Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Neutrinos]

Check Canadas hockey enrollment numbers these days, I think you would be surprised at what you see. If I remember correctly the raw total has been going down and as a percentage its even lower than that now. Not sure if this is really relevant to the 1950s discussion but I think from the 70s or 80s. I dont have time to look right now so I could be completely wrong but its something to look into. Female hockey in Canada is growing, males not so much.

There were Americans playing in the NHL way back as well. 4 of the O6 teams are USA based, they had American players. But just for an exercise to see how stacked the league would be, go make 6 rosters of the best Canadians and mix in a few Americans with the teams right now. They'll be absolutely stacked. I dont think people realise how much 31 teams dilutes the talent plus the KHL is an attractive draw for good Europeans as well.

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1970's, 49 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1980's, 39 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1990's, 29 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 2000's, only 22 of them were Canadian

 

[newfy]

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1970's, 49 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1980's, 39 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1990's, 29 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 2000's, only 22 of them were Canadian

That doesnt really address the point I was making at all. I'm not denying that there are good Europeans in the league now, I'm just saying the league is also diluted which makes a big difference as well. Playing against 31 teams that have good Europeans in the mix doesnt mean its harder than playing 6 teams that are almost all Canadian.

Like I said, go make 6 teams of all Canadians+ some Americans and match those teams up with some of the top teams out there today with Europeans mixed in. I'll bet you the Canadian teams are stronger overall. Do you think that John Scott would have played in the NHL in 2015 if theres only 6 teams in the league? He definitely wouldnt have, but because teams have to fill out their roster, more bad players are also added in with the good ones coming from Europe.

 

[Neutrinos]

That doesnt really address the point I was making at all. I'm not denying that there are good Europeans in the league now, I'm just saying the league is also diluted which makes a big difference as well. Playing against 31 teams that have good Europeans in the mix doesnt mean its harder than playing 6 teams that are almost all Canadian.

Like I said, go make 6 teams of all Canadians+ some Americans and match those teams up with some of the top teams out there today with Europeans mixed in. I'll bet you the Canadian teams are stronger overall. Do you think that John Scott would have played in the NHL in 2015 if theres only 6 teams in the league? He definitely wouldnt have, but because teams have to fill out their roster, more bad players are also added in with the good ones coming from Europe.

During the 50's and 60's, the NHL was made up primarily of Canadians at a time when Canada's population was around 10 million or so

Yes, the NHL only had 6 teams, but the talent pool to choose from was also incredibly small relative to what it is today when you factor in the current populations of Canada, Sweden, Finland, Russia, USA, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland, etc. and the number of hockey players within those nations

 

[Boxscore]

During the 50's and 60's, the NHL was made up primarily of Canadians at a time when Canada's population was around 10 million or so

Yes, the NHL only had 6 teams, but the talent pool to choose from was also incredibly small relative to what it is today when you factor in the current populations of Canada, Sweden, Finland, Russia, USA, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland, etc. and the number of hockey players within those nations

This is all true. However, during the 50's and 60's, the NHL was a war zone. Hitting, whacking, pugilism, violence, fighting, stick-swinging and intimidation. The league wasn't for the faint of heart--and a far contrast to the "non-contact" brand of hockey being played in the NHL today. I'll state this emphatically--a good percentage of the players in the league today would not have the physicality or mental toughness to survive or thrive in that setting.

Yes, today's players are faster and better trained and coached, yada yada. They eat organic and have sleep regimens and mental coaches to "make sure they're alright." And, sure, Europeans have influenced the game for the better--no question. My point it--there's pros and cons of each era. It's not fair to praise the benefits of a certain era while not factoring in other influences from a past era. It's all relative at the end of the day. It's the same in every sport, as well as music, entertainment and the arts. Technology and training changes everything, not just the NHL.

 

[GreatGonzo]

1. Awww. The "Great" one has admitted his confusion. Baby steps but a start.

2. Who's angry? Certainly not me.

You think he has a perfectly well rounded game and is a Selke candidate. Not everyone agrees with you, deal with it. You can't bulldoze your way through every discussion using the logical fallacies that is your bread and butter. Toodleoo.

You always have to resort to that kind of talk in order to prove your point? Stay classy bud looks good on you.

You sit there and complain about strawmen, yet make the statement that I think or that I said he has a “well rounded selke caliber” game? Wow such a hypocrite. Next time you want to accuse somehow of something, maybe make sure you don’t have to completely embarrass yourself in the process. You have no argument or nothing better to say other than your backhanded insults.

