Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[bobholly39]

What is his prime career? What scale are we grading him in? He is 35 years old and has effectively 6 50 goal season in the past 7 seasons. He has a record 9 goal scoring titles with an active streak. What is the scale again?

I feel like you misunderstood my post maybe? I'm not sure what you're asking me or why you seem to be taking offense.

I'm saying both his prime and career are super strong for goal-scoring, strong enough to be called #1. It's his "peak" goal-scoring that's a bit weaker. Still very strong peak, just not #1.

Everyone defines prime differently. Usually peak is the very best season (sometimes best 2-3 seasons) - career is everything - and prime is a majority of years near top of game (up to ~5-7 years, but varies for each player). I'd say Ovechkin's peak is ~08-10, his prime is probably from 2008 until now (hasn't left it yet).

 

[bobholly39]

I am absolutely not a Crosby hater. He's the most likely candidate to be ranked as the 6th all-time greatest player on my list.

"Hater" would be putting him 22nd, let alone 59th, or claiming Ryan Getzlaf is better, or claiming Ovechkin is actually a better playmaker than Crosby but he chose to focus on goals instead, or claiming Crosby is a "pass only" player (after all he has far fewer goals than Ovechkin has assists), or making "facetious" "throw away" arguments against Crosby "just to get a rise." Or making excuses for all of that nonsense. -Now THAT, would be hating. Often, that's how Ovie is treated by the history forum regulars.



I am going to try to participate. I'm kind of surprised people want to do this again already. I thought it would be another 5 years or more.

There are some complex considerations having to do with the talent pool and other era considerations that are not fleshed out. I have not fleshed them out myself, and so I have not made a list. I think an informed list means the author has awareness of talent pool fluctuations. So there is a lot of work to do, and I have not done it.

It is fair of you, and others, to criticize me for this right now. Ultimately I will give you something to scrutinize.



I recall that and I do respect you for having principles on this stuff.

Unfortunately, it was at least 5 core project participants who were saying these things or liking the posts. And it wasn't a controversial opinion they were espousing, it was an outright falsehood. Big difference. There should have been more pushback from other participants.

Well - you *are* a Crosby hater as much as anyone I've ever seen on this site lol. You clearly don't like him. I never said you don't rank him high all-time though. I'm not surprised to see you say he's 6th as you've always ranked him high all-time. It's just whenever there's an Ovi vs Crosby discussion your biases tend to show a bit too much. You can hate or dislike a player and still rank them high, it's not necessarily the same thing.

And for all your complaints about how "often this is how Ovechkin is treated on the history forum" - I promise you Crosby gets just as much hate if not more. So many different posters with many varying degrees of opinion. There's this one poster notorious for claiming Crosby is really bad in the playoffs because of his 2014 series against Boston - yet ignoring the fact that many all-time greats also have stinkers. That's what you get on a forum, a myriad of opinions.

The project isn't to re-rank the top 100 again. We're not re-doing that. We're extending the list, so we're going to go from 101 to 200. It makes sense to do it right now, so we can continue the last list, whereas if we wait too long we'd just have to start again. If we were re-doing the top 100 I'm sure we'd have waited at least 5 years to do so.

As to it being a complex process to make a list and weight everything - that's exactly the point. It is very complex - and there are so many varying viewpoints. That's why a lot of posters there take exception when some criticize them a lot but won't give their own lists/opinions to compare and talk about.

As for the "shoot first" calling of Ovi - I still don't really understand why that nickname is offensive. He clearly shoots a lot - especially post-peak - and so calling him "shoot first" doesn't seem insulting to me. I think the opinion that I really took offense to was people claiming that shooting a lot was a bad thing. That's just bonkers to me. If Ovechkin needs 400 shots to score 50 goals while others have done it in 300 - good for them and too bad for Ovi. It's a good thing Ovi puts forth enough effort every single year to shoot enough to score all those goals, whereas those other supposed "better scorers" never shoot enough to score as many goals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

As for the "shoot first" calling of Ovi - I still don't really understand why that nickname is offensive. He clearly shoots a lot - especially post-peak - and so calling him "shoot first" doesn't seem insulting to me. I think the opinion that I really took offense to was people claiming that shooting a lot was a bad thing. That's just bonkers to me. If Ovechkin needs 400 shots to score 50 goals while others have done it in 300 - good for them and too bad for Ovi. It's a good thing Ovi puts forth enough effort every single year to shoot enough to score all those goals, whereas those other supposed "better scorers" never shoot enough to score as many goals.

"Shoot first" isn't offensive. Ovechkin is absolutely a shoot first player. It cannot be argued.

