Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[daver]

Given he has added a very good Cup run and two Top Tenish seasons to his resume since landing at #22 on the Top 100, let me ask this question:

Putting aside whether you think #22 was where he should have been two years ago, has he done enough to move up from #22?

I would have him right beside Jagr IMO from a winger perceptive and still a bit aways from Richard despite many really good arguments for being close to him (sometimes timing is everything).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You missed the part where Messier at age 35 was pacing for 50 goals until a late-season injury and finished 2nd to Mario in Hart voting. Mess was also 7th in PPG at age 36. Mario was 2nd in Hart voting, aged 35, playing half a season.
And you missed the part where Gretzky was 5th in Hart voting, aged 37, on a bad, low-scoring team.

Howe was 5th in Hart voting at age 39 and age 40, and third in scoring both those years.

Ovechkin's claim to fame as a player in his 30s is not going to be his scoring finishes or his Hart record. It's his exceptional goals totals. Fortunately, that is quite a big thing.

Never realized that.

Hart voting, as we know, can be odd at times.

Gretzky's line that season was 23-67-90 -11
Pavel Bure's line that year was 51-39-90 +5

Bure didn't get a single Hart vote

The year before Gretzky had 97 points and was +12 and came in 15th

 

[The Panther]

Never realized that.

Hart voting, as we know, can be odd at times.

Gretzky's line that season was 23-67-90 -11
Pavel Bure's line that year was 51-39-90 +5

Bure didn't get a single Hart vote

The year before Gretzky had 97 points and was +12 and came in 15th

Hart voting is always season-contextual. You shouldn't just look at raw stats to try to interpret it.

The Gretzky thing in '98 is interesting, although not significant (he merely got several 4th-place votes... bizarrely, it appears he got one 1st place vote...?? WTF?). In '97 the Rangers were expected to be competitive and Messier was still there, and Leetch had a big (Norris) season. But in '98 Messier was gone, Leetch was -36 and fighting it a bit, and I guess some voters saw Gretzky as being on a bit of an island. Which he kind of was. Hart voting can also sometimes be skewed by "recency" bias (i.e., what happened in the latter portions of the season). In the second half of 1997-98, Gretzky was 1 point behind peak-Jagr for the NHL scoring lead despite being old and on one of the lowest-scoring teams.

But yeah, Bure was Gretzky's equal in scoring overall. The thing is, the Canucks were such a train-wreck that season that nobody there was getting any Hart votes. But the Rangers sucked, too, so I guess some good ol' New York media bias.


EDIT: Just to add to what I was saying above, I'll do some selective cherry-picking of dates, but it nevertheless provides context for Gretzky getting several 4th-place Hart votes in '98:

NHL scoring leaders from Dec.27 1997 to April 18 (end of season) 1998:
Jagr
GP43: 17G + 43A = 60PTS (1.39PPG)
Gretzky
GP42: 14G + 42A = 56PTS (1.30PPG)

Bure was 7th here, and had 1.00 PPG.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hart voting is always season-contextual. You shouldn't just look at raw stats to try to interpret it.

The Gretzky thing in '98 is interesting, although not significant (he merely got several 4th-place votes... bizarrely, it appears he got one 1st place vote...?? WTF?). In '97 the Rangers were expected to be competitive and Messier was still there, and Leetch had a big (Norris) season. But in '98 Messier was gone, Leetch was -36 and fighting it a bit, and I guess some voters saw Gretzky as being on a bit of an island. Which he kind of was. Hart voting can also sometimes be skewed by "recency" bias (i.e., what happened in the latter portions of the season). In the second half of 1997-98, Gretzky was 1 point behind peak-Jagr for the NHL scoring lead despite being old and on one of the lowest-scoring teams.

But yeah, Bure was Gretzky's equal in scoring overall. The thing is, the Canucks were such a train-wreck that season that nobody there was getting any Hart votes. But the Rangers sucked, too, so I guess some good ol' New York media bias.

