Bure - Fedorov - Mogilny vs Ovechkin - Malkin - Datsyuk (read OP)

[moropanov]

Ovechkin is a scaled up version of Bure with a desire to play a physical game, and doesn't break down from injury or slow down because of age.

Watch Bure's skating and stickhandling etc finesse skill level its totally different level compared to Ovechkin.. Bure played dead puck era nowadays his strengths would be best suited to modern game =skill and speed he would score about -70 goals 110-120 points per season if he played now when at his prime condition for many seasons. Ovechkin doesnt have much raw skill expect for shooting his stickhandling passing and skating are not high leveled he is basically just big bull with elite shooting with average puck skills /playmaking skills. He is explosive and strong but skating and puckhandling just arent smooth/cerebral at all and his playstyle is very simple. About Ovechkins physical game i dont think its good think for team to run around hitting like headless chicken its most likely makes winning harder for team those kind of Ovechkin hits are mostly just show for fans hitting players as a third man after puck is long gone those rarely make turnovers happen puck is already at other zone when Ovechkin hits 90% of time.

 

[bobholly39]

Watch Bure's skating and stickhandling etc finesse skill level its totally different level compared to Ovechkin.. Bure played dead puck era nowadays his strengths would be best suited to modern game =skill and speed he would score about -70 goals 110-120 points per season if he played now when at his prime condition for many seasons. Ovechkin doesnt have much raw skill expect for shooting his stickhandling passing and skating are not high leveled he is basically just big bull with elite shooting with average puck skills /playmaking skills. He is explosive and strong but skating and puckhandling just arent smooth/cerebral at all and his playstyle is very simple. About Ovechkins physical game i dont think its good think for team to run around hitting like headless chicken its most likely makes winning harder for team those kind of Ovechkin hits are mostly just show for fans hitting players as a third man after puck is long gone those rarely make turnovers happen puck is already at other zone when Ovechkin hits 90% of time.

I think very very highly or Bure's skills and abilities. And I agree that under better circumstances/health, he could have done pretty great. Few things:

1. 70 goals/110-120 points is ridiculous. No need to get stupid. Maybe in an absolute perfect storm/peak season, but no way in hell he'd average that
2. Even in the most optimal of scenarios for Bure - the most he would ever do is approach what Ovechkin has actually done. Have you met Ovechkin? His career is incredible. No way in hell Bure could surpass that.
3. Let's humor you and pretend Bure ~ Ovechkin, and that he could match him career for career. You're still left with Malkin >> Fedorov, and Datsyuk > Mogilny

This remains a very easy win for the modern day trio for me

 

[mrmovies779]

Ovi's group would never lose the puck.This is an easy choice

 

[JackSlater]

I think that a lot of posters are ignoring the caveat that it's a fantasy world where there are no injuries and everyone lives up to their full potential. I'd only give Ovechkin a slight edge over Bure in this situation and I'd easily take Fedorov over Datsyuk if he has to play to his full potential. Mogilny was regarded by many as the most talented among himself, Bure, and Fedorov and was elite in pretty much every hockey skill when he wanted to be. I don't think that there is a big gap between Malkin and Mogilny here. Since it's pretty even to me I opted for the 90s trio because I like Fedorov and Bure more than I do the other four players.

 

[Dueling Banjos]

Malkin getting severely overrated here.

TOP 101 player?

 

[bobholly39]

I think that a lot of posters are ignoring the caveat that it's a fantasy world where there are no injuries and everyone lives up to their full potential. I'd only give Ovechkin a slight edge over Bure in this situation and I'd easily take Fedorov over Datsyuk if he has to play to his full potential. Mogilny was regarded by many as the most talented among himself, Bure, and Fedorov and was elite in pretty much every hockey skill when he wanted to be. I don't think that there is a big gap between Malkin and Mogilny here. Since it's pretty even to me I opted for the 90s trio because I like Fedorov and Bure more than I do the other four players.

Talent is not synonymous with potential. Potential also takes into account ability to perform consistently year to year. Fedorov and Mogilny lacked that big time.

I mean sure if you're assuming Fedorov in 1994 is his full potential and that he will be doing that each year he looks really good, but the reality is he didnt.

Bure is the only one who can raise significantly under OP's premise - and even then under the most optimistic of projections he still wouldnt pass Ovi all time.

 

[JackSlater]

Talent is not synonymous with potential. Potential also takes into account ability to perform consistently year to year. Fedorov and Mogilny lacked that big time.

I mean sure if you're assuming Fedorov in 1994 is his full potential and that he will be doing that each year he looks really good, but the reality is he didnt.

Bure is the only one who can raise significantly under OP's premise - and even then under the most optimistic of projections he still wouldnt pass Ovi all time.

