Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[HTFN]

He will always be among the best/greatest goalscorers but not stand out clearly as the "best". He lacks a peak season that rivals at least 5 or 6 players peak goalscoring seasons.

Wow, even for you, that's something.

 

[daver]

Speaking of not very well thought out posts......

Its becoming increasingly difficult to not have Ovechkin as the best goal scorer of all time....period.

The "best" usually have a peak goalscoring season that is, at least, arguably among the best all-time. IMO, OV's 2007/08 is outside the Top 5.

Wayne and Hull are right there with him as the "greatest", add Mario to the list if you want to talk "best".

And Wayne and Mario will always have the caveat of being far superior overall offensive forces, which will always make me uncomfortable in placing OV ahead of them by limiting the discussion to just goalscoring.

As we have seen from OV, being the "best" goalscorer in at least half of years he won the Richard didn't put him close to be the "best" player in the league.

 

[daver]

Lacking consistency? Where? Hasnt he won the goal scoring title in 5 of the last 6 seasons? In his last 7 seasons he has averaged 47.8 goals including losing 10 games of this last season to Covid.

The OP is talking about best "player", not best "goalscorer". His overall level of play took a significant downturn after 2010 unlike the other players who are considered Top 10.

OV has one season since 2010 (2013) that would be considered as challenging for the best in the league.

 

[daver]

You have to consider the team component of stats when you start valuing them according to team goals, which are a team stat.

My point was a simple one... limiting your view to assists... all of the players on team A have been awarded 100 assists. This may represent anywhere between 50 and 100 goals. The real number is usually closer to 50. Knowing this, how "valuable" is each assist to the team? You can't claim that each one is "worth" a goal... the math doesn't work...

Re-run the same exercise with goals, and the team has 100 goals and each player "point" is worth one goal.

If we are talking Top Ten players all-time, why would we do this?

The hockey world clearly values overall offensive contribution (goals plus assists) vs. goalscoring. Crosby has been clearly recognized for his overall offensive contribution and that, unlike OV, he can clearly carry a line offensively through both playmaking and goalscoring, and even more unlike OV, do this while being a very good defensive player and taking on some defensive responsibilities.

Not sure why OV supporters have the need to bring his weaknesses vs. Crosby into the spotlight.

 

[BigT2002]

Am I talking overall hockey ability and having the forethought to look back 60 years and see what players were and did to the game??

Regardless, he (and Crosby) are basically 15-25 for me.

One can score a ton of goals (and I hope he takes down the Great One just to show he was human), but he isn't that "OMG!!!" on anything IMO

The Other will make it like he do it all, but he doesn't do it every year. When he got his Rocket, that was b/c of all the pundits in Canada complaining he wasn't a goal scorer...and the last couple years, he's just been a "meh" in standings. No fanfare.

 

[pi314]

Not sure if you are purposely being narrow-minded or what here. Arbitrary does not have to mean "random", it just means that there's no real reason for why the NHL chose 2 assists vs. 0, 1, or even 3. I believe the NHL originally started out with only 1 assist, then after 1 or 2 years, switched to 2, and then in the mid-40's brought it down to 1 for a single season, and then brought it back to 2. If you try to find any explanation for what 2 assists is the most appropriate number of assists to accurately determine how points are best accumulated, you will find absolutely nothing.

Now on to your Gretzky example: I never once mentioned that having the most assists in NHL history made his success random, or indicated that he lacked skills, so not sure why you are bringing that up.

	Gretzky	#2 All Time	% Lead over #2
Points	2,857	1,921	49%
Goals	894	801	12%
Total Assists	1,963	1,249	57%
A1	1,324	797	66%
A2	639	582	10%
Primary	2,218	1,547	43%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From: NHL Stats

Gretzky has a better Primary assist dominance than he does secondary or total assist lead. His primary point lead over #2 is only a bit less than his normal point lead. If the NHL had historically recorded 3 assists per goal, I can safely assume that Wayne would still be the total assist leader, and the total goal leader, and the total point leader.

Actually many of your brethren do come on here and argue that assists are meaningless.

Often citing the same rehashed articles post after post.

 

[pi314]

So you are saying any of those guys equal to Ovechkin?
Even if you combine them all, Ovechkin blow them out of the water.

Remember that part where I said the MOAR GOALS crowd are mostly insecure Ovechkin and Matthews fans.