In a thread about Ovie, with his Russian heritage, it almost appears that my mentioning Bure vs. Gretzky in Hart voting that season was a comment on nationality bias.

Of course, I wouldn't do that.

 

[The Panther]

In a thread about Ovie, with his Russian heritage, it almost appears that my mentioning Bure vs. Gretzky in Hart voting that season was a comment on nationality bias.

Of course, I wouldn't do that.

Bure is one of those players (Jagr is another, but for entirely different reasons and in a grander context) where his career accomplishments and trophy-haul don't reflect how good he actually was.

As several players do, Bure suffered from a few events in his career to do with his team's context, and from untimely injuries. Just as he was peaking in his career and in media-hype recognition (spring 1994), the Work Stoppage happened. Then, once he came back, his big injury happened, which slowed him down for over a year. Then, once he was healthy again and ready to go, the Canucks went completely into the toilet and became a train-wreck. Then, he was traded to a nondescript (and crappy) team that was basically invisible in the NHL's media circles. Then, when he finally got back to media prominence in New York, he immediately was injured again and retired.

To be honest, I tend to think a healthy, motivated Bure is the equal of Ovechkin. But 'motivated' is a big part of it, I guess. Ovechkin can keep that competitive edge consistently, which is a skill in itself. As is avoiding injury.

 

[tinyzombies]

When he was younger the Caps were arrogant and predictable and not very good defensively. It was just Ovie winding up for rushes (and, of course, one-timing on the PP). They collect the same kind of players - size/skill - but they play a far more sophisticated system... loading up on the back end, average zone entries, passing up medium chances and building tactics instead to wait for high danger chances ... which to me says their system is still built around Ovie, but in a different way.

Those old school players didn't have that, but they didn't have to face advanced systems either (and goaltending hadn't advanced to deal with the slapper yet). Hull and young Ovie are very comparable though (with a pinch of glorified bodychecking as the dman is moving the puck...).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've read through most of this thread, and most of the Ovechkin comparisons are to the usual suspects (Crosby, Hull, Richard).

Anyone want to make a case for Ovechkin against, say, Ray Bourque? The reason I picked Bourque is he was ranked 10th in the HOH Top 100 list - so if Ovechkin should be ranked in the top ten, he'd have to surpass Bourque first.

At this point, a thoughtful 500 word paragraph on these two players would probably be more useful and interesting than a 5,000 word essay dissecting the relative merits of Ovechkin and Crosby (or Hull, or Richard).

 

[Khomutov]

Bure is one of those players (Jagr is another, but for entirely different reasons and in a grander context) where his career accomplishments and trophy-haul don't reflect how good he actually was.

As several players do, Bure suffered from a few events in his career to do with his team's context, and from untimely injuries. Just as he was peaking in his career and in media-hype recognition (spring 1994), the Work Stoppage happened. Then, once he came back, his big injury happened, which slowed him down for over a year. Then, once he was healthy again and ready to go, the Canucks went completely into the toilet and became a train-wreck. Then, he was traded to a nondescript (and crappy) team that was basically invisible in the NHL's media circles. Then, when he finally got back to media prominence in New York, he immediately was injured again and retired.

To be honest, I tend to think a healthy, motivated Bure is the equal of Ovechkin. But 'motivated' is a big part of it, I guess. Ovechkin can keep that competitive edge consistently, which is a skill in itself. As is avoiding injury.

As a big Ovechkin fan i agree with this statement. But that is what makes Ovechkin special. He is a iron man, made of steel. A rare breed of an athlete. That the only thing what separates him from Bure, in all other aspects there were equal talents.

 

[Sentinel]

I like Starshinov, he was a tireless backchecker, physically strong, knew how to score and to trade passes. He and Firsov were the two Soviet players who David Bauer in 1968 thought could switch to the NHL right away, despite of the different playing styles. But there's a significant gap between Firsov and Starshinov. Firsov dominated the 1967 World Championship and the 1968 Olympics, was still considered the second best forward at the 1969 and 1970 WChs and then again the number one at the 1971 WCh. He's the one his peers and contemporary observers used hyperbole for: better than Kharlamov, best forward in the world in his time, best Russian player ever. Starshinov didn't reach such heights.

