Does a Cup Win/Conn Smyth make Ovechkin a top 10 player of all time?

[Midnight Judges]

Yes, Ovechkin is top 10, but it would not be because of team accomplishments like a Cup or a Conn Smythe.

Ovechkin is top 10 based purely on individual accomplishments: Namely being (arguably) the greatest goal scorer ever. If he continues on his current trajectory, there may not be much of an argument.

 

[Midnight Judges]

OV with a smythe surpasses Bobby Hull. So yes.

I'd put more stock in a player being the most valuable player to his team in the playoffs than winning a Smythe.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'd put more stock in a player being the most valuable player to his team in the playoffs than winning a Smythe.

ummmm......

 

[quoipourquoi]

Win or lose, I have him behind Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Roy, Beliveau, Richard, Hull, Morenz, Crosby, Harvey, Plante, Messier, Bourque, Shore, Jagr, Nighbor, and Sawchuk.

I don’t know that thinking someone is behind just 18 or so guys at 32-years-old is necessarily an insult; Ovechkin is phenomenal. But I can’t imagine cutting that list in half.

To even have a balanced all-positions/eras top-10 list at that point, you’d have to say that after the Big Four we have two post-2005 lockout players who haven’t played full careers that are already better than all but one goaltender in history, all but one pre-1967 expansion defenseman, all but one player from the first half-century of hockey, all but one non-Howe Original 6 forward, and every non-Gretzky/Lemieux skater from the quarter-century between WHA expansion and the 2005 lockout.

10 is a small number.

 

[Spirit of 67]

I had him as a bubble for 10th best forward.
No way if you open it up to everyone.

 

[djboos22]

Gretzky
Orr
Mario
Howe
Jet
Beliveau
Roy
Crosby
Hasek
Bossy (I know I’m the odd man out on this one)
Lafleur
Lidstrom

Ovi

He’s top 15 IMO

That was just a list of some I have ahead of Ovi.

 

[Midnight Judges]

To even have a balanced all-positions/eras top-10 list...

Why does a list have to be balanced by position? The top players of all time are a small sample size.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Why does a list have to be balanced by position? The top players of all time are a small sample size.

The example I gave wasn’t even that balanced:

Pre-1942
1 Player

1942-Present
6 Forwards
(Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin +1)
2 Defensemen
(Orr +1)
1 Goaltender

I mean, you still have too heavily favor the forward position over defensemen and goaltenders - which there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with doing - just because he’s obviously worse than Gretzky and Howe and Lemieux and his direct contemporary Crosby.

But even under the most optimistic interpretation of his offensive role (where he’s at most the 4th best of the last 35 years), he’s not exactly at a level where he’s better than every goaltender ever, and it would be a tremendous stretch to put him above every non-Orr defenseman since 1942.

 

[Fantomas]

Messier seems to get almost automatic placement into top 20 lists because of his mystique and reputation as a great captain and clutch player.

But his career numbers are pretty pedestrian, and look a lot better than they are because of how long he played and the era in which he played (the high scoring 80s).

His Hart trophy in '91-92 might be one of the worst calls for the award in recent memory.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

What raises Ovi's stock in my eyes is that he doesn't play on stacked teams.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The example I gave wasn’t even that balanced:

Pre-1942
1 Player

1942-Present
6 Forwards
(Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin +1)
2 Defensemen
(Orr +1)
1 Goaltender

I mean, you still have too heavily favor the forward position over defensemen and goaltenders - which there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with doing - just because he’s obviously worse than Gretzky and Howe and Lemieux and his direct contemporary Crosby.

But even under the most optimistic interpretation of his offensive role (where he’s at most the 4th best of the last 35 years), he’s not exactly at a level where he’s better than every goaltender ever, and it would be a tremendous stretch to put him above every non-Orr defenseman since 1942.

Okay but don't most of the best talented players want to be forwards? They did when I played anyway.

If there are 12 forwards, 6 defensemen, and 1 goalie iced in a given game, then a 6-2-1 split really isn't that far out of whack. Add one defenseman and now it's out of whack in favor of defensemen relative to a team that is iced in most games.

Don't get me wrong, I think trying to represent positions proportionately is a fine way of looking at it, I just don't think it needs to be perfect.

I also think Ovechkin could very well be the 3rd best forward in the past 35 years (ahead of Jagr and Crosby). He's got a lot of hockey left in him. Still up in the air.

Having two players in the top 10 from the 00's and 10's is not so wild. You've got 6 in your top 15 who played in the 1950's (some stretched from the 40's like Richard and some played a bulk in the 60's) and another 4 who played in the 80's and 90's. Were the top players in the 50's really so much greater than now? Howe is clear cut IMO. The others are debatable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier seems to get almost automatic placement into top 20 lists because of his mystique and reputation as a great captain and clutch player.

And because he was a multi-position player who offered exceptional longevity (1st Team All-Star in 1982, Hart runner-up in 1996) while playing complete hockey.

But his career numbers are pretty pedestrian, and look a lot better than they are because of how long he played and the era in which he played (the high scoring 80s).

He retired as the 2nd leading scorer. That’s about as far from pedestrian as it gets.

