Ovechkin vs Moore revisited

[unknown33]

All the greats that never played on a Stanley Cup winning team would gladly trade places with Moore not Ovechkin - been there, done that except for a Stanley Cup.

How has this any relevance on who of those two is the better hockey player?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning

How has this any relevance on who of those two is the better hockey player?

Contributing to team success - is a learned skill. Some manage, some don't. All things being equal those that contribute to team success are better.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shading the Issues

Ovechkin's 63-goal season is considered one of the most impressive seasons for goalscoring, ever.

And really, it depends what you mean by magnitude. because even when Moore set a points record, Hart voters considered him the 5th-most valuable player in the NHL. Which is quite curious. And probably more important than just looking at raw goal or point totals, as I'm sure you'd be first to admit.

Remember, Ovechkin has 100 years of history to beat when it comes to seasonal records, Moore had 40-50 years to top. There should be little doubt that Ovechkin is already better than Moore ever was. The only question is, after five seasons, has he provided more career value than Moore did, when Moore's "merely good" seasons and playoffs are considered?



It works both ways, bud. Smaller league = higher percentage of HHOFers to play against = higher percentage of HHOFers to play with. And as a Hab, I'm pretty sure this benefitted Moore more than if he played on another team.



His career doesn't necessarily have to be finished, or ten years long. At some point, whether his career is over or not, there will be a time where we can all agree, "ok, Ovechkin has now done more than Moore." I don't know that we're there yet, but apparently, most people think we are.

Your 50 season vs 100 season position has to be considered from both sides. Career value is viewed differently today than it was in Dickie Moore's era, so is the criteria for the Hart as is criteria for a junior aged players making the NHL.

Agree that we are not at the stage that a determination is fair BUT fail to see the need to rush the measurement to the pre-retirement stage for active players. Doing so definitely points to an agenda.

 

[seventieslord]

Your 50 season vs 100 season position has to be considered from both sides. Career value is viewed differently today than it was in Dickie Moore's era, so is the criteria for the Hart as is criteria for a junior aged players making the NHL.

Agree that we are not at the stage that a determination is fair BUT fail to see the need to rush the measurement to the pre-retirement stage for active players. Doing so definitely points to an agenda.

OK, how is career value viewed differently now than 50 years ago? And much more importantly, do those of us interested in assessing such things still look at career value in two different ways, or in one? And if we're using the same measuring stick for everyone today, what would it matter what the measuring stick looked like 50 years ago?

There's no agenda. We like to rate and rank players. I try to imagine, if Ovechkin's career were to end today, would his overall body of work trump that of Moore? I think not quite, but I'm apparently in the minority. The only agenda I see is a pro-Moore agenda from you, and considering I'm the first person to reply to this thread to say that Moore tops ovechkin at this point, direct your comments at those who are "prematurely" declaring Ovechkin better.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

When Dickie Moore won his two Art Ross Trophies there were exactly zero 18, 19, 20 year old defensemen in the NHL.

In 57-58:
Larry Hillman 20/21-70 gp

In 58-59:
Carl Brewer 19-69 gp

Not a lot, but you said exactly zero...

 

[seventieslord]

In 57-58:
Larry Hillman 20/21-70 gp

In 58-59:
Carl Brewer 19-69 gp

Not a lot, but you said exactly zero...

Besides, if the implication is that 18-20 year old defensemen are easier to beat, which is generally true, this is a disadvantage that everyone in the league had, not just Moore. And if you consider it an advantage for ovechkin, you must consider it just as much of an advantage for everyone else he's competing against for scoring titles and hart trophies. Net advantage: zero.

 

[unknown33]

Contributing to team success - is a learned skill. Some manage, some don't. All things being equal those that contribute to team success are better.

Look at the rosters.
Swap Dickie Moore for a lesser player and the Canadiens still win 5 consecutive cups.

Compare individual accomplishments.

 

[Zine]

Contributing to team success - is a learned skill. Some manage, some don't. All things being equal those that contribute to team success are better.

Problem is, all things aren't equal when discussing team success.

You're essentially punishing Ovechkin for playing on a worse team despite the fact (relatively speaking) he's much more valuable to his team than Moore was.....and, relatively speaking, contributes more to his team's success than Moore did.
Make no mistake about it, with or without Moore, Montreal was still going to be a dynasty. How good is Washington without Ovechkin?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Career Value

OK, how is career value viewed differently now than 50 years ago? And much more importantly, do those of us interested in assessing such things still look at career value in two different ways, or in one? And if we're using the same measuring stick for everyone today, what would it matter what the measuring stick looked like 50 years ago?