And yet Starshinov scored more goals than Firsov in the Soviet league. He lead the league in three seasons... in the middle of Firsov's prime.

I think Firsov was better internationally and probably a better passer. Starshinov was the better domestic goalscorer and, since we're talking about Hull, this is what we need to focus on.

From what I remember, in the 60s Soviet popular culture Starshinov was the bigger figure than Firsov. But that might be because of people's love of Spartak and distrust of CSKA.

 

[Sentinel]

Comparing Lanny McDonald's retirement to Richard's, now that's crazy.

I never even mentioned Ovechkin in my post. But since you brought him up, he's 15th in goals per game (.508) in the playoffs. Way behind Richard's 4th place (.621).

Richard's playoff goalscoring is his only tangible achievement. In every other aspect Ovy has already left him in the dust.

Nothing crazy about comparing their retirements. It was a crazy premise to begin with.

 

[Theokritos]

I think Firsov was better internationally and probably a better passer. Starshinov was the better domestic goalscorer and, since we're talking about Hull, this is what we need to focus on.

From what I remember, in the 60s Soviet popular culture Starshinov was the bigger figure than Firsov. But that might be because of people's love of Spartak and distrust of CSKA.

All I can tell you is that voting results and comments by both Russian and foreign observers show that Firsov was amost universally regard one or two tiers above Starshinov. Domestic scoring numbers are not enough to challenge that for me.

 

[Sentinel]

All I can tell you is that voting results and comments by both Russian and foreign observers show that Firsov was amost universally regard one or two tiers above Starshinov. Domestic scoring numbers are not enough to challenge that for me.

I guess... Russian psyche traditionally treats all numbers with distrust. Kharlamov is still widely regarded as the best Soviet / Russian player of all time, despite leading the league in points exactly once.

I don't know about "two tiers above."

 

[Theokritos]

Kharlamov is still widely regarded as the best Soviet / Russian player of all time, despite leading the league in points exactly once.

Well, I seem to remember you stating that "stats aren't everything" on multiple occasions.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, I seem to remember you stating that "stats aren't everything" on multiple occasions.

That is correct. Which is why Firsov is in my top 5 Russian players of all time and Starshinov in the top 20. But strictly as goalscorers go, a person who scored more goals is a better candidate to take on Bobby Hull. Just my opinion.

 

[Sentinel]

I've read through most of this thread, and most of the Ovechkin comparisons are to the usual suspects (Crosby, Hull, Richard).

Anyone want to make a case for Ovechkin against, say, Ray Bourque? The reason I picked Bourque is he was ranked 10th in the HOH Top 100 list - so if Ovechkin should be ranked in the top ten, he'd have to surpass Bourque first.

At this point, a thoughtful 500 word paragraph on these two players would probably be more useful and interesting than a 5,000 word essay dissecting the relative merits of Ovechkin and Crosby (or Hull, or Richard).

I certainly can't. This overrating of Bourque makes any comparison between them impossible. You might as well compare Ovechkin to Bobby Clarke.

 

[wetcoast]

At no time has the NHL been less physical.

Maybe we are using the term physical differently then as I remember the 70's and 80s as very wide open often loose affairs and sure there was more fighting but there are alot more collisions (hits) as faster speeds with more weight going on than back then so I'd call it more physical.

The 90s might have the title though as the clutch and grab, left wing lock and teeing up on players did add an extra element of the "welcome to your concussion" decade for far too many elite NHL players.

 

[wetcoast]

Handicapping? I'm just pointing out not everything is harder in the league today, which some people in this thread seems to claim it is, and not everything was harder in the league in the 80s or 90s either. It's called nuances and context and goes both ways and in different ways. I'm also saying Ovechkin in 19–20 is a player throwing all of his eggs in the goal scoring basket, which is a factor to consider while looking at the whole picture.

