Ovechkin ALLTIME rank before start of '19-20

[Midnight Judges]

How is Richard ahead of OV? Richard's claim to fame was goal scoring, but OV has 3 more rockets, more top 5 finishes and more top 10 finishes.

It was once explained to me that Richard is from Canada and people love him a whole bunch, so basically he can out-emotion his way ahead of superior players.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This thread needs to be put in the History of Hockey board.

As for answering the OP, right now Ovechkin would be just outside the top 15 for me, slightly below Crosby and Jagr and looking to move up a bit by the time his career is up.

My All-time list would look something like this, trying to be as unbiased as I can.

1 - Gretzky
2- Lemieux
3 - Orr
4 -Howe
5 - Bobby Hull
6 - Beliveau
7 - Harvey
8 - Richard
9 - Morenz
10 - Bourque
11 - Hasek
12 - Lidstrom
13 - Roy
14 - Jagr
15 - Crosby

After the 15th spot, there's a lot of guys quite close together for me that deserve to be on the list like Stan Mikita, Eddie Shore, Jacques Plante, Ovechkin, Lafleur, Messier and a couple others.

If Ovie continues putting up the points and goals, he could find his way up the rankings and displace guys like Roy, Jagr, possibly Lidstrom and Hasek if he continues for a couple seasons more.

That said, the top 10 is where it gets really hard to advance and if Crosby and Ovechkin want to eventually make their way there they'll need more stats, trophies of individual greatness, and Stanley Cups. Even in the best case scenario where they both keep playing well until they reach 40+ years old, I don't see any of them getting up much higher than the 9th spot on this list, which is still pretty awesome in its own right when you think that we have had the pleasure to enjoy the primes of two (five for a short time if you include Jagr, Hasek and Lidstrom) top 20 players of all-time playing against each other in the same era.

I agree about Bobby Hull being 5th all time, but what Ovechkin has already accomplished is pretty comparable to what Bobby Hull did in the NHL, except Ovie's done it against far superior international competition. Perhaps you give Hull lots of credit for playing in the WHA. Personally I do not.

Why would Crosby or Ovechkin need more cups to stack up against Hull who won 1 in an era where winning a cup was exponentially more likely for any individual player?

 

[Midnight Judges]

I find putting Hull ahead of Ovechkin odd.

IMO they are comparable. Both were very physical goal scorers. Hull was slightly better at accumulating points vs his peers and Ovie is better at accumulating goals vs his peers. Hull lead the NHL in points 3 times, and PPG twice. Ovie lead in points 1 time and PPG 3 times. Ovie lead the NHL in goals 8 times to Hull's 7.

Ovie has 3 Harts to Hull's 2, but Hull was a Hart finalist 8 Times to Ovie's 5. Hull was top 10 in Hart voting 10 times to Ovie's 9.

IMO when the comparables are so close the tie breaker ought to go to the player who was up against a far larger and more talented pool of players.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

They might not win, but there's nothing stopping them from getting nominated. You'd think a guy who won 7 Norris trophies would get at least one nomination if he was so great. Check his hart record in his Norris years

4,6,7,8,10,19

Now check guys like Bourque and Potvin and you'll see the difference.

I did. #3 in Bourque's first go around as runner-up. Mike Luit. The goalie with a 3.23 GAA and a .885 sv%. Maybe we don't take "Hart nominations" to be the be-all, end-all, eh?
His second time as runner up (where he damn near won it... ) In a higher scoring league, he got 4 more points than Lidstrom's 6th place finish in 07-08.

And Dennis Potvin? He had ONE Hart nomination (where he was award chum for Bobby Clarke to win it) and then his record looks one hell of a lot like Lidstrom's.