So basically you've chosen to ignore what the op says. You can if you want I guess, but it's stupid to then complain about when someone actually does take it into account. Potential is what you could have done based on your ability, not what you actually did. The reality that Fedorov didn't reproduce his 1994 season every year is irrelevant in this poll. Each of the 90s players didn't fulfill their potential, so and each of them gets a boost in this poll based on the talent that they demonstrated. Malkin is probably the only 2010s player who gets a boost in this poll, maybe Ovechkin to a slight degree.

 

[bobholly39]

So basically you've chosen to ignore what the op says. You can if you want I guess, but it's stupid to then complain about when someone actually does take it into account. Potential is what you could have done based on your ability, not what you actually did. The reality that Fedorov didn't reproduce his 1994 season every year is irrelevant in this poll. Each of the 90s players didn't fulfill their potential, so and each of them gets a boost in this poll based on the talent that they demonstrated. Malkin is probably the only 2010s player who gets a boost in this poll, maybe Ovechkin to a slight degree.

I'm not ignoring OP, we're just interpreting it differently.

So "full potential" for Fedorov means 1994 over and over again - but Ovechkin only gets 2008 once? Why couldn't Ovechkin also get 2008 over and over again. And Malkin get 2012 season/2009 playoffs over and over again.

If all we're looking at is their peak play and extrapolating that over full career - I still prefer the modern day trio, though it's closer.

Also - I think it absolutely is valid to try and gauge how likely each player would be to be consistent year to year even under full health/full potential scenario. Malkin/Ovechkin have been very consistent. Fedorov has not. Maybe you give Fedorov a bit more consistency - but to expect he would be at his peak every year isn't him playing to his full potential, it's scify and pretending he's something that he never would have been. But - if you do want to go down that road - do the same for Ovechkin and Malkin too.

 

[kevsh]

I'd buy a ticket to see either line play and probably still be talking about the game 20 years later, but the 10s have this.

As exciting as the 90s would be, think of Malkin 10+ years as your #1 center (rather than playing behind Crosby), with the only guy to even be talked about as having a shot at Gretzky's goal record on his wing. Or, if those two don't work out lets see how Datsyuk and Ovi work together. If a coach had these three and wasn't in the finals 2 out every 3 years ...

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not ignoring OP, we're just interpreting it differently.

So "full potential" for Fedorov means 1994 over and over again - but Ovechkin only gets 2008 once? Why couldn't Ovechkin also get 2008 over and over again. And Malkin get 2012 season/2009 playoffs over and over again.

If all we're looking at is their peak play and extrapolating that over full career - I still prefer the modern day trio, though it's closer.

Also - I think it absolutely is valid to try and gauge how likely each player would be to be consistent year to year even under full health/full potential scenario. Malkin/Ovechkin have been very consistent. Fedorov has not. Maybe you give Fedorov a bit more consistency - but to expect he would be at his peak every year isn't him playing to his full potential, it's scify and pretending he's something that he never would have been. But - if you do want to go down that road - do the same for Ovechkin and Malkin too.

I don't know what strawman you're attempting to take down as I didn't claim that Fedorov repeats his best year every year and I already said that Malkin gets a boost and Ovechkin does somewhat as well. When everyone reaches their full potential and there aren't going to be injuries there isn't a whole lot to compare players on outside of talent. I suppose someone could argue about era effects but I don't think that it makes a big difference here, though playing today would probably be better for Mogilny and especially Bure than playing in the 1990s was. I certainly don't quibble with anyone picking the 2010s group, it's basically a tie to me.

 

[Morbo]

I think you have to take the more modern guys. There is more what if factor to the 90s trio with injuries to Bure and Mogilny. Datsyuk and Fedorov balance off fairly well, but I think you have to take OV and Geno over the other two who you have to extrapolate a bit more with.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't know what strawman you're attempting to take down as I didn't claim that Fedorov repeats his best year every year and I already said that Malkin gets a boost and Ovechkin does somewhat as well. When everyone reaches their full potential and there aren't going to be injuries there isn't a whole lot to compare players on outside of talent. I suppose someone could argue about era effects but I don't think that it makes a big difference here, though playing today would probably be better for Mogilny and especially Bure than playing in the 1990s was. I certainly don't quibble with anyone picking the 2010s group, it's basically a tie to me.

I think ones ability to be consistent year to year isnt about talent or injuries - but simply what type of player that player is.

Fedorov wasnt consistent. Id say he came very close to his full potential. Adding a whole bunch of extra consistency completely changes who he was. Mogilny too

Thats where we disagree.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Hmm Bure was better than Ovechkin Fedorov and Malkin about even, but Datsyuk was surely better than Mogilny so this is quite close.

