Is Ovechkin a greater player than Yzerman and Sakic

[Finlandia WOAT]

Idk how anyone thinks Ovi is better than both unless they look at just the stats. Both Sakic and Yzerman were guys you built championship teams around and they will deliver. Ovi had stacked teams and continuously failed and the one time his team pulled through, it wasn't like the lit the world on fire. This is a joke. It's classic HF

1. Stats over eye test
2. Not understanding it's about game impact and not numbers
3. Recency bias
4. Highlights over the entire game
5. Not understanding intagibles

I should open up a school, business would be booming with the help you guys need.

Nietzsche once said: “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

Thank you for your service.

 

[WarriorofTime]

More people need to realize that in the post-30+ team and salary cap era that more and more great players are going to retire without ever winning a Cup. Even someone as good as McDavid isn't a guarantee to get one if the circumstances don't go his way (as seen by his early years). The "pre-salary cap era" of No Cups was pretty hallow, Marcel Dionne was always the guy, who put up some nice points over his career in a scorer friendly era but was only ever in serious Hart Consideration for around a 3 or 4 year peak. There was also Brad Park who was the "other" defenseman from his era. Otherwise it was guys that had short careers like Pavel Bure, Cam Neely or Eric Lindros. That list is going to grow more and more extensive in the modern era. Players can't just play on stacked teams and the talent is very diluted across the League.

And it's also important to remember, Ovechkin isn't on the list. He won a Cup, as the clear cut most impactful player as well.

 

[SkinsFan09]

Due to the fact that a lot of people on here probably never watched Yzerman or Sakic play the game it's loaded in Ovie's favor

Is he a better goal scorer than these 2.... Yep
Is he a better all around player than either.... Nope

Yzerman and Sakic had better teams for sure, but they also played a lot of years in the "dead puck" era

All this being said, I watched all 3 players and can tell you Ovie is the best of the 3, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as trophies

NHL scoring in the mid 2010s fell about as low as the late 1990s/early 2000s and Yzerman's best years were not in the DPE but in the late 1980s.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It is bizarre that anyone thinks this is close.

1. Lemieux
2. Jagr
3. Roy
4. Bourque
5. Hasek
6. Lidstrom
7. Messier
8. Fetisov
9. Makarov
10. Brodeur
11. Sakic
12. Yzerman

I limited this to players who had 13 years or more of overlap in their professional careers with BOTH Sakic and Yzerman. This eliminated Gretzky but certainly you could count him too.

Ovechkin's era:

1. Ovechkin
2. Crosby
3. McDavid

4. Nobody else is even close

And I generously include McDavid who almost certainly will NOT have 13 years of overlap with Sid or Ovie. (Lidstrom had 7, Jagr had 10).

So the 11th and 12th best players of the nostalgia years (roughly '85-2005) are equal or superior to the best player (or at worst, a top 3 player) of the past two decades? -That's the assertion here.

So if you are siding with Yzerman and Sakic, or if you think this is a tough call, your claim is that despite the talent pool growing, elite players are actually significantly worse. And despite Ovechkin standing out from the crowd way the hell more than Sakic or Yzerman, there is some other reason why a comparatively far lesser player from a comparatively lesser talent pool somehow comes out ahead. Except nobody has a rational basis for why that would be.

It simply does not pass the smell test. I think some of you just need a little (or a lot) more time to digest the information and gather your thoughts.

Or maybe there is some other part of the equation that nobody wants to say out loud.

 

[Czech Your Math]

It is bizarre that anyone thinks this is close.

I think what makes this close is mostly that Sakic was so good in the playoffs, had a couple of great playoffs when they won Cups, and didn't drop off much in playoffs against the better defensive teams.

If he doesn't miss time for suspension, Ovi probably wins two Rosses. If not for Lemieux & Jagr, Sakic wins two Rosses.

1. Lemieux
2. Jagr
7. Messier
9. Makarov
11. Sakic
12. Yzerman

I limited this to players who had 13 years or more of overlap in their professional careers with BOTH Sakic and Yzerman. This eliminated Gretzky but certainly you could count him too.

