Where does Ovie now rank all time?

[Canadiens1958]

The way I understand it is that in 1950 a bunch of people who did no serious study on the history of hockey voted that Morenz was the best ever. For some reason this is taken as gospel even by people who do study hockey seriously. I've never understood why.

Amongst the voters that you so berate were media types who watched the years before the NHL and Elmer Ferguson who was the keeper and custodian of NHL statistics from the start of the league.

 

[BayStreetBully]

You tend to interchange "or" with "and". See sentences 2 and 3 in your post linked:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/146697131/

Both Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard were vastly superior defensively to Ovechkin thoughout their career.

Yeah, so far I don’t see an argument for having both Hull AND Richard a tier over Ovechkin, and I don’t see any *definitive* argument for either of them over Ovechkin. Sure, there’s an argument for Richard or Hull over Ovechkin, but the reverse is also true. It all depends on how highly you value championships, scoring titles, difference in competition, and a hundred other nuances.

 

[Sentinel]

I sense bitterness over 2009.....

Ovechkin is not greater than Crosby by any means. Sid has been to 4 Finals, won 3 & 2 Conn Smythes. His team has beaten Ovechkin 3 times in the playoffs over the course of their respective careers. Though with this win, I could reasonably place Ovechkin top 15....

Other than the Conn Smythes (both of them weaker than Ovy's), all of these are team accomplishments.

 

[Sentinel]

Morenz was considered the best player of the first half of the 20th century. Ovechkin might not even be considered the best player of the first half of this century the way Crosby and McDavid are going. I'm not trying to be negative on Ovechkin as I like him a lot, but just giving some perspective to your question.

Still, Morenz's record against his peers is not as good as Ovechkin's. And that's what matters.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The way I understand it is that in 1950 a bunch of people who did no serious study on the history of hockey voted that Morenz was the best ever. For some reason this is taken as gospel even by people who do study hockey seriously. I've never understood why.

I think it’s pretty unlikely that the 5th best all-offense-and-nothing-else forward in the past 35 years (which makes him maybe the 8th-10th best player in this time frame) is better than every player from the first half-century of hockey history.

 

[Killion]

The way I understand it is that in 1950 a bunch of people who did no serious study on the history of hockey voted that Morenz was the best ever. For some reason this is taken as gospel even by people who do study hockey seriously. I've never understood why.

Good grief Steve... lets just back that truck up a bit please & thankyou.... tad incendiary there.... Those who voted Morenz as "Best Player - 1st Half of the 20th Century" in 1950 were every bit as astute then as now though of course technologically primitive, statistically not as advanced.

Debate would have absolutely raged amongst them even still so Morenz not a "slam dunk" and sure. plenty of people who to this day will make cases for other players as more deserving of that title. But to suggest the people who did vote on it 68 years ago or whenever didnt know what the Sam Hill they were doing?

They were for the most part the hockey intelligentsia of their era & age though sure, some whiskey sotted ink stained wretches as well, but hey, a lot of experience, a lot of first hand eye witness accounts, discussions with Coaches, Owners, Officials & so on & so on..... Is it "Gospel"? This selection of Morenz? No, its not. But it is a critical, objective & astute determination thats blatantly obvious, Morenz just that good" as to be a favorite of his age no question.... And ya, no question his premature & tragic death did inflate his rep somewhat. That absolutely a factor.

Others mightve voted for Taylor, Conacher, Apps, even a few for Eddie Shore. Very similar to today & all thats followed. Some believing Orr the Greatest, others Gretzky, some of them Lemieux, Richard, Bobby Hull. Is Morenz still in the running? Nope. Would he be if he'd played in the 60's, the 80's, today? Very likely. We teleport Ovi or whomever back in time to Howies era & Morenz wouldve given a Gretzky, a Lemieux, a Crosby or Ovechkin a total run for their money as best player in the League, Best in the 1st Half of the 20th Century, all things being equal could very well have been picked in 1950 Top of the Class or in 2018 as a Top 3-5 All Time had he played in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's, 00's....

 

[Sentinel]

Jagr never led his team deep, but when did he have a team worthy of going deep when it was his? Ovechkin has been on a powerhouse for the majority of the last 12 years and was the main guy.He finally succeeded, but it took a lot of opportunities which Jagr never had.Lafleur had the best situation of course, but he capitalized on every chance he got by displaying greatness at every turn.Make of all that what you will.