“Deal with it”

 

[GreatGonzo]

It's not close between them playoff wise. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Richard, much like Ovechkin, is often in the discussion for greatest goal scorer ever. However, Ovechkin is never in the discussion as one of the best playoff performers ever. Not even close. I've never heard anyone argue that. He's been good in the playoffs, but he has peers that I would say have been better. I would rank Crosby, Zetterberg, Malkin, Kane, Keith, and maybe Toews as all being better playoff performers among his contemporaries. Richard is regarded as one of the very best playoff performers for any era. So it's not close.

Maybe 10-15 years ago, but now a days the conversation has definitely shifted to Ovechkin, and even before him, it was Gretzky and Lemieux. No idea where your getting this idea that Richards is even considered compared to those 3.

How many goal posts do you plan on changing before your satisfied? It’s either goal scoring or playoff resume, pick one.

And that’s your opinion, anymore points you want to make that have nothing to do with the conversation?

by the way, there is that context that you lack. Keith, Kane, and Toews all play on one team, same with Crosby and Malkin. It’s almost like great playoff performers on one team win more....even Zetterberg had Datsyuk and Lidstrom. So what’s your point? You would choose all these guys that happen to all play with each other? I think most people would. Doesn’t take away anything from Ovechkin though.

Since ‘06, Ovechkin sits 3rd in playoff points, has one less goal than Crosby in 36 less games, he also sits 3rd in PPG. He sits 3rd in playoff ES goals at 41. He also has 20 more points than his next closest teammate with 29 more goals and only 9 less assists.. He is a fine playoff performer, one of the best of his generation. And he has the Stanley cup and smythe to back it. Whether you would choose someone else has nothing to do with him being better than Richard or whether or not he has been more dominant.

 

[filinski77]

Check Canadas hockey enrollment numbers these days, I think you would be surprised at what you see. If I remember correctly the raw total has been going down and as a percentage its even lower than that now. Not sure if this is really relevant to the 1950s discussion but I think from the 70s or 80s. I dont have time to look right now so I could be completely wrong but its something to look into. Female hockey in Canada is growing, males not so much.

There were Americans playing in the NHL way back as well. 4 of the O6 teams are USA based, they had American players. But just for an exercise to see how stacked the league would be, go make 6 rosters of the best Canadians and mix in a few Americans with the teams right now. They'll be absolutely stacked. I dont think people realise how much 31 teams dilutes the talent plus the KHL is an attractive draw for good Europeans as well.

Over the first 15 years of Richards career, 342 players played at least 40 GP (arbitrary number chosen).

323/342 (94.4%) were Canadian.

Sure the league has 5x as many teams, but Canada alone has over 3x the population that it had in the 40's, then add in the rest of the WORLD.

People can say the league is "diluted" nowadays, but that is not the case at all.

 

[GMR]

Maybe 10-15 years ago, but now a days the conversation has definitely shifted to Ovechkin, and even before him, it was Gretzky and Lemieux. No idea where your getting this idea that Richards is even considered compared to those 3.

How many goal posts do you plan on changing before your satisfied? It’s either goal scoring or playoff resume, pick one.

And that’s your opinion, anymore points you want to make that have nothing to do with the conversation?

by the way, there is that context that you lack. Keith, Kane, and Toews all play on one team, same with Crosby and Malkin. It’s almost like great playoff performers on one team win more....even Zetterberg had Datsyuk and Lidstrom. So what’s your point? You would choose all these guys that happen to all play with each other? I think most people would. Doesn’t take away anything from Ovechkin though.

Since ‘06, Ovechkin sits 3rd in playoff points, has one less goal than Crosby in 36 less games, he also sits 3rd in PPG. He sits 3rd in playoff ES goals at 41. He also has 20 more points than his next closest teammate with 29 more goals and only 9 less assists.. He is a fine playoff performer, one of the best of his generation. And he has the Stanley cup and smythe to back it. Whether you would choose someone else has nothing to do with him being better than Richard or whether or not he has been more dominant.

Both topics are relevant to the conversation as to who should be ranked higher all time at this point. I think their goal scoring is similar and Richard is far better in the playoffs. Why would you pick just one category to judge these players?

