etc. leaving the superior team vulnerable and beatable.

On topic - Lindsay v Ovechkin.

From his early days - Lindsay was able to quickly integrate a team and help them win. Evidenced by the Oshawa Memorial Cup win. At that time teams were allowed to import a player or two from the eliminated teams in their league. Oshawa brought in Lindsay from St. Mike and he quickly integrated and was a key element in the MC victory.

Likewise throughout his NHL career. His style and leadership provided extra time and space for his teammates and his defensive play and physicality helped non-physical Wings - Red Kelly in particaular,play effectively without being a target for the dump and chase tactics.

Conversely Alexander Ovechkin has to be the centerpiece at all times. True he raises the point totals of certain teammates but he leaves them vulnerable - evidenced by the pressure that may be applied to Mike Green and other Capital d-men since Ovechkin does not help neutralizing the forecheck or other pressure tactics that the opposition may use. Very evident in the Olympics as well.

Effectively Ted Lindsay was a complete player and teammate while Ovechkin manages nice point totals but little else that may be viewed as a worthwhile contribution.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1956-57

I disagree, Delvecchio was pretty good but Perry is truly the best player on his team, and he doesn't have a player like Howe to feed the puck to

Howe/Lindsay/Ullman line set the record at the time for the most points by a line.

So revisit your Howe / Delvecchio point.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

No, my premise is that the size of the talent pool is completely irrelevant.

With six teams in the NHL, the best 18 players are on the first lines. With 30 teams in the NHL, the best 90 players are on first lines.

If Canada had a population of 500 million and the talent pool was 15X what it is today, how does that change the fact that the best players would be in the NHL and ones that don't make it are not as good?

It does change the relative value of placement though. A close 1st place finish in a deeper talent pool is different from a close 1st place finish in a shallower talent pool. And all positions after first are relatively different.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Wow - great strawman arguments that prove absolutely nothing and waste keystrokes.

Reality is that more often than not SCs are lost not won.Happens because a player or playres fail to adapt, compensate, etc. leaving the superior team vulnerable and beatable.

On topic - Lindsay v Ovechkin.

From his early days - Lindsay was able to quickly integrate a team and help them win. Evidenced by the Oshawa Memorial Cup win. At that time teams were allowed to import a player or two from the eliminated teams in their league. Oshawa brought in Lindsay from St. Mike and he quickly integrated and was a key element in the MC victory.

Likewise throughout his NHL career. His style and leadership provided extra time and space for his teammates and his defensive play and physicality helped non-physical Wings - Red Kelly in particaular,play effectively without being a target for the dump and chase tactics.

Conversely Alexander Ovechkin has to be the centerpiece at all times. True he raises the point totals of certain teammates but he leaves them vulnerable - evidenced by the pressure that may be applied to Mike Green and other Capital d-men since Ovechkin does not help neutralizing the forecheck or other pressure tactics that the opposition may use. Very evident in the Olympics as well.

Effectively Ted Lindsay was a complete player and teammate while Ovechkin manages nice point totals but little else that may be viewed as a worthwhile contribution.

Whenever someone uses the word "strawman" nothing of real substance typically follows. Usually an emotional rant and somehow the word strawman is supposed to strengthen the argument.

 

[loxcane]

Only thing left for Ovechkin is longevity. I doubt he beats Hull, but you never know.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I have nowhere claimed that Ovechkin has performed poorly. Merely, he hasn't yet made the adjustments to his game that will result in playoff wins. He's the leader and captain of the team, and it's his example that will be followed by the rest.

Simply grabbing the puck, putting your head down, and charging towards the net repeatedly has not yet proven to be an effective strategy, regardless of the points it may yield. Washington's entire offense functions in a similar, individualistic manner. In a seven game series, it becomes increasingly easy to defend against, as the great Hal Gill will attest to.

Some of this is undoubtedly on Bruce Boudreau, but the whole team needs to buy in to a winning formula, and it starts with the captain. The desire to excel is clearly there, as are the physical tools. Once discipline and the willingness to adapt are embraced, if they are embraced, Washington will soar to great heights. And if they do, Ovechkin will probably go down as one of the game's all-time greats. But until that happens, Ted Lindsay is safely in front.

You are comparing his entire career to what AO has done so far when saying this right?

A better and more fair comparison at this point would be to compare their 1st 5 years in the league and AO is safely in front when one makes the relevant comp.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Wow - great strawman arguments that prove absolutely nothing and waste keystrokes.

Reality is that more often than not SCs are lost not won.Happens because a player or playres fail to adapt, compensate, etc. leaving the superior team vulnerable and beatable.

On topic - Lindsay v Ovechkin.

From his early days - Lindsay was able to quickly integrate a team and help them win. Evidenced by the Oshawa Memorial Cup win. At that time teams were allowed to import a player or two from the eliminated teams in their league. Oshawa brought in Lindsay from St. Mike and he quickly integrated and was a key element in the MC victory.

Likewise throughout his NHL career. His style and leadership provided extra time and space for his teammates and his defensive play and physicality helped non-physical Wings - Red Kelly in particaular,play effectively without being a target for the dump and chase tactics.