I'd rank Ovechkin slightly ahead of Jagr in the playoffs due to this run, but only slightly.Ovechkin also fell flat many times in a way that Jagr probably wouldn't have.Lafleur kills them both in PO.

Lemieux, Kovalev, Lang, Nedved, Zubov, Hatcher, and Gonchar are better than Backstrom, Semin, Poti, Green, Johansson, and aging Fedorov. Ovechkin made that team a powerhouse, not the other way around.

Lafleur kills everybody in playoffs. In fact, I thought he was ranked rather low in the Playoffs project.

 

[ResilientBeast]

He might be the best LW of all time now Ovechkin is currently one year younger than when Hull jumped to the WHA

Bobby Hull
7 Rockets
3 Art Rosses
2 Harts
1 Stanley Cup

Alexander Ovechkin
7 Rockets
1 Art Ross
3 Harts
1 Stanley Cup

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't get this post ^

Gonchar didn't play with any of those guys...Zubov and Hatcher were traded for each other...like these guys weren't together. Having drips and drabs of players passing through on one-line teams isn't really feather in the cap for Ovechkin.

Not including the Lemieux years, prime Ovechkin had stronger rosters than prime Jagr...surely that's not being contested, is it?

 

[Sentinel]

I don't get this post ^

Gonchar didn't play with any of those guys...Zubov and Hatcher were traded for each other...like these guys weren't together. Having drips and drabs of players passing through on one-line teams isn't really feather in the cap for Ovechkin.

Not including the Lemieux years, prime Ovechkin had stronger rosters than prime Jagr...surely that's not being contested, is it?

I know they didn't play together. My point is that Jagr (and especially Hull) usually had better teammates than Ovechkin.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh absolutely not...those Lemieux-went-golfing Penguins teams were Jagr vs. the world mostly. I mean, Christ, what he did in '99 one leg is incredible...his crutches had more goals than half that team...

That isn't to say that Ovechkin was always playing on a wagon, but come on, those Penguins teams made the playoffs strictly because of Jagr being the best player in the world...they had 80's goaltending, FOM (Friends of Mario) coaching, the Panthers put together a better defense as an expansion team than Pittsburgh could figure out and their depth was a bunch of fringe NHLers and minor leaguers...

 

[quoipourquoi]

He might be the best LW of all time now Ovechkin is currently one year younger than when Hull jumped to the WHA

Bobby Hull
7 Rockets
3 Art Rosses
2 Harts
1 Stanley Cup

Alexander Ovechkin
7 Rockets
1 Art Ross
3 Harts
1 Stanley Cup

I’m just strongly against the idea of laying it out like this as though checking the box for “Rocket” removes the need for any further investigation of offensive impact.

Bobby Hull’s 1964-1969 (1 Art Ross, 5 Rockets; #1 in Points-Per-Game) compared to Alex Ovechkin’s 2013-2018 (0 Art Ross, 5 Rockets, #6 in Points-Per-Game) aren’t exactly equal stretches even if the award distribution is similar enough in one regard.

If Ovechkin was still his 2006-2011 self, that’s more of a Bobby Hull comparable than the one winning Rockets and recording fewer points than Ryan Getzlaf.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I’m just strongly against the idea of laying it out like this as though checking the box for “Rocket” removes the need for any further investigation of offensive impact.

Bobby Hull’s 1964-1969 (1 Art Ross, 5 Rockets; #1 in Points-Per-Game) compared to Alex Ovechkin’s 2013-2018 (0 Art Ross, 5 Rockets, #6 in Points-Per-Game) aren’t exactly equal stretches even if the award distribution is similar enough in one regard.

If Ovechkin was still his 2006-2011 self, that’s more of a Bobby Hull comparable than the one winning Rockets and recording fewer points than Ryan Getzlaf.

Fair enough

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jagr never led his team deep, but when did he have a team worthy of going deep when it was his? Ovechkin has been on a powerhouse for the majority of the last 12 years and was the main guy.He finally succeeded, but it took a lot of opportunities which Jagr never had.Lafleur had the best situation of course, but he capitalized on every chance he got by displaying greatness at every turn.Make of all that what you will.

I'd rank Ovechkin slightly ahead of Jagr in the playoffs due to this run, but only slightly.Ovechkin also fell flat many times in a way that Jagr probably wouldn't have.Lafleur kills them both in PO.