The fact that Lidstrom didn't get any Hart nods (or noms, even) is a mistake on the hockey writers' part, not an indictment on him as a player. He was either PPG or damn near (within 3-4 points) with ALL-WORLD shutdown defense. And they gave nods to centers and wings who hit 100 points. Plus, Nick Lidstrom at over 40 years old made Ian White a legitimate top 4 defenseman.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The fact that Lidstrom didn't get any Hart nods (or noms, even) is a mistake on the hockey writers' part, not an indictment on him as a player.

Was he ever a finalist for the Pearson?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Was he ever a finalist for the Pearson?

I have the Pearson/Lindsay finalists going back to 1997 and Lidstrom was never in the top three. It's highly unlikely he ever would have been in the top three prior to that.

The only defensemen who were nominees over the past 22 seasons were Chris Pronger (2000) and Brent Burns (2017) - so it's really tough for a blueliner to get nominated. But I agree with your general point, which is that Lidstrom had a relatively low peak for a player of his calibre.

 

[Intangir]

I find putting Hull ahead of Ovechkin odd.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree entirely with it.

Hull set records for goals and points in a single season at the time playing in a pretty strong era against the 1950s and 1960s Canadiens dynasties plus the 1960s Maple Leafs dynasty, some of the most dominant teams the sport has ever seen. Winning Stanley Cups during Hull's prime would thus have been impossibly difficult before 1970, and his Chicago Blackhawks still managed one in that time.

Aside from hardware, Hull was a more physical player than Ovechkin, a better playmaker, better puck handler, much better in transition, a MUCH superior two-way player (if the Selke had been around when he played he would have received nominations at least, if not won one or more), has shown tremendous durability playing in the NHL at 41 (after beasting in the WHA for Winnipeg for years as a 33+ year-old player), was more ''clutch'' and was way tougher (and dirtier) than Ovechkin has ever been.

Ovechkin is a better goalscorer than Hull though, I'll give you that.

The only way Ovechkin could have been better than Howe all-time is if he actually played very stout defense throughout his career while putting up the same numbers or better than he did.

As a person though, Ovechkin is a hundred times better than Bobby Hull, who was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a good guy.

I leave you this article to illustrate these last claims.

https://www.arcticicehockey.com/2018/5/13/17349058/the-nhl-needs-to-stop-celebrating-bobby-hull-winnipeg-jets-chicago-blackhawks-domestic-violence

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Top 20

 

[Midnight Judges]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree entirely with it.

Hull set records for goals and points in a single season at the time playing in a pretty strong era against the 1950s and 1960s Canadiens dynasties plus the 1960s Maple Leafs dynasty, some of the most dominant teams the sport has ever seen. Winning Stanley Cups during Hull's prime would thus have been impossibly difficult before 1970, and his Chicago Blackhawks still managed one in that time.

Aside from hardware, Hull was a more physical player than Ovechkin, a better playmaker, better puck handler, much better in transition, a MUCH superior two-way player (if the Selke had been around when he played he would have received nominations at least, if not won one or more), has shown tremendous durability playing in the NHL at 41 (after beasting in the WHA for Winnipeg for years as a 33+ year-old player), was more ''clutch'' and was way tougher (and dirtier) than Ovechkin has ever been.

Ovechkin is a better goalscorer than Hull though, I'll give you that.

The only way Ovechkin could have been better than Howe all-time is if he actually played very stout defense throughout his career while putting up the same numbers or better than he did.

As a person though, Ovechkin is a hundred times better than Bobby Hull, who was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a good guy.

I leave you this article to illustrate these last claims.

https://www.arcticicehockey.com/2018/5/13/17349058/the-nhl-needs-to-stop-celebrating-bobby-hull-winnipeg-jets-chicago-blackhawks-domestic-violence

Lots of unnecessarily flimsy arguments here. There is a lot to celebrate for Hull, and there is no need to embellish or exaggerate.

Hull's era was not strong relative to today's NHL. Hull's career took place before the Canadian baby boom hit the NHL and before international participation. The talent pool back then was a fraction of what it is now because virtually every player was from one small country.