"Shoot only" is a lie.

As for shot totals, I agree with you. Ovie gets shots off because he's amazing at getting shots off.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And for all your complaints about how "often this is how Ovechkin is treated on the history forum" - I promise you Crosby gets just as much hate if not more.

I think that is demonstrably not true.

The hate Crosby gets is primarily nostalgia based / anti-recency, but that 100% applies to Ovie too.

In addition to that, Ovechkin gets a heavy dose of anti-Russian bias. And like I said before, there were like 4 or 5 Pens fans and zero Capitals fans in the project. That's not to say all Pens fans are bad or anything - they're no different from any other fan base. But these particular guys were making a pretty bad case, and I think you've recognized that.

 

[DrewGl]

This board might as well shut down after Ovi and Crosby call it quits.

 

[Sentinel]

I hope @Sentinel participates too, it's nice to have varied opinions.

Sorry, participate in what? I already stated that I consider Ovechkin in the Top 10 Greatest Players. Not "best" players though.

 

[SEALBound]

Maybe I'm getting soft, but I do hope Ovi gets close to Wayne. Breaking it would be unreal to witness but I don't think it happens, personally. But like watching Jagr get to 2OV in points, I wouldn't mind watching Ovi really shoot up the ladder for goals. Witnessing history is fun.

Top 10 yes. I think there are two discussions though - 1 through 5 and 6 through 10. The top 5 are the top 5. 6 through 10 are interchangable.

I may even say Top 6. 1-6, then 7 through 10.

Wayne
Mario
Orr
Howe
Jagr
Crosby

Then 7 though 10 can contain a lot of guys with Ovi holding his own with any.

 

[bobholly39]

Sorry, participate in what? I already stated that I consider Ovechkin in the Top 10 Greatest Players. Not "best" players though.

The top 200 project on the history board

 

[wetcoast]

The HOH section use the VsX over Hockey References Adjusted numbers. This seems to be more accurate.
vsx-comprehensive-summary-1927-to-2020

I'm familiar with the VsX numbers and how they work but that is a slightly different measurement than adjusted goal scoring.

 

[wetcoast]

Speaking of not passing the smell test. You know that "adjusting" using league GPG is flawed to the point of being basically useless.

Why not look at the best, if not the only, metric to consider: % dominance over his direct peers?

Are you really falling for the "well if it isn't 100%perfect we cant use it: trap?

The VsX is making a different measurement, the adjusted stat is way better to compare seasons historically than simply counting stats as it creates context.

 

[daver]

Are you really falling for the "well if it isn't 100%perfect we cant use it: trap?

The VsX is making a different measurement, the adjusted stat is way better to compare seasons historically than simply counting stats as it creates context.

The adjusted stat is marginally better than ranking players based on their raw goal totals. It is a lot closer to 0% usefulness than 100% usefulness.

 

[TheEye]

I think your rationale is well-stated. You can always argue that this player or that player could have focused more on something else. It is interesting to think about. My sense is that professional coaches and players are generally making the best decisions in order to maximize effectiveness. And so what they did do is generally the best they could do.

My posts were not referring to you.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I have stated my opinion on this before but I will note it again. I do feel Ovechkin would be regarded slightly more favourably if he was Canadian-born and played his entire career for the Maple Leafs instead of the Capitals. If we attribute a Stanley Cup to him with the Toronto, as he's achieved with Washington, I expect his stature becomes even further enhanced.

 

[wetcoast]

The adjusted stat is marginally better than ranking players based on their raw goal totals. It is a lot closer to 0% usefulness than 100% usefulness.

We are going to agree to disagree and looking at the history of the NHL you would be wrong.

 

[Weztex]

Seriously? In baseball the pre and post slider era are as defining as the pre and post butterfly goalie eras.

And still, nobody questions Walter Johnson or Cristy Mathewson's place in the rankings because of that. That's my point.

Whereas in hockey if you suggest that, let's say, Howie Morenz or Eddie Shore may rank ahead of Ovechkin (which would be a valid and legitimate debate) you'll probably get laughed at and served a counter argument that includes some time travel.

 

[daver]

We are going to agree to disagree and looking at the history of the NHL you would be wrong.

My opinion cannot be "wrong".

You can easily compare players from other eras using a dominance vs. peers comparison without having to change the value of anyone's raw numbers with a sketchy formula that is easily made highly questionable by factors outside of the control of the players such as the # of PPs called in a given season or scoring by the 3rd and 4th liners. Why muddy the waters?

 

[txpd]

And still, nobody questions Walter Johnson or Cristy Mathewson's place in the rankings because of that. That's my point.