Conversely Alexander Ovechkin has to be the centerpiece at all times. True he raises the point totals of certain teammates but he leaves them vulnerable - evidenced by the pressure that may be applied to Mike Green and other Capital d-men since Ovechkin does not help neutralizing the forecheck or other pressure tactics that the opposition may use. Very evident in the Olympics as well.

Effectively Ted Lindsay was a complete player and teammate while Ovechkin manages nice point totals but little else that may be viewed as a worthwhile contribution.

Being the top overall goal scorer and point getter overall in any players 1st 5 years is not simply nice point totals.

Lindsay did play one one Cup winner in his 1st 5 years (well okay it was his 6th year) and in 4 overall but teams win Cups (and Detroit had some really excellent teams in a 6 team league).

Sure Lindasy deserves some credit for being a major part of 4 cup teams but lets not overstate his Cup success to AO who has hardly been a flop in his 3 playoff years with a 28-20-20-40 line.

 

[Big Phil]

Your premise is that the talent pool hasn't expanded. Yes, the 18 best are the 18 best. But the 18 best from Canada when it had a population of 18 million is very different from the 18 best from Canada (30+ million), America, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia etc...

That being said, the larger NHL has just led to more 3rd and 4th liners that would NEVER be in the running for major awards anyway right?

I don't think the top level players has changed much, if at all, in the last 50-60 years. For example, in 1955 you had Geoffrion win the scoring title. The players that would have been in the running for it were Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Lindsay, maybe Olmstead and Dutch Reibel.

Is that any different from 2011? Crosby is leading the NHL in points right now, but is there any more than Stamkos, Ovechkin, Sedin, Sedin, Malkin and maybe longshots like Thornton and St. Louis that can threaten for the Art Ross?

If we agree that competition is tough in 2011 why can't we agree that players being competitve didn't just invent itself in the 2000s. We never give the original 6 it's credit around here. You were in a 6 team league where the coach had the power to bench you. You couldn't complain to your agent back then because you didn't have one and there were ample players in the minors just waiting to take your spot. Sound familiar? The advantage today is that players CAN go to their agent and demand a trade. Anybody else want to assume that the original 6 was just pond hockey?

 

[Hardyvan123]

That being said, the larger NHL has just led to more 3rd and 4th liners that would NEVER be in the running for major awards anyway right?

I don't think the top level players has changed much, if at all, in the last 50-60 years. For example, in 1955 you had Geoffrion win the scoring title. The players that would have been in the running for it were Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Lindsay, maybe Olmstead and Dutch Reibel.

Is that any different from 2011? Crosby is leading the NHL in points right now, but is there any more than Stamkos, Ovechkin, Sedin, Sedin, Malkin and maybe longshots like Thornton and St. Louis that can threaten for the Art Ross?

If we agree that competition is tough in 2011 why can't we agree that players being competitve didn't just invent itself in the 2000s. We never give the original 6 it's credit around here. You were in a 6 team league where the coach had the power to bench you. You couldn't complain to your agent back then because you didn't have one and there were ample players in the minors just waiting to take your spot. Sound familiar? The advantage today is that players CAN go to their agent and demand a trade. Anybody else want to assume that the original 6 was just pond hockey?

The 06 era gets tons of credit in this section of the boards (maybe too much IMO with talk of dynasties, Cup counting and top 5 finishes).

After WW2 there was a definite increase in the level of play in the NHL with the death of community teams across Canada but lets keep some perspective here.

Some people try to equate the 06 hockey talent level to the current 30 team NHL (either by inference or comments on the quality of talent between the 2 eras) though as if it was compacted to only 6 teams (or some level very close to it) which is complete rubbish.

The number and quality of feeder programs into the NHL is much great than the increase in the number of teams over time.

The 06 era was better than the volatile late 20's and 30's NHL and arguably better than the 67-mid 70ish NHL but it just doesn't stack up to the current NHL in terms of quality and skill of the players, coaches and systems in place period.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That being said, the larger NHL has just led to more 3rd and 4th liners that would NEVER be in the running for major awards anyway right?

I don't think the top level players has changed much, if at all, in the last 50-60 years. For example, in 1955 you had Geoffrion win the scoring title. The players that would have been in the running for it were Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Lindsay, maybe Olmstead and Dutch Reibel.

Is that any different from 2011? Crosby is leading the NHL in points right now, but is there any more than Stamkos, Ovechkin, Sedin, Sedin, Malkin and maybe longshots like Thornton and St. Louis that can threaten for the Art Ross?

If we agree that competition is tough in 2011 why can't we agree that players being competitve didn't just invent itself in the 2000s. We never give the original 6 it's credit around here. You were in a 6 team league where the coach had the power to bench you. You couldn't complain to your agent back then because you didn't have one and there were ample players in the minors just waiting to take your spot. Sound familiar? The advantage today is that players CAN go to their agent and demand a trade. Anybody else want to assume that the original 6 was just pond hockey?

The fact that your Reibel and Olmstead equivalents are former scoring champs should tell you all you need to know...