 

[pi314]

I think you should realize by now that my argument is unrelated to Ovechkin or Matthews. The fact that you keep harping on it actually shows that you are being a little insecure... It's fine. I didn't wanna get pulled into some big debate over it. Like I said, it's a quirk.

Edit: And in other sports you have flukey goals, but not really flukey assists... since flukey assists are pretty much never counted. While in hockey you have flukey assists on non-flukey goals.

Just curious.

Who is your favorite player?

 

[tenken00]

Just curious.

Who is your favorite player?

Probably Tom

 

[Midnight Judges]

The "best" usually have a peak goalscoring season that is, at least, arguably among the best all-time. IMO, OV's 2007/08 is outside the Top 5.

Ovie's 2008 season adjusts to the second best all time. You know that, and you've seen the data 100 times. Your post is fundamentally dishonest. You feel the need to lie because deep down you think the truth doesn't make a good enough case for Crosby.

Era Adjusted: Greatest NHL goal-scoring seasons of all-time - Sportsnet.ca

 

[Midnight Judges]

Actually many of your brethren do come on here and argue that assists are meaningless.

Nobody has ever argued that on hfboards that I am aware of.

But since you state it as fact, you should quote those posts and reply directly to the people making those claims. We'll wait.

 

[Midnight Judges]

OV has one season since 2010 (2013) that would be considered as challenging for the best in the league.

Sure, except for 2015 when he was the best skater, and 2018 when he won the Rocket and Conn Smythe. Nevermind that Ovechkin has 166 more goals than Crosby in that time frame.

 

[ted2019]

Sure, he is already there.
I've made this picture, tell me if someone is missing.

Just because someone has tons of awards, doesn't mean he's the best player. Ever hear of Frank Nighbor?

 

[ted2019]

All time rankings:

#1 in rockets (2 more than #2)
T-#4 most Harts
T-#3 most Lindsays/Pearson’s

#1 in times leading in PP goals
T-#2 in times leading in ES goals
T-#1 in times leading in goals/gp
T-#8 in time leading in points/gp

Most likely finishes #2 in goals (with potential for #1 all time)
Pretty good shot at top 10 in points

For how good his all time goals/points rankings could end up, this is despite playing in a much lower scoring era. Plus his individual hardware is easily top 3/4 all time. As far as the point crowd goes, literally only 7 players have finished first in points/gp more than Ovi has all time lol.

That is a top-10 resume all time without a doubt.

Once again, individual hardware doesn't mean as much as you think. He should one day possibly reach top 10 status, but you have to compare eras and line mates and other factors when judging/comparing players.

 

[RageQuit77]

Nobody has ever argued that on hfboards that I am aware of.

But since you state it as fact, you should quote those posts and reply directly to the people making those claims. We'll wait.

Good point, nobody has ever seen here forums anyone claiming that assists would be meaningless, the point of discussion being that if an average statistical goal is considered to have point value 1, then statistical average 1st assists, and particularly 2nd assists are overvalued in points far over their real value. Other angle to that same topic have been also that while a goal is always objectively clear when credited (yes. 'random awarded' goals exist that nobody can confirm 100% they did happen), with assists things are further watered down by illogical and bad criteria they are credited to goals that produce them.

- no 3rd (and lower order assists) credited, even it is obvious by eye test that they can be sometimes critical for oncoming goal
- assisting actions without touch to a puck, like masks, checks on D-man etc.
- if assisting player is also the goal scorer, he is not credited for his 2nd assist (and how many times he would be the guy who had 3rd assist to his goal?)

Assists are valuable, and important aspect of the game, nobody deny that, but how they are counted and overvalued relative to goals that ultimately create them all in the first place is the real problem. Good playmakers and drivers of game suffer from that the most due not credited for all their real goal scoring contribution, but also pure goal scorers suffer from the system too.

Gritty, front-of-net grinder mask men suffer the most, as they don't get credited at all with assist if they don't touch the puck even if its clear that their play was essential for a goal to be scored. Same guys/role then get often also accused having "lucky bounce" when they occasionally successfully deflect a goal, and even more often have a skate in right place in right time.

 

[ted2019]

For all of you who want to rank Ovechkin in the top 10, I'm inviting you to the HOH section as he will be having the top #101-200 players rankings of all time. Everyone will be submitting their top 220/240 players of all time and then there will be civil discussions and comparisons for players from ALL eras and positions.