Henrik Sedin led the league in assists three years in a row with 83, 75 and 67 assists. Sidney Crosby led the league in assists once with 68 assists.

This would mean, if we had an award for assists, The Gretzky, and followed strict award counting, that Sedin was simply a better passer or playmaker than Crosby, no questions asked. And quite handily too. But, if we're trying to scratch a bit more on the surface we recognize that Sedin, when he put up those seasons, had 166, 157 and 113 shots on goals respectively, i.e. he tilted way more heavily to and through line-mates for offensive production (most notably his brother and Alexandre Burrows). When his brother was injured for 19 games during the 09–10 season he was forced to re-model his game to stay effective and instead had more goals (10) than assists. As soon as Daniel came back, roles were back in place, and Henrik's assists spiked again like crazy.

I think personally, if Crosby put all of his focus on playmaking and disregarded goal scoring more or less fully, he could have pushed 80 assists in a season just like Henrik Sedin, or perhaps even 90 assists like one Joe Thornton did (who stepped away from an earlier career more balanced game with 30+ goals in Boston). And his goal scoring would have dipped a bit instead. But he didn't play like that. When he had 68 assists he also threw 259 pucks on the net.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Ovechkin is still a strong/good goal scorer, just that its value is overstated by some people and that it comes within a role related context, especially when it comes to award counting. For example, I agree Ovechkin had a strong and inspiring 2018 playoffs (after Holtby and Eller bailed the team out of game 3 against CBJ in the 1st round), I just don't think it was worthy of an (MVP) award as I think his line-mate had an even stronger performance through those playoffs.

Same way I agree there is some relative value in a 9th Rocket, but also that both Draisaitl and Pastrnak (and perhaps even Matthews) most likely would have edged out Ovechkin with a few goals if they played just like him (perhaps to the detriment of their own teams too, but that's another story).

Now this is a lot more clear and I happen to agree with all of it than the baby powder comment and that's all I got right now, its been a long week......

 

[Fazkovsky]

hes the best ever, if it wasnt for the coronavirus he woulda hit 50 again... he is the best ever goalscorer period.

 

[wetcoast]

Never realized that.

Hart voting, as we know, can be odd at times.

Gretzky's line that season was 23-67-90 -11
Pavel Bure's line that year was 51-39-90 +5

Bure didn't get a single Hart vote

The year before Gretzky had 97 points and was +12 and came in 15th

This isn't the only example where Hart voting is really out of wack and inconsistent and this is where one needs to look at it critically to see if it holds an water, which it doesn't.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's a duck and this was a career reputation vote (which is really strange because it's not like it had ANY affect on his legacy right?)

 

[wetcoast]

Bure is one of those players (Jagr is another, but for entirely different reasons and in a grander context) where his career accomplishments and trophy-haul don't reflect how good he actually was.

As several players do, Bure suffered from a few events in his career to do with his team's context, and from untimely injuries. Just as he was peaking in his career and in media-hype recognition (spring 1994), the Work Stoppage happened. Then, once he came back, his big injury happened, which slowed him down for over a year. Then, once he was healthy again and ready to go, the Canucks went completely into the toilet and became a train-wreck. Then, he was traded to a nondescript (and crappy) team that was basically invisible in the NHL's media circles. Then, when he finally got back to media prominence in New York, he immediately was injured again and retired.

To be honest, I tend to think a healthy, motivated Bure is the equal of Ovechkin. But 'motivated' is a big part of it, I guess. Ovechkin can keep that competitive edge consistently, which is a skill in itself. As is avoiding injury.

You had me until the last sentence, Bure was motivated and always wanted to be the best (even in something really trivial like a badminton game at a picnic at gino Odjicks place).

Injuries is what did Bure in not lack of motivation.

Also avoiding injury isn't really a skill, sometimes injuries are plain bad luck just ask Sami Salo.

Well maybe Salo isn't the best example to use here......