From 1981-82 through 1996-97, he scored a combined 646 goals and 1741 points in 1349 regular season and playoff games. That is a 16-season prime at a clip of 39-67-106 per-82 games while playing physical hockey. Make any era adjustment, and it is still abnormally long and offensively excellent with 10 seasons ranked top-10 in points/points-per-game (Ovechkin sits at 8 seasons albeit with a higher top-level and lesser defensive responsibilities).

His Hart trophy in '91-92 might be one of the worst calls for the award in recent memory.

It was practically unanimous at 67 first-place votes on 69 ballots despite already having won a Hart Trophy just two years prior.

 

[Fantomas]

He retired as the 2nd leading scorer. That’s about as far from pedestrian as it gets.

From 1981-82 through 1996-97, he scored a combined 646 goals and 1741 points in 1349 regular season and playoff games. That is a 16-season prime at a clip of 39-67-106 per-82 games while playing physical hockey. Make any era adjustment, and it is still abnormally long and offensively excellent with 10 seasons ranked top-10 in points/points-per-game (Ovechkin sits at 8 seasons albeit with a higher top-level and lesser defensive responsibilities).

Of course he retired with high career numbers. He played in the highest scoring era in NHL hockey and played for a long time. Messier's numbers are extremely inflated.

But if you look at his offensive production season-by-season, including his production relative to his peers, he is a pedestrian player for someone ranked top 20 by some people.

Points per game is not a really good use of stats because you are not making an era adjustment. Look at Messier's finishes in scoring; they are nothing special.

It was practically unanimous at 67 first-place votes on 69 ballots despite already having won a Hart Trophy just two years prior.

Hype, largely because of New York. Not the first time voters were off.

 

[Fantomas]

Messier was never top-5 in goals in a single season. He was top-10 four times.

He was top-5 in points three times, highest being 2nd in '89-90. Top 10 6 times.

This is not bad and combined with his all-around play certainly nothing to sneeze at, but he has to be the most suspect top-20 mainstay for me.

I get why he is placed there. The Messier mystique. The guarantee. The cool factor. The je ne sais quoi leadership factor. Slippery stuff.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But if you look at his offensive production season-by-season, including his production relative to his peers, he is a pedestrian player for someone ranked top 20 by some people.

Points per game is not a really good use of stats because you are not making an era adjustment. Look at Messier's finishes in scoring; they are nothing special.

Points-per-game ranking in individual seasons is actually an excellent use of statistics if a player routinely misses just 5-8 games because he’s a physical player.

Messier’s 10 seasons ranked top-10 in points/points-per-game came at GPs of 77/80, 73/80, 77/80, 77/80, 72/80, 79/80, 79/80, 46/48, 74/82, 71/82.

These aren’t small sample sizes; the per-game numbers are reliable. But in several years, they are just enough to not rank in raw scoring despite being a top offensive player in the league.

Hype, largely because of New York. Not the first time voters were off.

It’s a wonder anyone but Rangers win Hart Trophies if the New York media has control over 97.1% of the ballots.

But it’s good that we figured out this point instead of investigating why Mark Messier might be seen as the most valuable player by practically everyone in a season in which the Rangers finished 1st overall after trading for him in October.

 

[nowhereman]

No, he's top 15, IMO, should he win the Cup and Conn Smythe. I have him behind Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Crosby, Hull, Richard, Harvey, Bealiveau, Hasek, Lafleur, and Sawchuk.

 

[Fantomas]

Points-per-game ranking in individual seasons is actually an excellent use of statistics if a player routinely misses just 5-8 games because he’s a physical player.

Messier’s 10 seasons ranked top-10 in points/points-per-game came at GPs of 77/80, 73/80, 77/80, 77/80, 72/80, 79/80, 79/80, 46/48, 74/82, 71/82.

These aren’t small sample sizes; the per-game numbers are reliable. But in several years, they are just enough to not rank in raw scoring despite being a top offensive player in the league.

And how well does he do if you isolate his top-5 finishes? Again, no one would ever say that Messier was not a great player. But top 20 all time? The numbers do not support this.

Seeing Messier ranked ahead of the likes of Ovechkin and Esposito, as I often do, belies logic. It is woo woo.

It’s a wonder anyone but Rangers win Hart Trophies if the New York media has control over 97.1% of the ballots.

But it’s good that we figured out this point instead of investigating why Mark Messier might be seen as the most valuable player by practically everyone in a season in which the Rangers finished 1st overall after trading for him in October.

Messier's arrival in New York coincided with a large-scale effort by the NHL to promote and grow the game in the United States. It came with a lot of hype, though probably not as much as Gretzky's arrival in Los Angeles.

By leaving Edmonton for a large US metropolis, Messier became one of the game's biggest ambassadors, and I believe this reputation carried the vote in 1992. Not so much his play.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

No, he's top 15, IMO, should he win the Cup and Conn Smythe. I have him behind Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Hull, Richard, Harvey, Bealiveau, Hasek, Lafleur, and Sawchuk.

Is one of them Claude?

 

[nowhereman]

Is one of them Claude?

Well, at least this gets OV one spot closer to the top 10.