Does Kucherov have a shot at becoming a top 5 winger of all time ?

[Midnight Judges]

But again, "since 2012" is a bullshit argument in a thread about the all-time ranking for a player that debuted in 2005. It's nothing less than you pretending things didn't happen - which again, you would NEVER do to your favorite players.

 

[wetcoast]

But again, "since 2012" is a bullshit argument in a thread about the all-time ranking for a player that debuted in 2005. It's nothing less than you pretending things didn't happen - which again, you would NEVER do to your favorite players.

Why exactly is talking about 12 of any players 19 year career a "bullshit" argument?

And enough of this pretending BS, just because you don't understand what the metric PPG actually means.

For the record Kuch is going to have a hard time catching Ovi career wise but then again he is only 31 going into next season and has arguably the better 7 year prime and playoff resume while Ovi has the better peak and career but maybe with the season Kuch has had this year things are getting too close for comfort for some?

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

Richard
Howe
Hull
Jagr

top 4 is closed.

Ovechkin Personally I think he can get ahead of him .
Lafleur, unlikely het gets ahead but not impossible.

The 5th spot is open.

poll selection :
"No, but he will be top 10". But I'm not even sure he will be considered top 10.

 

[norrisnick]

The original quote was from most of his career.

In fact he had 5 straight seasons from age to 30 where he didn't break the 30 assist mark so the original poster was pretty spot on.

Since the start of that streak he is 50th in assists so that's what the orgianl poster was getting at.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Kuch isn't catching Ovi BTW but the distortion of history is always mindboggling from the select few.

How many of those 50 aren't wingers?

 

[Mrb1p]

No.
Howe
Jagr
Hull
Richard
Ovi
Lafleur

 

[WarriorofTime]

No he simply hasn't been an excellent passer since the 11-12 season when compared to his contemporaries as outlined above but people can click on here and see how he stacks up with assists since the 11-12 season.

But was sixth in the League for the first six seasons in his career. NHL Stats

Why do we pretend that didn't exist and use a "since 2011-12" standard when discussing an all time rank? Is there any player in the history of hockey that we disregard a strong six-year period from when discussing their all time rank? From both a peak (three top 10 assist finishes) and longevity (63rd all time in career assists) Ovechkin is too strong to write off that aspect of his game, even though everyone knows he skews heavily toward goal scoring.

 

[ViD]

Richard
Howe
Hull
Jagr

top 4 is closed.

Ovechkin Personally I think he can get ahead of him .
Lafleur, unlikely het gets ahead but not impossible.

The 5th spot is open.

poll selection :
"No, but he will be top 10". But I'm not even sure he will be considered top 10.

Huh, Ovechkin passed everyone but Howe at this point

 

[Fantomas]

For the record Kuch is going to have a hard time catching Ovi career wise but then again he is only 31 going into next season and has arguably the better 7 year prime

This could be argued, yes... by a low-IQ person.

 

[Regal]

But was sixth in the League for the first six seasons in his career. NHL Stats

Why do we pretend that didn't exist and use a "since 2011-12" standard when discussing an all time rank? Is there any player in the history of hockey that we disregard a strong six-year period from when discussing their all time rank? From both a peak (three top 10 assist finishes) and longevity (63rd all time in career assists) Ovechkin is too strong to write off that aspect of his game, even though everyone knows he skews heavily toward goal scoring.

It gets brought up for Ovechkin because he has two fairly distinct periods, and after 2011, he was no longer a dominant play driver and was much more of an off the puck shooter. People who bring it up tend to not value that style of player as highly as more rounded Art Ross type threats, and so, in their minds, more longevity as a rounded offensive threat could theoretically trump him, even if their peak isn’t quite as good. So for Kucherov, I think people are saying they believe his level of play from 16-17 to now is better than Ovechkin after 2011, and close enough to 05-11 Ovechkin that if he has more years at this level then he will have the better overall prime. And some people tend to put prime as more important than peak or career.

I don’t feel like getting into the specifics of how good Ovechkin compares those years, but I don’t think this argument is unusual. I think it’s akin to say Bourque being put over Potvin due to being close to his best for longer even if they think Potvin was better in his 20s. Though this would be on a smaller scale of years. Though I do think sometimes Ovechkin’s years outside of his three year peak can get dismissed to the point people think of his best years as not being as long as they were. His rookie year in particular seems to get ignored quite often despite being 3rd in scoring and a Lindsay finalist.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And some people tend to put prime as more important than peak or career.

I don’t feel like getting into the specifics of how good Ovechkin compares those years, but I don’t think this argument is unusual.

As long as people can admit they are twisting and contorting to get to a conclusion. I need a comparable from a less “greatest ever or sucks” type of polarized discussion for how that discourse works. It’s just fundamentally odd to ignore peak, ignore longevity and to shoot for some middle standard.