Keep in mind that the post I was replying to used Jagr's "team success" as a point in his favor.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I cannot see an argument for Jagr over Ovechkin now.

Ovechkin could very well pass 800 goals

 

[Michael Farkas]

He could do a lot of things...that's for the Prospects board to figure out...

 

[quoipourquoi]

By next mid-season, Ovechkin could have as many points in his career as Jagr had assists...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Still, Morenz's record against his peers is not as good as Ovechkin's. And that's what matters.

Except Morenz played the majority of his seasons in the pre forward pass era with much lower scoring.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Good grief Steve... lets just back that truck up a bit please & thankyou.... tad incendiary there.... Those who voted Morenz as "Best Player - 1st Half of the 20th Century" in 1950 were every bit as astute then as now though of course technologically primitive, statistically not as advanced.

Debate would have absolutely raged amongst them even still so Morenz not a "slam dunk" and sure. plenty of people who to this day will make cases for other players as more deserving of that title. But to suggest the people who did vote on it 68 years ago or whenever didnt know what the Sam Hill they were doing?

Also the vote was preceeded by years of discussion about the initial class entering the new Hockey Hall of Fame. So the debate and discussion,was fresh, robust,ongoing and accessible via traditional newspaper archives.

Having studied some of the released archival NHL data, there is a sense that the use of statistics was much greater than we suppose. Secrecy was also greater- why we only received the data recently. But then the NHL still holds back data even today.

 

[VanIslander]

Look,.... two years and a week ago Sidney Crosby had 2 less Conn Smythes.

Three years ago the duo was still neck and neck.

Yeah,.. by ****', so-called "objective" criteria, Crosby is still waaay ahead,... but in reality, in terms of contributions, it's much closer.

Imagine if Malkin played his career with OV (No,... no Backstrom is not an equivalent.)

 

[Sentinel]

Except Morenz played the majority of his seasons in the pre forward pass era with much lower scoring.

And this matters how, when compared to his peers? Or was he the only one not allowed to make forward pass?

 

[Sentinel]

I think it’s pretty unlikely that the 5th best all-offense-and-nothing-else forward in the past 35 years (which makes him maybe the 8th-10th best player in this time frame) is better than every player from the first half-century of hockey history.

Do you find it unlikely that two forwards with the highest peak / best prime in history played almost simultaneously?

 

[Killion]

Also the vote was preceeded by years of discussion about the initial class entering the new Hockey Hall of Fame. So the debate and discussion,was fresh, robust,ongoing and accessible via traditional newspaper archives.

Having studied some of the released archival NHL data, there is a sense that the use of statistics was much greater than we suppose. Secrecy was also greater- why we only received the data recently. But then the NHL still holds back data even today.

You bet. I had absolutely no idea for example until just a few years ago when I saw a photo taken at Maple Leaf Gardens back in the day of Bronto Burgers & Pterodactyls that the Leafs were running separate clocks on every single player out there, stop n' go right down to the second.... rather than just guesstimating with maybe a spotter in the crowd if even that.

Rather like the reporting of players injuries, as in not reporting them at all, guy dressing & playing, or if unfit to play, trotting out some bogus Fig Newton of a Red Herring with "ya, Bobby'll be sitting tonite Red, lower body injury".... and meanwhile the player has an upper body injury, separated shoulder or whatever. All top secret see? Never let anything out or on.

That included analytics. Bounties. Miscreant activities of all manner & ilk and so on & so forth. Spying & Spy Trade Craft. Whole wide range of actually pretty sophisticated chit goin on & down out of site & mind. These guys werent Dummies. Looking for any advantage, weakness in the opposition they could find, the media, Reporters... a lot sharper then than now, then they have been for the past 30+ years.

 

[daver]

Look,.... two years and a week ago Sidney Crosby had 2 less Conn Smythes.

Three years ago the duo was still neck and neck.

Yeah,.. by ****', so-called "objective" criteria, Crosby is still waaay ahead,... but in reality, in terms of contributions, it's much closer.

Imagine if Malkin played his career with OV (No,... no Backstrom is not an equivalent.)

Kuzy 2018 > Malkin 2017 > Malkin 2016

 

[Fantomas]

By next mid-season, Ovechkin could have as many points in his career as Jagr had assists...

Also applies to Bobby Hull, so that's some nice logic.