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Maybe we are using the term physical differently then as I remember the 70's and 80s as very wide open often loose affairs and sure there was more fighting but there are alot more collisions (hits) as faster speeds with more weight going on than back then so I'd call it more physical.

The 90s might have the title though as the clutch and grab, left wing lock and teeing up on players did add an extra element of the "welcome to your concussion" decade for far too many elite NHL players.

I can't argue that there isn't more weight today. Or a little more speed. But there are not more collisions today. And you can't even put one of those 20 ounce sticks on an opponent anymore.

 

[The Panther]

You had me until the last sentence, Bure was motivated and always wanted to be the best (even in something really trivial like a badminton game at a picnic at gino Odjicks place).

Injuries is what did Bure in not lack of motivation.

Also avoiding injury isn't really a skill, sometimes injuries are plain bad luck just ask Sami Salo.

Well maybe Salo isn't the best example to use here......

I dunno, I mean luck is part of avoiding injury but consciousness about your own physical attributes and making calculated 'risk-aversion' moves is part of it, also. It's part of the mental game, I think.

Bobby Orr is the first to say that his early accumulation of injuries to his knees was a result of the style of game he played. I think Bure is a little bit like that -- he probably could have been a little more careful about putting himself into dangerous situations.

But then we run into the age-old debate about whether such players would have been as effective if they hadn't been so reckless...

 

[Zuluss]

1. To your first paragraph - just because both players may be close - it doesn't mean they have to be ranked back to back, or even super close. There's a lot of high quality players in the history of hockey - and its not inconceivable for two very close players to be ranked.....20 spots apart, or even 50 spots apart. If it was up to me - i'd have ranked Ovechkin higher than he ended, and Hull lower - so yes closer. I just think people obsess a bit too much at times about how close two players need to be. If me and you stand in a line one meter apart - we're still one meter apart whether there's 1 person in between us, or 20 people crammed in between us.

It is theoretically possible that players between #5 and #25 all-time are so close that you can cram them all between Bobby Hull and Ovechkin, and still maintain Hull and Ovechkin are close.
I do see light, however, between Hull and Richard/Jagr, I see even more light between Ovechkin and, say, Lafleur.
But after 2019/2020 regular season I am not sure anymore that I see light between Hull and Ovechkin.

2. Your overall argument seems to be "through 15 NHL seasons, Hull and Ovechkin are close". I think I agree. If we agree - doesn't that put Hull ahead overall, and likely by a somewhat decent gap still - because you have to also consider WHA years? I know they aren't exactly worth as much as the NHL seasons - but they were still some great seasons that should get him some consideration. Which is my conclusion today. Hull ahead overall, mostly due to WHA. Maybe by the time Ovechkin retires, that changes - we'll see.

I do not think WHA years add all that much to Hull's resume, maybe because I am not as big on the part of longevity which is "longevity as a great first-liner" (something like what Jagr was after he returned to NHL).
I recall there was a thread on this board that recommended multiplying WHA points by 0.7 to convert them to NHL points from the same era. Using this rule of thumb, in WHA Hull put together a string of 35-goal, 80-point seasons - which good, but not great given that in the 70ies #10 in goals in NHL had about 40 goals and #10 in points had 90ish points.
The only exception seems to be Hull's 1974/75 season in WHA, when his goals and points convert to around 5th in goals and 10th in points in NHL. In terms of comparing Hull to Ovechkin on goal-scoring, this extra top5 finish does not matter much; in terms of overall season value, this season is obviously an elite one, better than Ovechkin's 19/20 and on par with Ovechkin's 18/19 or 17/18. So we can say, taking WHA into account, that Ovechkin has one more elite season on Hull rather than two. Does that move the needle in a comparison of two guys with 10+ elite seasons each? Well, a little.

I've read through most of this thread, and most of the Ovechkin comparisons are to the usual suspects (Crosby, Hull, Richard).

Anyone want to make a case for Ovechkin against, say, Ray Bourque? The reason I picked Bourque is he was ranked 10th in the HOH Top 100 list - so if Ovechkin should be ranked in the top ten, he'd have to surpass Bourque first.