There's no agenda. We like to rate and rank players. I try to imagine, if Ovechkin's career were to end today, would his overall body of work trump that of Moore? I think not quite, but I'm apparently in the minority. The only agenda I see is a pro-Moore agenda from you, and considering I'm the first person to reply to this thread to say that Moore tops ovechkin at this point, direct your comments at those who are "prematurely" declaring Ovechkin better.

Career value. Fifty years ago careers were much shorter as players retired in their early thirties often because the medical technology was not available to extend careers. For a forward 200 goals was a significant benchmark. Today 200 goals is very pedestrian.

Yes posters on the boards look at career value differently without recognizing their modern day bias. Examples would be how players like Dick Duff and George Armstrong are considered marginal or iffy HHOFers while players like Norm Ullman who compiled modern day numbers but did not win cups are viewed favourably.

There are two sides to the position. The premature rating which you avoided BUT you did downplay Moore's accomplishments against his contemporaries. Fact of the matter is that Moore won two consecutive Art Ross Trophies, one playing a good part of the season with a broken wrist, head to head, in an era where scoring was led by the likes of Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe. Ovechkin has not won two consecutive Art Ross Trophies period.

As for the Hart Trophies - the fact that Moore won his first Art Ross in spite of playing a good part of the season with a broken wrist did was not known until after the voting. Posters here ignore this fact.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nonsense

Problem is, all things aren't equal when discussing team success.

You're essentially punishing Ovechkin for playing on a worse team despite the fact (relatively speaking) he's much more valuable to his team than Moore was.....and, relatively speaking, contributes more to his team's success than Moore did.
Make no mistake about it, with or without Moore, Montreal was still going to be a dynasty. How good is Washington without Ovechkin?

On a bad team players get away with poor defensive play which allows them to pad offensive numbers. The rest of your straw man position - taking a player away from a team(applies to others as well) does not work. Simply that is not what happened or what is/was.

 

[seventieslord]

Career value. Fifty years ago careers were much shorter as players retired in their early thirties often because the medical technology was not available to extend careers. For a forward 200 goals was a significant benchmark. Today 200 goals is very pedestrian.

You're not telling us anything we don't know here. We all know what totals are meaningful and pedestrian based on era, and most of us have a pretty good grip on what constitutes a long career based on era.

Yes posters on the boards look at career value differently without recognizing their modern day bias. Examples would be how players like Dick Duff and George Armstrong are considered marginal or iffy HHOFers while players like Norm Ullman who compiled modern day numbers but did not win cups are viewed favourably.

Nobody thinks those two players are better than Ullman. It's not even about compiling numbers. Ullman was just more dominant than them, year in, year out. No amount of cups would change that.

You're throwing the word "compiler" out there a lot lately. Ullman's not a compiler. he led the NHL in goals, was a hart runner-up, a first team all-star center, and led the playoffs in ponts twice. Bobby Smith, Mike Gartner, Dino Ciccarelli, Dave Andreychuk, Pat Verbeek, Brian Bellows, Dale Hunter - those are compilers. Big career totals, rarely, if ever elite players.

There are two sides to the position. The premature rating which you avoided BUT you did downplay Moore's accomplishments against his contemporaries. Fact of the matter is that Moore won two consecutive Art Ross Trophies, one playing a good part of the season with a broken wrist, head to head, in an era where scoring was led by the likes of Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe. Ovechkin has not won two consecutive Art Ross Trophies period.

So when Ovechkin, in all likelihood, wins his 2nd Ross this season, you're going to be sitting there on your soapbox saying "BUT IT WASN'T CONSECUTIVE, PEOPLE!!" ?

As for the Hart Trophies - the fact that Moore won his first Art Ross in spite of playing a good part of the season with a broken wrist did was not known until after the voting. Posters here ignore this fact.

So if they knew this, they'd give him hart votes for beng more valuable?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Today

Besides, if the implication is that 18-20 year old defensemen are easier to beat, which is generally true, this is a disadvantage that everyone in the league had, not just Moore. And if you consider it an advantage for ovechkin, you must consider it just as much of an advantage for everyone else he's competing against for scoring titles and hart trophies. Net advantage: zero.

If Moore was playing today the net advantage would be zero. Since Moore is not playing today, net advantage Ovechkin and his contemporaries. The comparison that was started was Ovechkin to Moore not Ovechkin to his contemporaries.

 

[seventieslord]

If Moore was playing today the net advantage would be zero. Since Moore is not playing today, net advantage Ovechkin and his contemporaries. The comparison that was started was Ovechkin to Moore not Ovechkin to his contemporaries.

Ovechkin is not in any more of a position to dominate his contemporaries than Moore was. His advantage is everyone's advantage. moore's supposed disadvantage was shared by everyone. It's not hard to understand.