 

[Regal]

As long as people can admit they are twisting and contorting to get to a conclusion. I need a comparable from a less “greatest ever or sucks” type of polarized discussion for how that discourse works. It’s just fundamentally odd to ignore peak, ignore longevity and to shoot for some middle standard.

I don’t know if it’s that odd really. If your goal is to win the cup, and I could choose between a player who is a 100/100 for 3 years, 85 for 7, and a 75 for another 5, or a player who is a 95 for 10, and 60 for another 5, I think I might choose the second player. You get 10 years of a player near the best in the league to build around rather than 3 years at the top then 7 as a star. And after that, both aren’t good enough to build around anyway. But, on paper, the first player has the better peak and probably the better career.

Not that I think those ratings fit these two players, it’s just an example, but I think there’s a lot of things to consider in player comparisons and ultimately there’s too many variables to come up with a perfect algorithm to account for them all on paper. So sometimes what might seem like twisting and contorting is really just those variables coming into play.

 

[wetcoast]

How many of those 50 aren't wingers?

What does that matter and the list is there so you can count them if you want.

 

[wetcoast]

This could be argued, yes... by a low-IQ person.

I'll let someone else make the argument as that level seems beyond our reach here.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don’t know if it’s that odd really. If your goal is to win the cup, and I could choose between a player who is a 100/100 for 3 years, 85 for 7, and a 75 for another 5, or a player who is a 95 for 10, and 60 for another 5, I think I might choose the second player.


You get 10 years of a player near the best in the league to build around rather than 3 years at the top then 7 as a star. And after that, both aren’t good enough to build around anyway. But, on power, the first player has the better peak and the better career.

Not that I think those ratings fit these two players, it’s just an example, but I think there’s a lot of things to consider in player comparisons and ultimately there’s too many variables to come up with a perfect algorithm to account for them all on paper. So sometimes what might seem like twisting and contorting is really just those variables coming into play.

It gets tricky when I’m not sure what those numbers are supposed to correlate to. In the case of Ovechkin we are talking about eight top ten point finishes with excellent longevity beyond (including 4 more Rockets and a Conn Smythe beyond that last one). Anyways wetcoast’s twisty turny definition was confusing even by his often confusing opinions in Ovechkin related topics. Dunno how it’s 2024 and the narrative is still being pushed that Ovechkin fell off a cliff after the start of his career, when all people are really trying to say is “he didn’t keep pace with Crosby” but they don’t just say that. It’s too all or nothing.

 

[wetcoast]

But was sixth in the League for the first six seasons in his career. NHL Stats

Sure no one is arguing otherwise the original post was specific right?
https://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?r...11&gameType=2&sort=assists&page=0&pageSize=50

Why do we pretend that didn't exist and use a "since 2011-12" standard when discussing an all time rank?

No and no one is doing that so why are you bringing it up?

Is there any player in the history of hockey that we disregard a strong six-year period from when discussing their all time rank?

Once again the answer is no, what we do do is look at their entire resume and for top 5 a player needs to be extremely consistent one would think.

Take Guy Lafleur who some people tend to rank too high IMO because of his 6 year connective peak.

Do we disregard what he did before and after that peak no we don't so I ask why all the fuss about a statement that is very accurate?

From both a peak (three top 10 assist finishes) and longevity (63rd all time in career assists) Ovechkin is too strong to write off that aspect of his game, even though everyone knows he skews heavily toward goal scoring.

No one is writing it off what they are doing is observing what actually happened and sure he is 63rd all time in assists, due to both his peak and # of games played and PP TOI and usage right?

Perhaps you should go look at his assist placements in the seasons after 10-11 and you might understand the statement more.

Let's put it another way Kuch is 10th in goals this year his age 30 season, what is the highest placement for Ovechkin in assists after the 11-12 season?

I'm not even sure if he has a top 20 or top 30 after his age 25 season.

 

[wetcoast]

It gets tricky when I’m not sure what those numbers are supposed to correlate to. In the case of Ovechkin we are talking about eight top ten point finishes with excellent longevity beyond (including 4 more Rockets and a Conn Smythe beyond that last one).

Anyways wetcoast’s twisty turny definition was confusing even by his often confusing opinions in Ovechkin related topics.

Not sure how my arguments are confusing but your conclusion at the end of the next statement may be the problem as I never said it was all or nothing, you are reading stuff that isn't there for some reason.

Dunno how it’s 2024 and the narrative is still being pushed that Ovechkin fell off a cliff after the start of his career, when all people are really trying to say is “he didn’t keep pace with Crosby” but they don’t just say that. It’s too all or nothing.