Ovechkin's era:
1. Ovechkin
2. Crosby
3. McDavid

4. Nobody else is even close

And I generously include McDavid who almost certainly will NOT have 13 years of overlap with Sid or Ovie. (Lidstrom had 7, Jagr had 10).

So the 11th and 12th best players of the nostalgia years (roughly '85-2005) are equal or superior to the best player (or at worst, a top 3 player) of the past two decades? -That's the assertion here.

So if you are siding with Yzerman and Sakic, or if you think this is a tough call, your claim is that despite the talent pool growing, elite players are actually significantly worse. And despite Ovechkin standing out from the crowd way the hell more than Sakic or Yzerman, there is some other reason why a comparatively far lesser player from a comparatively lesser talent pool somehow comes out ahead. Except nobody has a rational basis for why that would be.

It simply does not pass the smell test. I think some of you just need a little (or a lot) more time to digest the information and gather your thoughts.

Or maybe there is some other part of the equation that nobody wants to say out loud.

Let's look at the best peak/prime scoring forwards of each period. The overseas talent didn't fully integrate into NHL until 90s, so looking at two roughly equal periods:

1990 to Lockout
Some prime (but post-peak) Gretzky and most of Lemieux's peak years... so we'll say one outlier total
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
Selanne
Yzerman (about half of his peak years, so half credit)
Lindros
Oates
Messier (about half of his prime, so half credit)
Kariya
Francis
Recchi
Bure
Brett Hull
LeClair
Naslund


Lockout to Present
Roughly half of McDavid's expected best seasons, as well as Kucherov, Draisaitl & MacKinnon (so half of four equals two)
Crosby
Ovechkin
Kane
Thornton
Malkin
St. Louis (won Ross in 2004, but most of prime post-lockout.. so we'll split 50/50)
Stamkos
Iginla (won Ross in 2002, but most of prime post-lockout... so we'll split 50/50)
Backstrom
Giroux
Sedins (both)
Kovalchuk
Marchand
Datsyuk

So very roughly:

1990-Lockout: Equivalent of ~1 outlier and ~15 other top scorers
Lockout-Present: Equivalent of ~16 top scorers

Regardless of the exact cutoffs (in terms of players, seasons, etc.), once you have a decent sample size and compare apples to apples, it's pretty even between the periods.

When you start bringing historical greats at other positions (Hasek, Roy, Bourque, Lidstrom, etc.) into the equation, it gets more complicated. We may not see another see another Hasek in our lifetimes, so wondering why there isn't an equally good goalie in the post-lockout era seems futile. Roy won a couple Cups with underdogs and a couple more on Avs, there's just no equal to him at present. There's probably more very good goalies post-lockout, but nobody comes close to what he did. Take the long, consistent careers of goalies like Luongo or Lundqvist, but better and slightly longer... and combine that with the playoff peaks of goalies like Thomas AND Quick... and you approach Roy's career. We have to remember these are extreme outliers among NHL players, which are already the extreme end of the spectrum. There's no schedule for the extremes of the extremes.

 

[WarriorofTime]

People that think that hockey players have gotten slower and less skilled over time, it's a bit bizarre. People will claim the 7th best guy from 30 years ago was better than first or second best guy today. Don't think any other sport has that attitude. Nobody doubts Gretzky or Lemieux's abilities, when people start claiming every next tier guy was as good as the best players of the modern era, you start to lose me.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think what makes this close is mostly that Sakic was so good in the playoffs, had a couple of great playoffs when they won Cups, and didn't drop off much in playoffs against the better defensive teams.

If he doesn't miss time for suspension, Ovi probably wins two Rosses. If not for Lemieux & Jagr, Sakic wins two Rosses.