Whereas in hockey if you suggest that, let's say, Howie Morenz or Eddie Shore may rank ahead of Ovechkin (which would be a valid and legitimate debate) you'll probably get laughed at and served a counter argument that includes some time travel.

As someone that grew up in Washington with a MLB hall of famer family living behind us, Johnson is a hero. People dont remember him, to talk about him. His career was largely before Babe Ruth. His last season was 1927.

It appears that Ovechkin will lose his chance at the record to COVID which is kind of unfair.

 

[discobob]

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.

Bro... You are having a different conversion than the one I had in those posts...

I wasn't talking about Crosby... I wasn't comparing the two... I was discussing the absolute absurdity of attributing equal value to assists and goals as they contribute to overall team offense.

 

[wetcoast]

My opinion cannot be "wrong".

You can easily compare players from other eras using a dominance vs. peers comparison without having to change the value of anyone's raw numbers with a sketchy formula that is easily made highly questionable by factors outside of the control of the players such as the # of PPs called in a given season or scoring by the 3rd and 4th liners. Why muddy the waters?

Adjust stats are like currency, they translate in rough terms (so stop letting perfection get in the way of progress from counting stats) what a goal is worth in 1917, 1947 and 2019 on a balanced plane.

VsX is also a good metric but it measure a performance for any player to his peers in a single season (or multiple ones when added up) but they also aren't 100% perfect.

The whole idea is to move in the right direction and your assertion that adjusted stats are closer to 0% improvement than 100% skips the fact that it does more the needle and provides context.

No one metric on its own will do much but more and more context (or metrics) shed more light and let us see more.

 

[daver]

Adjust stats are like currency, they translate in rough terms (so stop letting perfection get in the way of progress from counting stats) what a goal is worth in 1917, 1947 and 2019 on a balanced plane.

VsX is also a good metric but it measure a performance for any player to his peers in a single season (or multiple ones when added up) but they also aren't 100% perfect.

The whole idea is to move in the right direction and your assertion that adjusted stats are closer to 0% improvement than 100% skips the fact that it does more the needle and provides context.

No one metric on its own will do much but more and more context (or metrics) shed more light and let us see more.

Performance vs peers is much, much better as, unlike "adjusting" using league GPG, it literally doesn't change a player's raw numbers nor is it influenced by the # of PPs called or overall league dynamics that change over the years. It is the obvious way to put weight on the strength of an individual season.

So using your metric, OV put up 72 "adjusted" goals vs. Wayne's 68 "adjusted" goals in 81/82. Stamkos also put up 68 "adjusted" goals in 11/12.

Here are their raw numbers and tell me which numbers clearly stand out as being superior.

Wayne - 92
Rest of the Top 5 - 65, 60, 55, 54

OV - 65
Rest of the Top 5 - 52, 50, 47, 43

Stamkos - 60
Rest of the Top 5 - 50, 41, 40, 38


An objective analysis of those numbers concludes that:

(1) Wayne was the clearly superior goalscorer to OV and Stamkos given the gap between him and his peers

(2) There is a good argument to be made that Stamkos' season is equal to, if not a bit more impressive than, OV's.

And there are definitely a number of other seasons that fit in between OV's and Wayne's.

So OV's peak is arguably just Top Tenish which makes a "greatest" claim not clear cut.

​

 

[Midnight Judges]

VsX ignores the context of the surrounding seasons and enables people to draw dumb conclusions based on unnecessarily small (and erratic) samples. The top 2 or 3 goal scorers in a given season is a volatile and unreliable stat. Year over year, with zero significant changes to league scoring, it can vary tremendously. Basing analysis largely or entirely on this volatility - as VsX does - is unnecessary. It is just plain stupid.

In Gretzky's peak era - during that 15 year span - other players had goal totals of 85 and 86 goals. VsX throws that important context out the window for the purposes of valuing Gretzky's individual peak seasons - a completely unforced error.

In Ovechkin's era, - also a 15 year span - other players had goal totals of 60 and 56. Percentage-wise, 85 and 86 are closer to 92 than 60 and 56 are to 65. In other words, the difference between Ovechkin's peak season and #2 of his era is greater than the difference between Gretzky and #2 of his era.

The analysis I've done here is based on a much larger - and therefore better - context. Instead of relying on tiny samples and huge volatility, I combine 15 years of data to increase the reliability of the sample. There is no downside of doing this, and therefore there is no need for VsX to exist other than to manipulate opinions on the basis of randomness (when it suits).

You can also look at adjusted goals within the era. In that case Gretzky is not even #1 of his era, and Ovechkin's margin shrinks a little but he still is #1. You can also look at adjusted goals across eras to see that Ovechkin's peak season is superior to anything Gretzky or Lemieux did.