Bure was not better than Ovechkin, sorry.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Talent is not synonymous with potential. Potential also takes into account ability to perform consistently year to year. Fedorov and Mogilny lacked that big time.

I mean sure if you're assuming Fedorov in 1994 is his full potential and that he will be doing that each year he looks really good, but the reality is he didnt.

Bure is the only one who can raise significantly under OP's premise - and even then under the most optimistic of projections he still wouldnt pass Ovi all time.

I think Fedorov gets a bump under OP’s premise as well. People forget his phenomenal peak was cut short by sitting out a season at age 27 due to a contract dispute, and never regaining his previous form after that.

 

[Stephen]

I think that a lot of posters are ignoring the caveat that it's a fantasy world where there are no injuries and everyone lives up to their full potential. I'd only give Ovechkin a slight edge over Bure in this situation and I'd easily take Fedorov over Datsyuk if he has to play to his full potential. Mogilny was regarded by many as the most talented among himself, Bure, and Fedorov and was elite in pretty much every hockey skill when he wanted to be. I don't think that there is a big gap between Malkin and Mogilny here. Since it's pretty even to me I opted for the 90s trio because I like Fedorov and Bure more than I do the other four players.

But the premise is predicated on the notion that Ovechkin is playing in the fantasy world where there are no injuries and the era he's playing in has allowed him to live up to his full potential. But his outstanding health and longevity is actually a personal attribute of his and his game helped shape the era we are now in. Another thing to consider is Ovechkin also lost some time to the two lockout seasons (all of 2004-05 and 40% of 2012-13) and the Covid pandemic (dozen or so games), so you're also looking at a guy who should be within striking distance of 800 goals and closing in on 1400 points...

For context Bure scored 437 goals nad 779 points. So you're almost expecting fantasy to bridge 40% of that career differences. Even for Bure, that's optimistic.

 

[Leafidelity]

Fedorov is getting severely underrated here

 

[KIRK]

But the premise is predicated on the notion that Ovechkin is playing in the fantasy world where there are no injuries and the era he's playing in has allowed him to live up to his full potential. But his outstanding health and longevity is actually a personal attribute of his and his game helped shape the era we are now in. Another thing to consider is Ovechkin also lost some time to the two lockout seasons (all of 2004-05 and 40% of 2012-13) and the Covid pandemic (dozen or so games), so you're also looking at a guy who should be within striking distance of 800 goals and closing in on 1400 points...

For context Bure scored 437 goals and 779 points. So you're almost expecting fantasy to bridge 40% of that career differences. Even for Bure, that's optimistic.

I'm assuming the closing in on 800 goals (771) 1400 points (1402) reference means you're counting playoffs, in which case Ovechkin has played a total of 1280 games. That's 1.095 PPG and .602 GPG.

By contrast, Bure had those 437 goals and 779 points in 766 games. That's 1.017 PPG and .57 GPG, with half of his career coming during the dead puck era.

I think OV is the better player and health is one of the deciding factors, but I get why some would argue that it's closer than you might.

 

[Stephen]

I'm assuming the closing in on 800 goals (771) 1400 points (1402) reference means you're counting playoffs, in which case Ovechkin has played a total of 1280 games. That's 1.095 PPG and .602 GPG.

By contrast, Bure had those 437 goals and 779 points in 766 games. That's 1.017 PPG and .57 GPG, with half of his career coming during the dead puck era.

I think OV is the better player and health is one of the deciding factors, but I get why some would argue that it's closer than you might.

No, I'm counting the 82 games lost to the 2004-05 lockout, the 34 games lost to the 2012-13 lockout and the 14 games lost to Covid, which totals about 130 games.

130 games at a rate of 1.10 PPG = 143 additional points
130 games at a rate of 0.61 GPG - 79 additional goals.

So Ovechkin would be looking at a career regular season stats line of 1282 GP 785 636 A 1421 PTS in a fantasy world. That already puts him 3rd in career goals and 17th in points with a few seasons left in the tank.

 

[KIRK]

No, I'm counting the 82 games lost to the 2004-05 lockout, the 34 games lost to the 2012-13 lockout and the 14 games lost to Covid, which totals about 130 games.

130 games at a rate of 1.10 PPG = 143 additional points
130 games at a rate of 0.61 GPG - 79 additional goals.

So Ovechkin would be looking at a career regular season stats line of 1282 GP 785 636 A 1421 PTS in a fantasy world. That already puts him 3rd in career goals and 17th in points with a few seasons left in the tank.