Stop making it sound like Ovechkin has played with scrubs. Backstrom is a player who has a Hall of Fame case. Holtby has been a Vezina caliber player. They've had offensive defenseman who can score like Green and Carlson. The team underachieved in the playoffs for the longest time. Even you can't deny that. The fact is, Ovechkin has been outperformed by his peers in the playoffs. Blaming his teammates for choking in the playoffs is fair, but making it sound like the Capitals are overmatched is simply not true. They've won multiple Presidents trophies and division titles. They've had good teams that are not significantly worse than the Blackhawks, Red Wings, and Penguins teams. Ovechkin is a good playoff performer, but he's not on Richard's level in the postseason. He probably doesn't make the top 5 in his own era for playoffs. PPG isn't everything.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's not close between them playoff wise. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Richard, much like Ovechkin, is often in the discussion for greatest goal scorer ever. However, Ovechkin is never in the discussion as one of the best playoff performers ever. Not even close. I've never heard anyone argue that.

I'll argue that all day long. Ovie is absolutely an all-time great in the playoffs (same as the regular season) and arguably the best playoff performer of the past 15 years.

You can start with this:

Top Offensive Players Since 2005, Using an Objective Scoring System

 

[GMR]

I'll argue that all day long. Ovie is absolutely an all-time great in the playoffs (same as the regular season) and arguably the best playoff performer of the past 15 years.

You can start with this:

Top Offensive Players Since 2005, Using an Objective Scoring System

You're the first person I've ever heard suggest that. He's only been to the Conference Finals once in his career. Kind of hard to argue that he's the best playoff performer of the last 15 years. Are you basing this strictly on goals and nothing else?

 

[bobholly39]

I'll argue that all day long. Ovie is absolutely an all-time great in the playoffs (same as the regular season) and arguably the best playoff performer of the past 15 years.

You can start with this:

Top Offensive Players Since 2005, Using an Objective Scoring System

Among the top 20 players of all-time - Ovechkin is probably 18th or 19th for playoff performers. Maybe even 20th.

I agree that he's not a "bad" playoff performer, and never was. Even before the cup year, he had done mostly well. But a lot of the top 20 players of all-times simply have done even better in playoffs.

If you look at the recent top 100 player list on the HOH forums - Ovechkin ranks 22. Now - nevermind for a second whether you agree with his overall ranking - but strictly look at the 21 players listed above him. How many of those have weaker playoff resumes than he does? Very, very few. (of course knowing who i'm talking to - I wouldn't be surprised if your response claims Ovechkin is a top 3 playoff performer all-time).

 

[bobholly39]

Howe may be the greatest winger ever, but I don't agree with him being anointed as the best ever

If by "best" you mean in an absolute sense - you're probably right.

Who won the most Olympic gold medals in sprinting from 1900 to 1950 for the men's 100M? I have no idea to be honest. But i'm sure whoever it is - the 20th fastest 100M runner from the past olympic games ran the 100m "faster" than him. That Olympic winner from last century will still go down as the greater, and better sprinter.

You never compare absolute performances across era in these types of lists. You'd have to adjust for equipment, training, ice conditions, and all kinds of other factors if so. Makes no sense.

 

[Iapyi]

You always have to resort to that kind of talk in order to prove your point? Stay classy bud looks good on you.

You sit there and complain about strawmen, yet make the statement that I think or that I said he has a “well rounded selke caliber” game? Wow such a hypocrite. Next time you want to accuse somehow of something, maybe make sure you don’t have to completely embarrass yourself in the process. You have no argument or nothing better to say other than your backhanded insults.

“Deal with it”

Look up the word sarcasm and follow the other posts within our "discussion". Then if you can't figure it out send me a PM and I'll help you through it, that way you may not embarrass yourself any further. LOL.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Both topics are relevant to the conversation as to who should be ranked higher all time at this point. I think their goal scoring is similar and Richard is far better in the playoffs. Why would you pick just one category to judge these players?

Stop making it sound like Ovechkin has played with scrubs. Backstrom is a player who has a Hall of Fame case. Holtby has been a Vezina caliber player. They've had offensive defenseman who can score like Green and Carlson. The team underachieved in the playoffs for the longest time. Even you can't deny that. The fact is, Ovechkin has been outperformed by his peers in the playoffs. Blaming his teammates for choking in the playoffs is fair, but making it sound like the Capitals are overmatched is simply not true. They've won multiple Presidents trophies and division titles. They've had good teams that are not significantly worse than the Blackhawks, Red Wings, and Penguins teams. Ovechkin is a good playoff performer, but he's not on Richard's level in the postseason. He probably doesn't make the top 5 in his own era for playoffs. PPG isn't everything.

Again, I’m not saying anything like that...you are in order to make it their team situation sound somewhat similar when it really wasn’t. Listing good names on those Caps teams still doesn’t change the point that your avoiding.