Hull's points record stood alone for all of one year, and the only reason he had it was because the NHL expanded to 70 games shortly before his career began and also because it was way harder to score during Gordie Howe's peak (3.04 goals scored per game in Hull's best year vs 2.4 in Howe's - a 27% difference. This massively outweigh's Hull's additional 2 points.). Basically Hull tied for the most points of a 17 year stretch, except it only happened because he had significant advantages over Howe. Hull's goals record is also sleight of hand. Richard had 50 goals in 50 games. Hull had 54 in 68. Richard did have the advantage of playing in an even higher scoring season and against an even weaker NHL though.

The comment about Hull being more physical is ridiculous. Hull was 5-10 and 195 pounds. Ovechkin has 40 pounds on him and would put him down with ease. Ovechkin's physicality is extremely underrated. Nobody has his combination of size, speed, and skill.

No idea why you're talking about Hull in the NHL at age 41. He had 6 goals in 27 games and was a major liability on the ice and was way under a PPG in an very high scoring era. Then he went on to score zero points as a minus 5 in the playoffs. The truth is Hull accomplished very little in hockey after age 33.

 

[hockeyguru]

not top 15, much lower than crosby

 

[Voight]

I did. #3 in Bourque's first go around as runner-up. Mike Luit. The goalie with a 3.23 GAA and a .885 sv%. Maybe we don't take "Hart nominations" to be the be-all, end-all, eh?
His second time as runner up (where he damn near won it... ) In a higher scoring league, he got 4 more points than Lidstrom's 6th place finish in 07-08.

And Dennis Potvin? He had ONE Hart nomination (where he was award chum for Bobby Clarke to win it) and then his record looks one hell of a lot like Lidstrom's.

The fact that Lidstrom didn't get any Hart nods (or noms, even) is a mistake on the hockey writers' part, not an indictment on him as a player. He was either PPG or damn near (within 3-4 points) with ALL-WORLD shutdown defense. And they gave nods to centers and wings who hit 100 points. Plus, Nick Lidstrom at over 40 years old made Ian White a legitimate top 4 defenseman.

Can you find one season where he was worthy of a Hart nod? He had some great seasons, but even in 2008 when he finished 4th - was there really an argument for him to have more votes than Geno or Iggy? Its obviously extremely hard for a d-man to be nominated for it, let alone win (Pronger arguably only won because Jagr missed 1/4 of the season).

 

[Mildan]

if he retires now, pretty much all the guys above him in goal lists stays ahead of him for me so outside top 15

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Can you find one season where he was worthy of a Hart nod? He had some great seasons, but even in 2008 when he finished 4th - was there really an argument for him to have more votes than Geno or Iggy? Its obviously extremely hard for a d-man to be nominated for it, let alone win (Pronger arguably only won because Jagr missed 1/4 of the season).

I mean, it's not a strong argument because as you say, it's really difficult for a D-man to get any recognition for it... but he averaged about 5 minutes more a game than either Malkin or Iginla (26 mins vs 21 each for those guys). And I don't think there is a stat for it,zone starts might be the closest to it, for time actually spent in the offensive zone.

It's the problem also with Nick Lidstrom. There are so many times where he would defuse an opponent's rush or make harmless an opponent's opportunity, but defensive things like that are ridiculously hard to quantify. The Hart is a quantity stat. It's the Art Ross with more leeway for "value".

It's why Lidstrom is a tough guy to argue for. He just did everything at a high level but not so far and ahead of everyone like Bobby Orr in his day did to get the real "holy **** this guy is absolutely unreal" treatment. He eventually got kind of overrated on the other side and won some Norris Trophies he shouldn't have near the end of his career... but he was just elitely rock solid in what he did.

 

[Fugazy]

I think he's within the Top 15 now.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Lidstrom was never the best player in the world

Lidstrom was arguably the best player in the world in the year of 2002.