Better Goal Scorer.....66 or 8?

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

We’ve reached bitter old man levels of anger in this thread.

If the fate of the world came down to someone scoring a goal, you pick Ovechkin even at 40 years old. Chances are that a peak Lemieux wouldn’t even be healthy to take the shot

If the fate of the world came down to one guy with one shot scoring a goal, I pick Lemieux, even if his back hurts so much that he can't tie his own skates.

 

[Regal]

The sheer amount of shots OV takes is literally why he scores so many goals. Reinhart scored 57 goals on 233 shots on net last year. That's 100+ fewer shots than OV has ever had during a 50+ goal season, and less than half as many shots as OV needed to get to 56 back in 08-09.



It's also fine that you value throwing every puck on net until something finally goes in, but when great defense is being played, I'm not expecting there to be nearly as many chances in the first place. That's why I want the guy who can produce with a limited number of chances. In that scenario, I don't want to have to give a guy 8-9 low quality chances to try to score, I want a guy who can score a goal with only 4 or 5 chances.

And, sure, some of those hundreds of extra shots do end up being rebounds that can help make something happen, and that probably helps add to OVs assist totals. But passing to a teammate seems like a much more effective way to get an assist than hoping a teammate can do something with the rebound.




Where did I say it was inefficient? I'm saying that was literally the Caps strategy, and helped drive OVs shot totals. What else were they going to do, pass it to Brooks Laich? OV was their only option who didn't suck, so that's what they did. Other teams had more options and didn't need to just feed it to their best shooter and hope for the best.



I never said otherwise. I said taking a lot more shots to achieve the same result does not mean you're actually a better goal scorer.

I think you’re massively undervaluing shots in general. This isn’t basketball, where you’re likely to get a shot every possession and inefficient shooters hurt you by taking bad shots because you then usually lose possession. Ovechkin shooting more doesn’t necessarily lead to others shooting less.

For instance, when he had 65 goals on 446 shots in 07-08, he averaged 13.5 shots per 60 at ES and 16.1 shots per 60 on the PP. His team averaged 35.6 shots per 60 at ES with him on the ice and 51.8 shots per 60 on the PP with him on the ice. That means, other players were averaging 22.1 shots per 60 with him on the ice at ES and 35.7 shots per 60 with him on the ice on the PP.

Then in 08-09, when he had 56 goals on 528 shots, he averaged 15.5 shots/60 at ES and 25 shots/60 on the PP. But his team increased to 36.5 shots/60 at ES and 66.3 shots/60 on the PP. So other players still shot 21 shots per 60 at ES (a decrease of 1 over the previous season), and 41.3 shots per 60 on the PP (an increase of 5.6). So despite taking an extra 82 shots, the team actually took more shots around him as well. And part of this is because shots can lead to rebounds, or scrambles, they can draw players out of position, and when teams set up, they can often get the puck back and take several shots in a possession

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I think you’re massively undervaluing shots in general. This isn’t basketball, where you’re likely to get a shot every possession and inefficient shooters hurt you by taking bad shots because you then usually lose possession. Ovechkin shooting more doesn’t necessarily lead to others shooting less.

For instance, when he had 65 goals on 446 shots in 07-08, he averaged 13.5 shots per 60 at ES and 16.1 shots per 60 on the PP. His team averaged 35.6 shots per 60 at ES with him on the ice and 51.8 shots per 60 on the PP with him on the ice. That means, other players were averaging 22.1 shots per 60 with him on the ice at ES and 35.7 shots per 60 with him on the ice on the PP.

Then in 08-09, when he had 56 goals on 528 shots, he averaged 15.5 shots/60 at ES and 25 shots/60 on the PP. But his team increased to 36.5 shots/60 at ES and 66.3 shots/60 on the PP. So other players still shot 21 shots per 60 at ES (a decrease of 1 over the previous season), and 41.3 shots per 60 on the PP (an increase of 5.6). So despite taking an extra 82 shots, the team actually took more shots around him as well. And part of this is because shots can lead to rebounds, or scrambles, they can draw players out of position, and when teams set up, they can often get the puck back and take several shots in a possession

I know you don't get a shot every possession. That's exactly why I value having a guy who can score just as many goals in fewer shots. I know shooting more can generate offense in other ways, but the question is purely about goal scoring. Throwing a puck at the net hoping your teammate gets a rebound isn't goal scoring.

How many more shots per 60 would the other players on his team have had if they weren't deferring so much to OV? And who else in the league was getting that kind of treatment from their team? When OV had 528 shots, Eric Staal was 2nd in the league with 372 shots. Jeff Carter only had 342 shots, but still scored 46.

And, since you like /60 rates, from 2005-06 until 2015-16, for all players with 200+ games played, OV was 4th in the league in ES goals per 60, behind Stamkos, Nash and Crosby. On the PP, he was tied with Wayne Simmonds for 4th in G/60 among guys with at least 200 PP shots, behind Selanne, Stamkos, and Johan Franzen. But OV played almost twice as many PP minutes, and took almost twice as many shots as anyone else, so he scored the most total goals. Of course, he was also 20th in PPP/60, so a bunch of guys taking fewer shots were arguably contributing more to their teams.