 

[filinski77]

Once again, individual hardware doesn't mean as much as you think. He should one day possibly reach top 10 status, but you have to compare eras and line mates and other factors when judging/comparing players.

I agree that individual hardware in a vacuum requires context for sure. But to be honest, if you add some of that context in, it actually makes Ovechkins accomplishments even more impressive.

Winning 3 Harts/Lindsays is seemingly more impressive in the last 20 years than it was in the past, due to the # of the players in the league that you are beating out. (50% more ~full time players now than in the 80's, like 4 or 5x as many compared to the 60's and earlier)

Leading the league in goals 9 times is more impressive than it was in the past for the same reasons.

Scoring the volume of goals Ovechkin has is more impressive than a lot of historical players due to how much lower league scoring is compared to some other eras.

If you want to talk linemates, it's not like Ovechkin has had better teams or linemates compared to other all-time greats lol, so that's completely irrelevant.

End of the day, Ovi's accomplishments are what they are, despite the context of the conditions of his era, not because of it.

 

[ted2019]

@Midnight Judges
Midnight Judges said: ↑

That list is a joke. The history forum is tainted with blatant nativism. One of the voters said Ryan Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin. Another guy had Gretzky 7th and Ovechkin 59th. Yet another guy maintains that Crosby is actually a better goal scorer, but he chooses not to score goals. Several others maintained that Ovechkin is a "shoot only" player despite his 550 assists. The one and only Russian participant quit the project in protest.

1. Find me where someone said that Ryan Getzlaf was better then Ovechkin.
2. Yes, a recently passed away member of the esteemed HOH section DID have Gretzky 7th. He had his reasons and while not everyone agreed with them, we respected his reasons.
3. I think the person who said that Crosby was actually the better goal scorer, was because Ovechkin is a volume shooter and just really shoots from anywhere. He has 2373 more shots on goal then Crosby, yet on 244 more goals. Crosby's shooting% 14.6% compared to Ovechkin's 12.7%. I disagreed with the notion that Ovechkin is a shoot only player as he's 105th all time in assists with 572. he should be in the top 80 all time for assists when he's done.
4. As for Sentinel, He did quit because he felt that the Russian players like Makarov, Fetisov, Kharlamov, Tretiak, Firsov, Mikhailov, Fedorov ( especially) were being unfairly underrated. That was His choice, but not a solution if you want to get a point across. Sentinel had some good arguments in the voting rounds, but he essentially took the ball ( or as in this case, the puck) home with him when He didn't get their way.​

 

[filinski77]

For all of you who want to rank Ovechkin in the top 10, I'm inviting you to the HOH section as he will be having the top #101-200 players rankings of all time. Everyone will be submitting their top 220/240 players of all time and then there will be civil discussions and comparisons for players from ALL eras and positions.

While the invitation is nice, and I admittedly do not post much on the HOH section due to a lack of interest in many of the topics. But how in the world is there any correlation to someone's ability to rank the top 10 all time, and someone's desire or ability to rank the 100-200 top players?

It's much more simplistic to take lets say the candidates for top 20 to 30 all time, and then do a bunch of research and analysis to come up with a top-10.

 

[ted2019]

I agree that individual hardware in a vacuum requires context for sure. But to be honest, if you add some of that context in, it actually makes Ovechkins accomplishments even more impressive.

Winning 3 Harts/Lindsays is seemingly more impressive in the last 20 years than it was in the past, due to the # of the players in the league that you are beating out. (50% more ~full time players now than in the 80's, like 4 or 5x as many compared to the 60's and earlier)

Leading the league in goals 9 times is more impressive than it was in the past for the same reasons.

Scoring the volume of goals Ovechkin has is more impressive than a lot of historical players due to how much lower league scoring is compared to some other eras.

If you want to talk linemates, it's not like Ovechkin has had better teams or linemates compared to other all-time greats lol, so that's completely irrelevant.

End of the day, Ovi's accomplishments are what they are, despite the context of the conditions of his era, not because of it.

As I said, you are invited to join our process at the HOH section. About you saying that there are more players then there were in the 70's and before, you are correct, but the you also had a better overall players then you do today. Most 4th and some 3rd line players today would have never made the NHL before expansion, due to their skill level. I know that older people like myself tend to say that the older generation was a better and the younger people like yourself say the opposite. That's why you are welcomed to join out discussion in the HOH section.