 

[Midnight Judges]

These charts give broad context of Ovechkin's greatness vs Gretzky and others in terms of goal scoring. Peak season relative to era, peak adjusted season relative to era, and peak adjusted season all time are far superior metrics to VsX, and especially superior in terms of evaluating individual seasons. You'll also notice that no player in history combines peak, prime, and longevity as well as Ovechkin does. Ovechkin is very near the top or at the top in every context:

Greatest Goal Scorers of all time
*As of 3/26/20	Ovi*	Brett	Mario	Gretz	Bossy	Espo	Bobby	Howe	Richard
Career Total Goals	706	741	690	894	573	717	610	801	544
Career Tot. Goals Rank	8	4	11	1	22	6	18	2	31
Career Tot. Adjusted (adj.) Goals	798	738	616	758	461	671	644	925	653
Career Tot. Adj goals Rank	3	6	17	4	63	9	12	1	10
Goal Scoring Titles	9	3	3	5	2	6	7	5	5
Peak Season goals	65	86	85	92	69	76	54	49	50
Peak adjusted Season	72	78	71	69	58	65	57	65	54
Peak Adjusted Season Rank (All time)	2	1	3	6	45	4	54	13	84
Peak Season relative to next best of the era^^	8.30%	-6.5%	-8%	7%	-25%	10%	8%	4%	2%
Same as above, adjusted^^	5.9%	10.0%	-9.0%	-12%	-26%	12.0%	6.6%	9.0%	-17%
Lead over next best, 1st 5 yrs	17.0%	-15%	6.8%	21.0%	19.0%	-53%	-3.3%	-36%	24.0%
Lead over next best, 1st 10 yrs	40.0%	2.8%	11.0%	41.0%	6.0%	-6.0%	25.0%	-11%	53.0%
Lead over next best, 1st 15 yrs	53.0%	10.0%	4.6%	30.0%	-23%	45.0%	30.0%	9.0%	40.0%
Lead over 10, first 5 seasons	59.0%	17.0%	53.0%	80.0%	56.0%	-6.0%	22.7%	15.0%	77.0%
Lead over 10, first 10 seasons	60.0%	41.0%	32.0%	79.0%	79.0%	59.0%	72.0%	107%	108%
Lead over 10, first 15 seasons	86.0%	44.0%	35.0%	70.0%	31.0%	85.0%	105%	149%	166%
*As of 3/26/20	Ovi*	Brett	Mario	Gretz	Bossy	Espo	Bobby	Howe	Richard
Career GPG	0.61	0.58	0.75	0.6	0.76	0.56	0.57	0.45	0.56
Career Adj GPG	0.692	0.582	0.673	0.510	0.613	0.523	0.606	0.523	0.668
All time rank Adjusted GPG***	1	6	2	9	4	7	5	7	3
**GPG lead over next best, 1st 5 yrs	17%	-16%	11%	18%	-5%	-50%	-19%	-34%	22%
**GPG lead over next best, 1st 10 yrs	13%	-19%	8%	0%	-12%	-15%	17%	-13%	41%
**GPG lead over next best, 1st 15 years	15%	-27%	21%	16%	-4%	-13%	4%	-9%	16%
**GPG lead over 10, first 5 yrs	45%	36%	44%	60%	44%	0%	19%	9%	50%
**GPG lead over 10, 1st 10 yrs	50%	45%	49%	52%	38%	41%	47%	55%	68%
**GPG lead over 10, 1st 15 yrs	52%	28%	64%	34%	41%	44%	61%	60%	87%
**Times Led NHL in GPG	9	3	6	3	1	5	8	3	5
50 goal seasons	8	5	6	9	9	5	5	0	1
Quanity of NHL 50 goal seasons in their 1st 15 yrs	22	78	90	110	68^	30	10	1	1
*As of 3/26/20	Ovi*	Brett	Mario	Gretz	Bossy	Espo	Bobby	Howe	Richard
% of 50 goal seasons / 1st 15	36%	6.40%	6.70%	8%	13%	16.7%	50%	0%	100%
Adjusted 50 goal seasons	11	5	5	5	2	5	5	5	7
Playoff Goals	65	103	76	122	85	61	62	68	82
Playoff GPG	0.51	0.51	0.71	0.59	0.66	0.47	0.52	0.43	0.62
Playoff Adj. Goals	68.5	98.8	68	98.71	64.75	53.8	55.8	65.2	71.4
Playoff Adjusted GPG	0.535	0.489	0.636	0.475	0.502	0.414	0.469	0.415	0.541
Playoff Adj. GPG Rank***	3	5	1	6	4	9	7	8	2
**Minimum ~ half the games played
***Among the players on this list
^ 10 seasons only
^^ERA definition for each player (this varies depending on when scoring changed significantly)
^^Ovechkin: 2005-present
^^Bobby Hull: Just included pre-1967 expansion. Expansion would include Esposito's 76 goal season, but I don't think that was humanly possible pre-expansion
^^Esposito: I counted '67 to 79-80. Includes expansion but not the 1980s GPG explosion
^^Howe: For raw totals, didn't include Richard's '44-45 because NHL scoring differed too much
^^Richard: For adjusted and league wide, the sample includes Howe's '52.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Zuluss]