Let's look at the best peak/prime scoring forwards of each period. The overseas talent didn't fully integrate into NHL until 90s, so looking at two roughly equal periods:

1990 to Lockout
Some prime (but post-peak) Gretzky and most of Lemieux's peak years... so we'll say one outlier total
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
Selanne
Yzerman (about half of his peak years, so half credit)
Lindros
Oates
Messier (about half of his prime, so half credit)
Kariya
Francis
Recchi
Bure
Brett Hull
LeClair
Naslund


Lockout to Present
Roughly half of McDavid's expected best seasons, as well as Kucherov, Draisaitl & MacKinnon (so half of four equals two)
Crosby
Ovechkin
Kane
Thornton
Malkin
St. Louis (won Ross in 2004, but most of prime post-lockout.. so we'll split 50/50)
Stamkos
Iginla (won Ross in 2002, but most of prime post-lockout... so we'll split 50/50)
Backstrom
Giroux
Sedins (both)
Kovalchuk
Marchand
Datsyuk

So very roughly:

1990-Lockout: Equivalent of ~1 outlier and ~15 other top scorers
Lockout-Present: Equivalent of ~16 top scorers

Regardless of the exact cutoffs (in terms of players, seasons, etc.), once you have a decent sample size and compare apples to apples, it's pretty even between the periods.

When you start bringing historical greats at other positions (Hasek, Roy, Bourque, Lidstrom, etc.) into the equation, it gets more complicated. We may not see another see another Hasek in our lifetimes, so wondering why there isn't an equally good goalie in the post-lockout era seems futile. Roy won a couple Cups with underdogs and a couple more on Avs, there's just no equal to him at present. There's probably more very good goalies post-lockout, but nobody comes close to what he did. Take the long, consistent careers of goalies like Luongo or Lundqvist, but better and slightly longer... and combine that with the playoff peaks of goalies like Thomas AND Quick... and you approach Roy's career. We have to remember these are extreme outliers among NHL players, which are already the extreme end of the spectrum. There's no schedule for the extremes of the extremes.

Lemieux only played 318 games in the 1990s.

 

[nowhereman]

People that think that hockey players have gotten slower and less skilled over time, it's a bit bizarre. People will claim the 7th best guy from 30 years ago was better than first or second best guy today. Don't think any other sport has that attitude. Nobody doubts Gretzky or Lemieux's abilities, when people start claiming every next tier guy was as good as the best players of the modern era, you start to lose me.

Nostalgia is the sweetest of nectars.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Nostalgia is the sweetest of nectars.

Yes, and I think the gaudy point totals of past players have a role in that too, as well as the mistaken belief that the entire 90s was the "dead puck era", when it was really only the end of the decade, and for a lot of the decade there was not quite the same but still a very high carryover from the 1980s in terms of goals. Particularly, in the 80s, there was a rapid expansion of teams and not the same level of increase in the talent pool that the NHL was drawing from. You had a lot of players that were just so far below the standards of the top tier players that those top players could just absolutely feast on them whenever they were across from them. A guy nobody ever talks about like Denis Maruk scored 60 goals in a season... Combined with Goalies playing an outdated technique and defensive schemes being primitive by today's standards, it was very easy for the superstars of the day to put up insane point totals.

 

[Cup or Bust]

I think both Yzerman and Sakic were better hockey players. I would probably go with Sakic if I had to pick one of them.

 

[Czech Your Math]

People that think that hockey players have gotten slower and less skilled over time, it's a bit bizarre. People will claim the 7th best guy from 30 years ago was better than first or second best guy today. Don't think any other sport has that attitude. Nobody doubts Gretzky or Lemieux's abilities, when people start claiming every next tier guy was as good as the best players of the modern era, you start to lose me.

And people pretend that players from the 90s wouldn't be good today. Yet we saw Jagr, Sakic, Selanne, etc. in their mid-late 30s doing just fine post-lockout, despite not having anywhere near the speed they had at their peaks.

I don't have any problem with those that believe Ovechkin is better than both of these guys, unless you think it's not at all close. I'm uncertain myself, was just stating my belief.

Lemieux only played 318 games in the 1990s.

Well, he only played 368 games in the 80s so...

 

[authentic]

People that think that hockey players have gotten slower and less skilled over time, it's a bit bizarre. People will claim the 7th best guy from 30 years ago was better than first or second best guy today. Don't think any other sport has that attitude. Nobody doubts Gretzky or Lemieux's abilities, when people start claiming every next tier guy was as good as the best players of the modern era, you start to lose me.