At this point, a thoughtful 500 word paragraph on these two players would probably be more useful and interesting than a 5,000 word essay dissecting the relative merits of Ovechkin and Crosby (or Hull, or Richard).

Ovechkin and Richard and especially Ovechkin and Bobby Hull are much easier comparisons. If we cannot agree on how those go, we are not going to agree on something more complicated either. It is much more promising to settle on Ovechkin vs. Richard and Ovechkin vs. Hull and then let Ovechkin vs. Bourque fix itself based on Richard vs. Bourque and Hull vs. Bourque comparisons already made.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I've read through most of this thread, and most of the Ovechkin comparisons are to the usual suspects (Crosby, Hull, Richard).

Anyone want to make a case for Ovechkin against, say, Ray Bourque? The reason I picked Bourque is he was ranked 10th in the HOH Top 100 list - so if Ovechkin should be ranked in the top ten, he'd have to surpass Bourque first.

At this point, a thoughtful 500 word paragraph on these two players would probably be more useful and interesting than a 5,000 word essay dissecting the relative merits of Ovechkin and Crosby (or Hull, or Richard).

Just as a starting point, would we say there are between 6-8 seasons when we would say Alex Ovechkin had a better season than the best defenseman in the league?

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 seem pretty clear cut, but I would also suggest 2006 and maybe even 2019.

The best we could say for his 2007 is that he might have been better than the 4th best defenseman. 2012 would have next to zero chance at even meeting that. Same in 2014 where he had comparable point totals to Karlsson and a worse plus-minus (so if Karlsson only finished 7th, then how would they view Ovechkin in this context?).

2016 might see him miss as well. Karlsson and Burns outscored him (Letang had just 4 fewer points in 8 fewer games). And Doughty landed above all three of those guys. Certainly not as good as the three nominees in 2017. Probably under Keith as well. 2018 is much weaker, but I wouldn’t expect him to land above Hedman or Doughty. And this year would maybe be the value of a 2nd Team selection.

So if I said he’s got the comparative resume of an 8x 1st Team Defenseman and 3x 2nd Team Defenseman (to Ray Bourque’s 13x and 6x), but with stronger value in some of his 1st Team equivalents, am I that far off?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Just as a starting point, would we say there are between 6-8 seasons when we would say Alex Ovechkin had a better season than the best defenseman in the league?

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 seem pretty clear cut, but I would also suggest 2006 and maybe even 2019.

The best we could say for his 2007 is that he might have been better than the 4th best defenseman. 2012 would have next to zero chance at even meeting that. Same in 2014 where he had comparable point totals to Karlsson and a worse plus-minus (so if Karlsson only finished 7th, then how would they view Ovechkin in this context?).

2016 might see him miss as well. Karlsson and Burns outscored him (Letang had just 4 fewer points in 8 fewer games). And Doughty landed above all three of those guys. Certainly not as good as the three nominees in 2017. Probably under Keith as well. 2018 is much weaker, but I wouldn’t expect him to land above Hedman or Doughty. And this year would maybe be the value of a 2nd Team selection.

So if I said he’s got the comparative resume of an 8x 1st Team Defenseman and 3x 2nd Team Defenseman (to Ray Bourque’s 13x and 6x), but with stronger value in some of his 1st Team equivalents, am I that far off?

You sure went to great lengths to make a bad translation when Hart votes are directly comparable.

Harts
Ovechkin: 3
Bourque: 0

Hart Finalist
Ovechkin: 5
Bourque: 2

Hart top 6
Ovechkin: 7
Bourque: 6

Hart top 10
Ovechkin: 9 (will likely be 10 after this year, and counting)
Bourque: 8

So it's crystal clear that Ovechkin's peak curb stomps Bourque's peak, and Ovechkin's prime 10 seasons are better than Bourque's prime 10 seasons. So then it's a matter of if you think Bourque's bottom 10 seasons are a big enough difference maker relative to Ovechkin's bottom 5 seasons.