I think the jury is still out on how close Ovechkin's peak goal-scoring is to the best in history.

Back in the 50ies and 60ies, Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull more than doubled the production of #10 in goals in their best seasons.
Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion came up a bit short of that, so we know that Hull's and Howe's peak goal-scoring seasons were the best of their era.

Since then, only Esposito in 1970/71 doubled the goals of #10. Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Brett Hull all tried and came up short, to the tune of leading #10 by 85% instead of 110%.
So we concluded that the times have changed - it just does not sound right that for half a century no goalscorer can peak higher than Bernie Geoffrion (92% lead over #10). And we have stories for why the change happened: expansion, more teams, more first-line players capable of going on a tear and stack top10 in goals with strong results.

Since 90/91, when Brett Hull peaked at 91% lead over #10 in goals, no one was able to come even remotely close. Bure, Ovechkin, Stamkos all peaked at 60%+, Selanne peaked at 58%. This year's race, with two young guys going blazing hot, ended with 41% lead of the winners over #10.

Now, maybe all today's goalscorers are not good enough to match Brett Hull's peak. But then Steve Shutt peaked at 67% lead over #10 two years before Bossy peaked at 73% and six years before Gretzky peaked at 84% - compared to Bure and Ovechkin who peaked at 61% and 63%. So if Bure and Ovechkin are falling short of Gretzky's goal-scoring peak and Brett Hull's peak - are they also falling short of Steve Shutt's peak?

It has been 30 years since Brett Hull's peak, and if nobody has come close, maybe times have changed again and 70-90% leads over #10 in goals are no longer possible. And we have stories of why it should be so: influx of international players, tighter game overall, stars are no longer playing 25 minutes per night. We may want to observe more and if no one leads #10 in goals by 70%+ in the next decade or two, then conclude that Ovechkin's goal-scoring peak is as good as Gretzky's peak.

 

[wetcoast]

I think the jury is still out on how close Ovechkin's peak goal-scoring is to the best in history.

Back in the 50ies and 60ies, Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull more than doubled the production of #10 in goals in their best seasons.
Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion came up a bit short of that, so we know that Hull's and Howe's peak goal-scoring seasons were the best of their era.

Since then, only Esposito in 1970/71 doubled the goals of #10. Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Brett Hull all tried and came up short, to the tune of leading #10 by 85% instead of 110%.
So we concluded that the times have changed - it just does not sound right that for half a century no goalscorer can peak higher than Bernie Geoffrion (92% lead over #10). And we have stories for why the change happened: expansion, more teams, more first-line players capable of going on a tear and stack top10 in goals with strong results.

Since 90/91, when Brett Hull peaked at 91% lead over #10 in goals, no one was able to come even remotely close. Bure, Ovechkin, Stamkos all peaked at 60%+, Selanne peaked at 58%. This year's race, with two young guys going blazing hot, ended with 41% lead of the winners over #10.

Now, maybe all today's goalscorers are not good enough to match Brett Hull's peak. But then Steve Shutt peaked at 67% lead over #10 two years before Bossy peaked at 73% and six years before Gretzky peaked at 84% - compared to Bure and Ovechkin who peaked at 61% and 63%. So if Bure and Ovechkin are falling short of Gretzky's goal-scoring peak and Brett Hull's peak - are they also falling short of Steve Shutt's peak?

It has been 30 years since Brett Hull's peak, and if nobody has come close, maybe times have changed again and 70-90% leads over #10 in goals are no longer possible. And we have stories of why it should be so: influx of international players, tighter game overall, stars are no longer playing 25 minutes per night. We may want to observe more and if no one leads #10 in goals by 70%+ in the next decade or two, then conclude that Ovechkin's goal-scoring peak is as good as Gretzky's peak.

The obvious explanation for this is the increased number of teams in the NHL and more possibilities for goal scorers to step up in a 31 team league.