To be fair though a 37 year Sakic literally outscored a 21 year old Ovechkin during the exact same season, so the Sakic and Ovechkin comparison is a pretty legitimate one especially when Sakic is a multiple 50 goal scorer himself who also had more points than Ovechkin ever had in a season in the regular season and playoffs while being a very good two-way player at his peak.

 

[WarriorofTime]

To be fair though a 37 year Sakic literally outscored a 21 year old Ovechkin during the exact same season, so the Sakic and Ovechkin comparison is a pretty legitimate one especially when Sakic is a multiple 50 goal scorer himself who also had more points than Ovechkin ever had in a season in the regular season and playoffs while being a very good two-way player at his peak.

True but 20 year old Ovechkin outscored 36 year old Sakic.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Yes, and I think the gaudy point totals of past players have a role in that too, as well as the mistaken belief that the entire 90s was the "dead puck era", when it was really only the end of the decade, and for a lot of the decade there was not quite the same but still a very high carryover from the 1980s in terms of goals. Particularly, in the 80s, there was a rapid expansion of teams and not the same level of increase in the talent pool that the NHL was drawing from. You had a lot of players that were just so far below the standards of the top tier players that those top players could just absolutely feast on them whenever they were across from them. A guy nobody ever talks about like Denis Maruk scored 60 goals in a season... Combined with Goalies playing an outdated technique and defensive schemes being primitive by today's standards, it was very easy for the superstars of the day to put up insane point totals.

90s was mostly DPE... basically '94-5 thru '03-4, except '95-6. Highest scoring years since from '94-5 to present for the top tiers have been: 1996, 2006, 2007, 2019, 2020, 2021, 1997, 2001, 2018, 2009, 2008 & 2010.

Sure, Yzerman's peak was during a higher scoring time, but not most of Sakic's peak/prime.

 

[authentic]

True but 20 year old Ovechkin outscored 36 year old Sakic.

Of course, but very few players in their mid 30s are 50 goal 100 point players like Ovechkin was that year, which makes it pretty amazing that he outscored him the very next season at 37. In his peak he had 54 goals and 118 points, and 18 goals in a playoff run. which match up pretty well with Ovechkin at his best. Then he was nominated for a Selke trophy on top of it.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Of course, but very few players in their mid 30s are 50 goal 100 point players like Ovechkin was that year, which makes it pretty amazing that he outscored him the very next season at 37. In his peak he had 54 goals and 118 points, and 18 goals in a playoff run. which match up pretty well with Ovechkin at his best. Then he was nominated for a Selke trophy on top of it.

Sure, very few 20 year olds do that too, not doubting Sakic as an ATG himself or anything.

 

[authentic]

Sure, very few 20 year olds do that too, not doubting Sakic as an ATG himself or anything.

Way more 20 year olds have been elite offensively than 36+ year old players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Way more 20 year olds have been elite offensively than 36+ year old players.

Not so much when they are basically a one man show and scoring as many goals as the next closest guy on their team had points.

 

[Peiskos]

Both Yzerman and Sakic were more well rounded overall. Look no further than the assists totals each player has, both Yzerman and Sakic with over 1,000 a piece, Ovechkin is nowhere close to them.

Yzerman - 1514 gp, 692 G, 1,062 A, 1,755 pts

Sakic - 1,378 gp, 625 G, 1,016 A, 1,641 pts

Ovechkin - 1,197 gp, 730 G, 590 A, 1,320 pts

Ovechkin much more goal heavy, while Yzerman and Sakic were certainly no slouches in the goal scoring department, its their assist totals that put both players squarely ahead of Ovechkin in terms of "Greater".

 

[SkinsFan09]

Both Yzerman and Sakic were more well rounded overall. Look no further than the assists totals each player has, both Yzerman and Sakic with over 1,000 a piece, Ovechkin is nowhere close to them.

Yzerman - 1514 gp, 692 G, 1,062 A, 1,755 pts

Sakic - 1,378 gp, 625 G, 1,016 A, 1,641 pts

Ovechkin - 1,197 gp, 730 G, 590 A, 1,320 pts

Ovechkin much more goal heavy, while Yzerman and Sakic were certainly no slouches in the goal scoring department, its their assist totals that put both players squarely ahead of Ovechkin in terms of "Greater".