 

[ted2019]

While the invitation is nice, and I admittedly do not post much on the HOH section due to a lack of interest in many of the topics. But how in the world is there any correlation to someone's ability to rank the top 10 all time, and someone's desire or ability to rank the 100-200 top players?

It's much more simplistic to take lets say the candidates for top 20 to 30 all time, and then do a bunch of research and analysis to come up with a top-10.

Then you are missing the point of the project. It's about learning about the different eras and about research. The fun part is the discussions and it's about learning and appreciating ALL eras of hockey. It's easy to rank a top 20, much, much more difficult trying to do a top 240 players to submit for the original aggregate list. For example, I became much more interested in the PCHA & NHA when doing the project. Also you get to learn about international players that you might not have thought about or even heard of. Remember, knowledge is king in life.

 

[filinski77]

As I said, you are invited to join our process at the HOH section. About you saying that there are more players then there were in the 70's and before, you are correct, but the you also had a better overall players then you do today. Most 4th and some 3rd line players today would have never made the NHL before expansion, due to their skill level. I know that older people like myself tend to say that the older generation was a better and the younger people like yourself say the opposite. That's why you are welcomed to join out discussion in the HOH section.

Weird timing of the posts lol as I posted about the invite to the HOH activity right before this haha.

Either way, there is absolutely zero basis to confirm that the average player was better back then.

	# of players	CAN player	NON-CAN players	% CAN
1977/1978 (min 40 GP)	323	285	38	88%
2009/2010 (min 40 GP)	581	328	253	56%
2018/2019 (min 40 GP)	588	254	334	43%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From NHL's site, using their nationalities (may have very minor variances).

At the end of the day, yeah teams increased like 50% since the 70's, but that gap has more than been accounted for by the league becoming more international than it was. There are things to consider like population rates in Canada (it is impossible to find youth hockey numbers from back then - or at least it has been for me), so that can't be quantified. But at the end of the day, I don't think there is any basis to say that top players are more advantaged today due to more players in the league equaling lower overall quality of players. In my opinion, the gap between Crosby/Ovi and a 3rd liner is a lot less than the top players from the past and a 3rd liner equivalent (less the big 4 for obvious reasons).

Something that is a statistical fact is that being #1 out of of almost 600 players is inherently more impressive than being #1 out of 300-350 players.

 

[filinski77]

Then you are missing the point of the project. It's about learning about the different eras and about research. The fun part is the discussions and it's about learning and appreciating ALL eras of hockey. It's easy to rank a top 20, much, much more difficult trying to do a top 240 players to submit for the original aggregate list. For example, I became much more interested in the PCHA & NHA when doing the project. Also you get to learn about international players that you might not have thought about or even heard of. Remember, knowledge is king in life.

Fair points to be honest. Either way, still not interested to be honest (still appreciate the interest in broadening the scope of the people in the project). Also still don't think it's relevant to the top-10 debate.

 

[RageQuit77]

Sure, he is already there.
I've made this picture, tell me if someone is missing.

Excellent job. How easy it is to confirm to sceptics that Ovi is indeed TOP-10 player.

If we start nitpick about a context of this or that single award of player X or Y, we must nitpick over them all. Sample size of awards here is enough big for each player that we can simply ignore possibility some one would achieve such kind piles of silverware only by sheer luck. Top-10 for Ovi is pretty solidified fact now. Trophy case alone is enough for that conclusion even if we ignore Ovi's Unicorn-nature in Goal Scoring.

 

[RageQuit77]

Adding also that if we look at the amounts of trophies that are least 'reputation' -dependent and media-biased (Art Ross and Rocket), then OV does even better, as the proportion of these objectively measurable trophies by their awarding criteria is relatively high for him.

If assists would be credited more properly and using more complete system with better statistical proxy of values of different point categories, that would only make OV's case better.

One common myth is that OV would be only mediocre to good in playmaking. Only his column of those highly appreciated (but nevertheless objectively ridiculously awarded) assists is enough to proof otherwise, as if such tokens can be used to bolster some other player's case for him to be great playmaker, then that same argument can be used for Ovi too.

His second assists are just as worthy or unworthy on average than Crosby's (as example), and anyone else's. 1 point by their bad proxy of stupid definition of offensive contribution. Ovi is one of those players whom need least to constitute his career resume to anything hazy or arbitrary, reputation or on-ice activity -wise.

Even his Calder is one of least controversial ever awarded.