If Moore had it so tough because all the defensemen were 21 and over, guess what? Gordie howe wasn't playing a bunch of kids, and neither was Andy bathgate - it was the same for everyone.

 

[Zine]

On a bad team players get away with poor defensive play which allows them to pad offensive numbers. The rest of your straw man position - taking a player away from a team(applies to others as well) does not work. Simply that is not what happened or what is/was.

Same thing applies to players on good teams. How many times did you see Lemieux or LaFleur give it 100% defensively?


Comparing players based on team success rather than on individual merit is faulty logic because players aren't judged on an even platform.

However, if we are to look at contribution to team success regardless of how good that team is (something 1 player can't control), Ovechkin is much more valuable to his team than Moore was AND plays a more critical role in his teams success.

 

[Dark Shadows]

As for the Hart Trophies - the fact that Moore won his first Art Ross in spite of playing a good part of the season with a broken wrist did was not known until after the voting. Posters here ignore this fact.

Wrong. Everyone knew he had a broken wrist due to the fact that he was playing with a Cast on his arm.

 

[Zine]

Ovechkin is not in any more of a position to dominate his contemporaries than Moore was. His advantage is everyone's advantage. moore's supposed disadvantage was shared by everyone. It's not hard to understand.

If Moore had it so tough because all the defensemen were 21 and over, guess what? Gordie howe wasn't playing a bunch of kids, and neither was Andy bathgate - it was the same for everyone.

With the growth of the worldwide game, Ovechkin is actually at a disadvantage in this area (compared to Moore) because of the increase in worldwide upper-tier talent.

Of course it was the best in the world at the time, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that Moore was playing against Canadian talent only.
Regardless of how diluted the NHL may be today, there is simply more elite-level talent to contend with….hence, it’s much more difficult for the 'elites' to separate themselves from other elites.

Remove all Europeans and Americans from the top 25 NHL scorers and you essentially get the modern representation of what the upper tier talent of the 1950’s looked like.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Ovechkin is not in any more of a position to dominate his contemporaries than Moore was. His advantage is everyone's advantage. moore's supposed disadvantage was shared by everyone. It's not hard to understand.

If Moore had it so tough because all the defensemen were 21 and over, guess what? Gordie howe wasn't playing a bunch of kids, and neither was Andy bathgate - it was the same for everyone.

Exactly.

 

[seventieslord]

With the growth of the worldwide game, Ovechkin is actually at a disadvantage in this area (compared to Moore) because of the increase in worldwide upper-tier talent.

Of course it was the best in the world at the time, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that Moore was playing against Canadian talent only.
Regardless of how diluted the NHL may be today, there is simply more elite-level talent to contend with….hence, it’s much more difficult for the 'elites' to separate themselves from other elites.

Remove all Europeans and Americans from the top 25 NHL scorers and you essentially get the modern representation of what the upper tier talent of the 1950’s looked like.

Not really. Because in the 1950s the only NHL-level talent in the world was in North America, give or take three players. In the 1960s, however, Europe really began to produce better players. But that's for another thread.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

With the growth of the worldwide game, Ovechkin is actually at a disadvantage in this area (compared to Moore) because of the increase in worldwide upper-tier talent.

Of course it was the best in the world at the time, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that Moore was playing against Canadian talent only.
Regardless of how diluted the NHL may be today, there is simply more elite-level talent to contend with….hence, it’s much more difficult for the 'elites' to separate themselves from other elites.

Remove all Europeans and Americans from the top 25 NHL scorers and you essentially get the modern representation of what the upper tier talent of the 1950’s looked like.

If you take the modern percentage of Canadian talent, adjust for changes in population of Canada and for availability of NHL jobs, you'll find the talent pool during Moore's era is virtually the same as the modern talent pool.

 

[MXD]

.... Another way to see this situation.

Considering what I've seen with my eyes, I'm not ready to put Ovechkin significantly ahead of Sidney Crosby (or even ahead at all).

And I'm not ready to put Sidney Crosby significantly ahead of Sid Abel.

And most agree here that Moore is significantly ahead of Sid Abel.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alexander Ovechkin's Accomplishments

Alexander Ovechkin was the first left winger since Bobby Hull in 1966 to win the Art Ross Trophy. However, neither Hull or Ovechkin managed to string two Art Ross Trophies together, to date, something that only Dickie Moore and Sweeney Schriner(pre Art Ross/pre red line) managed.Consecutive scoring championships are unique accomplishments since teams structure defenses to stop the scoring leader. Scoring championships are rarely won by left wingers since the positional responsibilities - greater defensive roles, forechecking limit scoring opportunities.