If only Ovechkin got to play in his 20s in the 1980s and early 1990s.

 

[newfy]

If Ovi was a Canadian, people wouldn’t give a shit that his TEAM didn’t win 3 cups, and they’d be jacking off at the idea of a Canadian born player having 9 rockets and a chance at the all time goal record despite the era Ovi played in.

I actually say this all the time. If a Canadian came into the league and had 9 rockets,a bunch of highlight reel goals (more when Ovechkin was younger but still) and was laying out guys left and right, the circle jerk on TSN would be hilarious

Yzerman lost 1 Hart trophy to Mario and Gretzky which was in 88-89
Sakic didn't lose a Hart trophy to any of the noted players.

Ovi has been top 2 in Hart voting 5 times, Sakic and Yzerman combined are only top 6 in voting 4 times.

Yzerman lost "1" to them directly. But without them Yzerman would have been the clear, best offensive player in the league by a notable margin for 6 or 7 straight seasons. Over a ~7 season span, Yzermans point per game would have had him scoring ~16 more points per season than the next closest player.

Without those guys going insane offensively and making the voters "used to" the crazy numbers they were putting up, Yzerman is seen as the best offensive player of a generation essentially and likely has several more accolades because of it. Yzermans peak and prime could not have come at a worse time to have it make you look like an all time great due to the other 2 centers he was competing against. The gap in Yzermans offense over the next closest players wasnt much smaller than the difference between him and Gretzky during Yzermans peak.

If, for example, Yzermans peak was up against the top guys of the late 90s/early 2000s, he likely cleans up a tonne of hardware

 

[Peiskos]

If only Ovechkin got to play in his 20s in the 1980s and early 1990s.

That different era logic has never really made much sense, you actually see it a lot in arguments with Gretzky, if it was so easy to score in the 80’s then why didn’t everyone have as much points as Gretzky?

It’s just a flawed logic. It wasn’t any easier to score points back then.

 

[um]

That different era logic has never really made much sense, you actually see it a lot in arguments with Gretzky, if it was so easy to score in the 80’s then why didn’t everyone have as much points as Gretzky?

It’s just a flawed logic. It wasn’t any easier to score points back then.

Its basic math. There were more goals back than.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I actually say this all the time. If a Canadian came into the league and had 9 rockets,a bunch of highlight reel goals (more when Ovechkin was younger but still) and was laying out guys left and right, the circle jerk on TSN would be hilarious



Yzerman lost "1" to them directly. But without them Yzerman would have been the clear, best offensive player in the league by a notable margin for 6 or 7 straight seasons. Over a ~7 season span, Yzermans point per game would have had him scoring ~16 more points per season than the next closest player.

Without those guys going insane offensively and making the voters "used to" the crazy numbers they were putting up, Yzerman is seen as the best offensive player of a generation essentially and likely has several more accolades because of it. Yzermans peak and prime could not have come at a worse time to have it make you look like an all time great due to the other 2 centers he was competing against. The gap in Yzermans offense over the next closest players wasnt much smaller than the difference between him and Gretzky during Yzermans peak.

If, for example, Yzermans peak was up against the top guys of the late 90s/early 2000s, he likely cleans up a tonne of hardware

After removing Gretzky and Lemieux, Yzerman has a whopping 1 ross, 0 rockets and 1 PPG win. That is very low standards for "best offensive player of a generation". Brett Hull peaked around the same time and won 3 rockets and would have had a ross if no Gretzky. Yzerman was a great player but he doesn't belong in a conversation with OV.

 

[Fantomas]

That different era logic has never really made much sense, you actually see it a lot in arguments with Gretzky, if it was so easy to score in the 80’s then why didn’t everyone have as much points as Gretzky?

It’s just a flawed logic. It wasn’t any easier to score points back then.

It was easier to score in the 80s, evidenced by the fact that the league had much higher scoring rates. It's completely logical.