Again, your steering away from the point. I never said Ovechkin had bad teams, I said Richards had HOF talented teams. If you can’t admit that Richards had better teams around him in an era where it was easier to dominate, then I don’t know what to tel you.

Once again, you claim it was an era of many HOF talents, making it more competitive....yet don’t like to come to conclusion that Richards still benefitted from all that talent around him when it was all on those cup winning teams. I mean there were 5 on the ‘44 team alone, 7 on the ‘60, ‘58 team, 8 On the ‘55 team, even 9 on the ‘56 team....and this is all not counting Richards.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Look up the word sarcasm and follow the other posts within our "discussion". Then if you can't figure it out send me a PM and I'll help you through it, that way you may not embarrass yourself any further. LOL.

Because sarcasm is so easy to determine over a computer screen? Maybe your sarcasm isn’t very good? Might want to work on that.

 

[Prettyisland]

If ovi was from north America this thread would be about him being top 5

 

[GMR]

Again, I’m not saying anything like that...you are in order to make it their team situation sound somewhat similar when it really wasn’t. Listing good names on those Caps teams still doesn’t change the point that your avoiding.

Again, your steering away from the point. I never said Ovechkin had bad teams, I said Richards had HOF talented teams. If you can’t admit that Richards had better teams around him in an era where it was easier to dominate, then I don’t know what to tel you.

Once again, you claim it was an era of many HOF talents, making it more competitive....yet don’t like to come to conclusion that Richards still benefitted from all that talent around him when it was all on those cup winning teams. I mean there were 5 on the ‘44 team alone, 7 on the ‘60, ‘58 team, 8 On the ‘55 team, even 9 on the ‘56 team....and this is all not counting Richards.

I've admitted it many times actually. Not sure what you're seeing otherwise. It's also the reason I never bring up Richard's 8 Cups as a reason why I rank him above Ovechkin right now. I realize why he has 8 Cups. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. He has twice as many Cups as Howe and 7 more than Hull. Those Montreal teams were loaded. No such teams exist anymore. That never factored into my thinking or my ranking. I was talking about his individual playoff numbers. If you're saying that Richard's individual playoff numbers were inflated by having Gods for teammates, I suppose that's fair. It's harder to get recognized individually when the collective is so good. However, I'd rank him the best playoff performer of his generation, including any of his teammates. If he put up pedestrian playoff numbers and won 8 Cups that would be a different story.

 

[GMR]

If ovi was from north America this thread would be about him being top 5

No, because then Crosby would be in the top 5. I don't think he is. Not yet, at least.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Read my post above. You could use this same argument to knock any player who played on a dynasty team. Ovechkin has played on a pretty good team the last 10 years. There is no comparable to the 50's Habs and never will be in the modern era.

All your saying is the obvious, and that it takes great players and a solid team around you to win a championship. That’s a given. You keep bringing up this point as if I’ve said or hinted that Ovechkin has had no one while Richards has had everyone. No, BUT there is a clear and distinctive difference between their respected teams.

Stop making the point that Ovechkin has had great teams, it’s a point that doesn’t need to be proven or argued, because it wasn’t argued. It also keeps deferring from the fact that Richard still had a butt load of HOFers on his own team, especially on his line.

He had 6x Vezina winner and 2x Hart nominee Bill Durnan for 7 years. Later years of his career, he then had 6x Vezina winner Plante up until his retirement. He had 4x Norris winner and 5x finalists Doug Harvey. He had Defenseman Butch Bouchard who was a 3x All Star before the Norris was introduced but most likely would have won at least one. He had Hart winners Blake and Lach, who also lead the league in scoring twice. In his later years he then had offensive powerhouse and Hart winner Jean Beliveau with 2x scoring champion Dickie Moore.

So again, you keep saying “well Ovechkin had great players around him too” and this and that, but tell me....is Ovechkins teams anywhere close to the teams and talent Richards was surrounded with? Because it’s either yes or no. You have insisted constantly how much more competitive and high star powered the original six era was, and it was.....but look no further than the Canadiens of those days, especially the 50s, and you see A LOT of the best of the best during that time.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No, because then Crosby would be in the top 5. I don't think he is. Not yet, at least.

A lot of people think he is top 5.

 

[GreatGonzo]

That doesnt really address the point I was making at all. I'm not denying that there are good Europeans in the league now, I'm just saying the league is also diluted which makes a big difference as well. Playing against 31 teams that have good Europeans in the mix doesnt mean its harder than playing 6 teams that are almost all Canadian.