Ah, I follow. Frankly, I don't believe in projecting either way. Injuries. Lockouts. Missed seasons. Any of it. You judge based on what happened.

BUT, this thread asks you to teleport back to when each one of them was 18. Doing that, I see two 'groups' in terms of how I'd look at them as 18 year olds, which implies you're to discount what they did thereafter. OV, Malkin, and Federov are in one group, and Datsyuk, Bure, and Mogilny are in the other. OV was the cream of the group (Malkin was good enough that a few scouts said they'd have been tempted to take him over OV . . . nobody would have, obviously, but it's a comment on Malkin's stock), and it's hard to fathom how highly touted a 18 year old Sergei Federov would've been touted in the 2004 draft). The other group . . . Bure is the best of that lot.

Anyway, IF I'm building with one group with them as 18 year olds, I'm going OV, Malkin, Datsyuk. The best scoring winger and two centers (one an elite prospect) over one elite C prospect and two winger prospects ranking below OV.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I'm assuming the closing in on 800 goals (771) 1400 points (1402) reference means you're counting playoffs, in which case Ovechkin has played a total of 1280 games. That's 1.095 PPG and .602 GPG.

By contrast, Bure had those 437 goals and 779 points in 766 games. That's 1.017 PPG and .57 GPG, with half of his career coming during the dead puck era.

I think OV is the better player and health is one of the deciding factors, but I get why some would argue that it's closer than you might.

You do realize that Bure played in 4 seasons (92-94 & 96) in which league GPG was higher than any season OV played in right? Using DPE is such a weak excuse considering OV has spent his entire career in a low scoring era too. Also, there is no guarantee that Bure maintains that pace for an extra 500+ games. He was never as good as OV as a goal scorer and especially not as an overall offensive player. Anyone who tries to argue for Bure is just delusional.

 

[KIRK]

You do realize that Bure played in 4 seasons (92-94 & 96) in which league GPG was higher than any season OV played in right? Using DPE is such a weak excuse considering OV has spent his entire career in a low scoring era too. Also, there is no guarantee that Bure maintains that pace for an extra 500+ games. He was never as good as OV as a goal scorer and especially not as an overall offensive player. Anyone who tries to argue for Bure is just delusional.

I said that OV is the better player but I get why people would argue it's closer with Bure (not that I agree, just that I get the perspective), and you're arguing with me that I shouldn't even get it. Okay.

 

[wetcoast]

I think ones ability to be consistent year to year isnt about talent or injuries - but simply what type of player that player is.

Fedorov wasnt consistent. Id say he came very close to his full potential. Adding a whole bunch of extra consistency completely changes who he was. Mogilny too

Thats where we disagree.

I think people in this thread are forgetting the OP's instructions and Datsyuk was a project we can't suddenly make a 2009 version of him before the age of 27.

Fedorov was also the whipping boy for Bowman in Detroit and we all saw what a great playoff performer he was.....basically every year.

Mogilny is complicated for various reasons but I think he showed tremendous chemistry with Bure and Fedorov and that has to count for something here right?

 

[JackSlater]

But the premise is predicated on the notion that Ovechkin is playing in the fantasy world where there are no injuries and the era he's playing in has allowed him to live up to his full potential. But his outstanding health and longevity is actually a personal attribute of his and his game helped shape the era we are now in. Another thing to consider is Ovechkin also lost some time to the two lockout seasons (all of 2004-05 and 40% of 2012-13) and the Covid pandemic (dozen or so games), so you're also looking at a guy who should be within striking distance of 800 goals and closing in on 1400 points...

For context Bure scored 437 goals nad 779 points. So you're almost expecting fantasy to bridge 40% of that career differences. Even for Bure, that's optimistic.

I don't know why you're mentioning the first paragraph at all. Ovechkin has been very healthy and that's to his credit as a player, but in this specific poll it means that he has little room for improvement compared with Bure, for instance. I hope that everyone already knows that Ovechkin is a great player, not that the lockouts have any relevance there. Give Bure perfect health and assume similar team support as Ovechkin has had and I'd expect pretty similar results, some edge to Ovechkin in offence and certainly in physicality but same ballpark at least. Obviously in how things actually played out Ovechkin has already contributed more than Bure ever did.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I said that OV is the better player but I get why people would argue it's closer with Bure (not that I agree, just that I get the perspective), and you're arguing with me that I shouldn't even get it. Okay.

Oh no I didn't mean you specifically, just meant for whoever is saying that lol.

 

[KIRK]

Oh no I didn't mean you specifically, just meant for whoever is saying that lol.

Okay. As I said, my feeling, in terms of draft pedigree, is that OV, Malkin, and Federov would be in one group. I won't rank beyond that, if only to avoid your wrath.