So far once the imaginary, speculative("without" nonsense) and/or straw man positions are removed Ovechkin's individual and team results have yet to measure up.

Specifically - by the age of 25, LWs like Hull,Moore, Mahovlich, had played on Stanley Cup winners, won individual awards, set or tied significant records. To date Ovechkin comes up short on the Stanley Cup count. The other accomplishments are impressive but Ovechkin's style and recklessness have Lindros potential. Let him overcome this obstacle and contribute to at least one Stanley Cup Championship before going overboard in praise.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Alexander Ovechkin was the first left winger since Bobby Hull in 1966 to win the Art Ross Trophy. However, neither Hull or Ovechkin managed to string two Art Ross Trophies together, to date, something that only Dickie Moore and Sweeney Schriner(pre Art Ross/pre red line) managed.Consecutive scoring championships are unique accomplishments since teams structure defenses to stop the scoring leader. Scoring championships are rarely won by left wingers since the positional responsibilities - greater defensive roles, forechecking limit scoring opportunities.

SO you're saying a left wing has a great defensive role than, say, a center?

Specifically - by the age of 25, LWs like Hull,Moore, Mahovlich, had played on Stanley Cup winners, won individual awards, set or tied significant records. To date Ovechkin comes up short on the Stanley Cup count. The other accomplishments are impressive but Ovechkin's style and recklessness have Lindros potential. Let him overcome this obstacle and contribute to at least one Stanley Cup Championship before going overboard in praise.

A bit easier to win a Cup when you are playing for a good team in a six team league than a good team in a 30 team league, don't you think? By easy, I mean probability-wise, not that it's ever "easy" to win a Cup.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No...............

SO you're saying a left wing has a great defensive role than, say, a center?



A bit easier to win a Cup when you are playing for a good team in a six team league than a good team in a 30 team league, don't you think? By easy, I mean probability-wise, not that it's ever "easy" to win a Cup.

No......................greater as in different defensive role than a center. Center's defensive role puts him in a position to create offense whereas a LW's defensive role takes him away from prime scoring areas. One of the aspects of Ovechkin's game that needed work is that his style made him vulnerable defensively.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/ovechal01.html

This season he has improved significantly as a defensive player. His plus / minus is significantly better than his ESG. Previously it was much lower than his ESG. Time will tell if this trend continues.

The probability - wise position is quaint. Like the bogus excuse used by kids and weasels "It can happen to anyone". Perhaps, but why did it happen to you specifically out of billions of anyones on the planet? So to all the probability mavens .......... "Why doesn't probability, which is unbiased and random, happen to favour your boy?" If it is because of a shortcoming in your boys game then the probability position goes out the window very quickly.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Alexander Ovechkin was the first left winger since Bobby Hull in 1966 to win the Art Ross Trophy. However, neither Hull or Ovechkin managed to string two Art Ross Trophies together, to date, something that only Dickie Moore and Sweeney Schriner(pre Art Ross/pre red line) managed.Consecutive scoring championships are unique accomplishments since teams structure defenses to stop the scoring leader. Scoring championships are rarely won by left wingers since the positional responsibilities - greater defensive roles, forechecking limit scoring opportunities.

Do you really think that just because Ovechkin didn't win the scoring title last year that Washington's opponents are not structuring their defenses to stop him this year? He won the Hart and is clearly his team's best player, and one of the best players in the league.

Why would it matter if you weren't at the very top of league scoring? Don't you think that as long as a player was his team's scoring leader/best player as well as one of the top scorers in the league (but maybe not the VERY top) that opponents would be focusing on him?

There may be a case with Hull because he had Mikita on his team who was another elite talent that outscored him multiple times. I was under the impression that it was always Hull who was the focus of opponents, but perhaps not. I'm sure there are others here who can help me on this one.

 

[raleh]

Do you really think that just because Ovechkin didn't win the scoring title last year that Washington's opponents are not structuring their defenses to stop him this year? He won the Hart and is clearly his team's best player, and one of the best players in the league.

Why would it matter if you weren't at the very top of league scoring? Don't you think that as long as a player was his team's scoring leader/best player as well as one of the top scorers in the league (but maybe not the VERY top) that opponents would be focusing on him?

There may be a case with Hull because he had Mikita on his team who was another elite talent that outscored him multiple times. I was under the impression that it was always Hull who was the focus of opponents, but perhaps not. I'm sure there are others here who can help me on this one.

Hull was always the focus for defending the same way Crosby is, even though Malkin has outscored him before. Mikita was great, possibly top 4 Center of all time, but Bobby Hull was the best goal scorer to ever play. I think the "shadow job" basically became popular with teams defending against him.