Like I said, go make 6 teams of all Canadians+ some Americans and match those teams up with some of the top teams out there today with Europeans mixed in. I'll bet you the Canadian teams are stronger overall. Do you think that John Scott would have played in the NHL in 2015 if theres only 6 teams in the league? He definitely wouldnt have, but because teams have to fill out their roster, more bad players are also added in with the good ones coming from Europe.

I think that’s where team systems come into play. I’m sure a majority of the players on those Stanley cup winning Wings teams in the 90s and 00s wouldn’t be playing in the original six, but bottom line players are significantly better than they were back then, and with the right system, they for sure can be just as valuable.

I don’t see how there is more “bad” players, I just feel the star power isn’t as heavy as it was. There is more balance within the league. More players doesn’t necessarily mean less talent, but more competition for roster spots, which means that for the most part, the top player gets a spot on a team. We don’t have as many big time players playing in this era, but it was also easier to stand out in a 6 team league than a 30 with significantly more players and more types of players from all over.

 

[WingsFan95]

Interested to hear who would be in your top five.

Mario, Orr, Hasek, Roy & Bourque. Yeah only 1 forward in there, because for value it's hard arguing goalies and d-men.

I'd like to hear this as well I mean
212
196
205
208
215
In 5 straight seasons but 99 isn't a top 5 forward?

Era, competition, talent-level, etc. Those numbers require context. Lemieux got 199 in 89. Gretz never eclipsed 190 after 86, his highest point totals after 87 (when he got 183) were 168, 163 and 148. Lemieux registered 160 in 60 games in 93 and 161 in 70 games in 96. Prime for prime value I take Lemieux over Gretzky. Orr is self-explanatory. Gretz dominated his period without question but he was also on a loaded team, perhaps the most loaded in the expansion era aside from the 70s Habs. I think most of us look at Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur through their stacked teams but Gretzky gets more of a pass seemingly.

And he is top 5 forwards. Not for all positions. I take Hasek & Roy for goaltending prime values over Gretzky.

 

[Iapyi]

Because sarcasm is so easy to determine over a computer screen? Maybe your sarcasm isn’t very good? Might want to work on that.

Obvious is obvious. Hopefully in the future if we cross paths you will recognize that you can't make false claims about what I am saying. I don't like bullies.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Mario, Orr, Hasek, Roy & Bourque. Yeah only 1 forward in there, because for value it's hard arguing goalies and d-men.



Era, competition, talent-level, etc. Those numbers require context. Lemieux got 199 in 89. Gretz never eclipsed 190 after 86, his highest point totals after 87 (when he got 183) were 168, 163 and 148. Lemieux registered 160 in 60 games in 93 and 161 in 70 games in 96. Prime for prime value I take Lemieux over Gretzky. Orr is self-explanatory. Gretz dominated his period without question but he was also on a loaded team, perhaps the most loaded in the expansion era aside from the 70s Habs. I think most of us look at Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur through their stacked teams but Gretzky gets more of a pass seemingly.

And he is top 5 forwards. Not for all positions. I take Hasek & Roy for goaltending prime values over Gretzky.

2 guys come into the league 4 years apart and have their entire careers overlap but they're playing in a different era with different competition? Lol nice joke. Also regarding the bolded

Lemieux 88/89: 199pts on a team that had 2 110+pt scorers, including a prime Norris runner up Paul Coffey.

Gretzky 81/82: 212pts on a team that had 0 110+pt scorers, no one close to a prime Coffey.

So much for your "loaded team" theory.

 

[bobbyking]

Mario, Orr, Hasek, Roy & Bourque. Yeah only 1 forward in there, because for value it's hard arguing goalies and d-men.



Era, competition, talent-level, etc. Those numbers require context. Lemieux got 199 in 89. Gretz never eclipsed 190 after 86, his highest point totals after 87 (when he got 183) were 168, 163 and 148. Lemieux registered 160 in 60 games in 93 and 161 in 70 games in 96. Prime for prime value I take Lemieux over Gretzky. Orr is self-explanatory. Gretz dominated his period without question but he was also on a loaded team, perhaps the most loaded in the expansion era aside from the 70s Habs. I think most of us look at Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur through their stacked teams but Gretzky gets more of a pass seemingly.

And he is top 5 forwards. Not for all positions. I take Hasek & Roy for goaltending prime values over Gretzky.

he won 2art rosses after leaving Edmonton.