IMO I don't give a ton of ****s about what a player does outside of their elite years. And I would contend - post lockout - it's easier to accrue meaningful latter years than it was early on.
Ovi is getting a ton of credit for his goalscoring here. And that's fine. But when was the last time he was really an *offensive force*. I'm in DC so I see a lot of Caps games, both on TV and when I have friends who have extra tickets. After 2010 (so the end of his stratospheric peak), he has 9 seasons. Five of those are PPG, but none of them are significantly above that. His +/- is all over the place (ranging from -35 to +21).
I don't know - I think it's kind of easier than ever to win a Cup (in that you're not running into dynasties anymore, and the cap has done a lot for parity), so it's easier to win a Cup outside of your peak. Gretzky? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Mario? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Howe? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Orr? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Hull? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Beliveau - eh, he has the peak where he was on the dynasty, but then the second dynasty he was more of a secondary contributor than a driver - different situation I guess. Harvey? Zero Cups outside of Peak. Outside of the Habs dynasty players, the players pre-lockout already listed or up to vote for now have zero Cups (with the exception of Bourque who mercenaried a Cup and Roy but... I don't know, Roy seems like a different case especially considering he won the Smythe in his last run).
I don't think anyone would argue that Ovechkin is still in his peak. I think he's having a bit of an extended prime, but we're talking a pretty big drop from his peak. One of the reasons I value peak so highly, is that is when an individual player has so much to say in whether a team wins the Cup. Nowadays that isn't really the case though - teams are generally weaker on top end talent but deeper in kind of middling, good-but-not-great players, so it's probably harder to "peak" your team to a Cup since you need a supporting cast, but easier to get one later in your career outside of your carry years.
Anyway - this is kind of meandering, but adding to your resume after your peak doesn't move the needle a ton to me. Ovechkin winning another Rocket? Cool. Good for him. It's impressive in a historical sense, but I don't think it adds to his "greatness" as much as it is just another bullet point on his resume.
That's where I come from with ranking Espo and Lafleur comfortably over Ovi and Jagr in this round. Ovi and Jagr are in this discussion WAY too early for my liking. Their peaks are not outside of those of other offensive players (Espo and Lafleur most notably), defensively they are laughably bad, playoffs if not a negative are at the very least not a positive, and internationally Ovechkin is actually awful (haven't really looked deeply into Jagr's international resume).
Disagree entirely. Potvin has the highest regular season peak of any Dman whose name doesn't rhyme with Schmobert Schmore, and Lafleur has a peak at the very least equivalent with Jagr and Ovi.
You are being absolutely reductive by continually presenting this argument despite ample evidence to the contrary.
I can't believe how easily you're dismissing seasons outside of a player's peak. There's a huge gap between peak and longevity which is called PRIME that you seem to be ignoring completely. How can scoring more goals than any other players in the league in a season be dismissed as a "bullet point".
Here's how I define those categories:
Playoffs - Playoffs.
Peak - Best 1-3 seasons (sometimes more, such as Gretzky, sometimes less, such as Nichols).
Prime - Every year of a player's career where he is close to his best (but slightly off).
Extra longevity - Every other year the player played, which adds to longevity, but where he's clearly not near his best anymore (or yet).
Playoffs count for a lot, but less than season which is bulk of player's career. Maybe 70/30 ratio (more playoffs, like Roy/Beliveau can tilt this, but usually playoffs lack games/series/runs in most players to be worth more). Prime/Peak counts for the bulk of it as a combination. Extra longevity doesn't move the needle much - maybe as a tie breaker all else being equal.
With Bourque/Potvin. Maybe for peak seasons you can argue Potvin #1, but it's kind of close, as Bourque isn't weak on peak. The problem is for Prime - Bourque had like 20 some years to Potvin's....8? 7? maybe 9-10 max depending on how you count? And you need to almost completely ignore/disregard that to get to a Potvin > Bourque rating, or count playoffs more than almost anyone i've seen imply they do so far.
I have no issue with the latter - you can weight playoffs as high as you want so long as you do it consistently, even if i find it much to get to this result - but the former makes no sense. Prime is arguably the greatest part of most player's resumes and absolutely does matter.
Same idea with Lafleur and Jagr (Ovi too, but less so I think).
No issue at all saying peak Lafleur is close to peak Ovi/Jagr (heck i'd have him #2 behind Jagr, and could see a case for #1).
but PRIME - he has almost zero outside his peak. Jagr's prime is really long and he has a lot of strong seasons.
How can you completely disregard prime?
To me this is common sense.