As stated above it seems that you are reading stuff that isn't there for some agenda regarding another player who isn't part of this topic.

For the record even if Kuch has a couple more very good seasons the missed season and later start are big impediments to his catching Ovechkin.

And just to be clear by pointing out the difference in Kuch's late start compared to Ovi doesn't mean that I'm dismissing what Kuch has done so that's clear to everyone.

That's what ranking players is all about looking at each and every angle not trying to sugarcoat some players weakness in their resumes compared to others.

It's pretty clear that Ovechkins place and ranking all time is more tied to goals than anything else right?

For Jagr it's his peak, prime and longevity.

For Lafleur it's his consecutive 6 year prime regular season and playoffs.

But the fact that it even needs to be mentioned is tiresome to say the least and it appears that you are sometimes more concerned about the messenger than the message..

 

[norrisnick]

What does that matter and the list is there so you can count them if you want.

Just curious...

"This is a thread on wingers but once again you have to bring a center into this .....really?"

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's what ranking players is all about looking at each and every angle not trying to sugarcoat some players weakness in their resumes compared to others.

It's pretty clear that Ovechkins place and ranking all time is more tied to goals than anything else right?

Everyone’s rank is tied to peak, prime, longevity but Ovechkin’s is tied to goals which is somehow absent of discussion regarding peak, prime and longevity? Perhaps your points wouldn’t be misinterpreted if they made a bit more sense.

 

[Regal]

It gets tricky when I’m not sure what those numbers are supposed to correlate to. In the case of Ovechkin we are talking about eight top ten point finishes with excellent longevity beyond (including 4 more Rockets and a Conn Smythe beyond that last one). Anyways wetcoast’s twisty turny definition was confusing even by his often confusing opinions in Ovechkin related topics. Dunno how it’s 2024 and the narrative is still being pushed that Ovechkin fell off a cliff after the start of his career, when all people are really trying to say is “he didn’t keep pace with Crosby” but they don’t just say that. It’s too all or nothing.

It was just a basic idea of how a player would rate out of 100. I think to some degree being near the top of the league for longer can be more valuable than a slightly higher peak and better longevit.

Im not sure I agree that the common criticism is that he fell off a cliff, though some of the discussions can become so back and forth they end up seeming more harsh than intended

 

[wetcoast]

Everyone’s rank is tied to peak, prime, longevity but Ovechkin’s is tied to goals which is somehow absent of discussion regarding peak, prime and longevity? Perhaps your points wouldn’t be misinterpreted if they made a bit more sense.

My point was clear it was you that was conflating it.

I originally repsonded to another poster who accurately described what Ovi has been outside of his peak.

Everyone knows what Ovi's peak was and what Lafleur's peak was.

They also know what type of players both guys were outside of their peaks this isn't hard here.

Kuch has a good chance at passing Lafleur but probably not Ovi but it's not because of Ovi' playmaking outside of his peak or since 2011-12 right?

 

[wetcoast]

Just curious...

"This is a thread on wingers but once again you have to bring a center into this .....really?"

I guess you are too lazy to count right?

Maybe you will get the likes that you are looking for here as obviously you aren't interested in the discussion at hand.

 

[Regal]

Just curious...

"This is a thread on wingers but once again you have to bring a center into this .....really?"

Most comparisons between forwards involve how they stack up relative to all other forwards. This is pretty lame criticism.

 

[norrisnick]

Most comparisons between forwards involve how they stack up relative to all other forwards. This is pretty lame criticism.

I was under the impression it was an egregious faux pas to discuss forwards that aren't wingers in a thread about wingers. My bad...

 

[Regal]

I was under the impression it was an egregious faux pas to discuss forwards that aren't wingers in a thread about wingers. My bad...

So why don’t we say Ovechkin has 3 Art Ross trophies then if we can only compare him to wingers? Oh, right, because that’s a stupid metric

The thread is about comparing wingers, but the way people do that is usually how they stack up against all forwards/players in the league at the time. Ie. Ovechkin was top 5 in scoring X times vs Kucherov top 5 in scoring X times, etc. The comparison is between wingers but their resumes involve the league as a whole. This is pretty basic stuff

 

[norrisnick]

So why don’t we say Ovechkin has 3 Art Ross trophies then if we can only compare him to wingers? Oh, right, because that’s a stupid metric

The thread is about comparing wingers, but the way people do that is usually how they stack up against all forwards/players in the league at the time. Ie. Ovechkin was top 5 in scoring X times vs Kucherov top 5 in scoring X times, etc. The comparison is between wingers but their resumes involve the league as a whole. This is pretty basic stuff

So it is ok to talk about non-wingers? Good to know. Hope everyone gets that message!