 

[paracord]

I do think Mario would have lead the league in goals more times if he was healthier. But that does not refute my argument that the comparison to Jordan makes no sense.

Ovechkin has more raw goals, more times leading the league in goals, more times leading the league in goals/gp.

If we want to give Mario all of the advantages in a hypothetical what-if scenario, we can imagine he doubles his Rockets and gets 6 goal scoring titles to represent his 6 times leading the league in goals. Ovechkin would still have 50% more goal scoring titles (9 to 6).

"Leading the league in ____" usually implies games played. No one is saying Lemieux played lots of games or was durable. Ultra rare exceptions are cases like Lemieux's 1993 when he won playing on 3/4 of the games.

"Being the best at _____" implies the skill involved in doing those things.

Those two things are many times different.

Being the best playmaker on the team also doesn't lend itselft to leading the league in goal scoring year after year either. But I have no doubt that Lemieux would have led the league AT LEAST 3 more times in goals between 89 and 94 had he played 75 games in all those season, on top of 3 more Ross's.

McDavid didn't lead the league in points last year, and he probably isn't going to lead it in points this year either. But he's still the "best" point scorer in the league today.

 

[umma gumma]

We’ve reached bitter old man levels of anger in this thread.

If the fate of the world came down to someone scoring a goal, you pick Ovechkin even at 40 years old. Chances are that a peak Lemieux wouldn’t even be healthy to take the shot

That depends. Is someone setting him up to get his shot off or is he one-on-one with the goalie? There is no one better one-on-one than Mario.

 

[daver]

McDavid didn't lead the league in points last year, and he probably isn't going to lead it in points this year either. But he's still the "best" point scorer in the league today.

If he missed a bunch of games and still had the highest PPG this statement may make sense.

 

[Midnight Judges]

BUT, Mario missed tons of time in prime seasons between 89 and 94. You don't think he would have led the league in goals several more times had he not missed all of 94, and tons of 90, 91, 92 and 93? Even 93 when he scored 69 in 60 games. You don't think if he played high 70s, he would have beaten 76 goals that year? I think he would have managed to squeak out 7 more goals in 20+ games, no?

If you are willing to pretend this for Mario Lemieux, what exactly are you willing to pretend for Alex Ovechkin? Anything at all?

Durability is a player attribute that Lemieux flat out didn’t have.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That depends. Is someone setting him up to get his shot off or is he one-on-one with the goalie? There is no one better one-on-one than Mario.

Ah yes, good point.

I guess we just have no way of knowing if they are playing nhl 5v5 hockey or in a 1v1 plus goalies hockey tournament (which is clearly just as common and valid).

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If you are willing to pretend this for Mario Lemieux, what exactly are you willing to pretend for Alex Ovechkin? Anything at all?

Durability is a player attribute that Lemieux flat out didn’t have.

I guess we could pretend that OV would have stayed this healthy and won all those Rockets in Mario's era. Oh wait, most people already do...

 

[Midnight Judges]

I guess we could pretend that OV would have stayed this healthy and won all those Rockets in Mario's era. Oh wait, most people already do...

The Ovechkin argument hinges on no such pretending.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The Ovechkin argument hinges on no such pretending.

It'll stop being pretending when you can produce evidence to prove your claims right, like video of OV playing in the NHL in the 80s and 90s and staying healthy, or maybe his name listed as the Rocket winner during one of those years. Until then, what you want to be true is still pretending.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Lemieux - .75 gpg
Ovechkin - .6 gpg

You can bring in differences in era and you can marvel at Ovi's longevity but that is quite a difference in pace. Ovi is, at least to some extent, a one trick pony, the big shot. Lemieux had so many ways to score. He is still #1 goal scorer for me.

But Ovi's record is still a helluvan accomplishment.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It'll stop being pretending when you can produce evidence to prove your claims right, like video of OV playing in the NHL in the 80s and 90s and staying healthy, or maybe his name listed as the Rocket winner during one of those years. Until then, what you want to be true is still pretending.

You are flat out wrong.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovi is, at least to some extent, a one trick pony, the big shot. Lemieux had so many ways to score. He is still #1 goal scorer for me.

LOL Ovie is top 3 in hits, top 10 in assists, top 2 in points and top 1 in goals during his career. There is no planet where he can be accurately called a one trick pony.

 

[paracord]

LOL Ovie is top 3 in hits, top 10 in assists, top 2 in points and top 1 in goals during his career. There is no planet where he can be accurately called a one trick pony.

Just much more one trick (in terms of scoring), than people like Lemieux, Gretzky, Crosby, or McDavid.

A shot volume, goal scoring, elite sniper is going to be a different beast on the ice than an elite, scoring, playmaking centerman.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

LOL Ovie is top 3 in hits, top 10 in assists, top 2 in points and top 1 in goals during his career. There is no planet where he can be accurately called a one trick pony.

Fair enough. I did say to an extent. His second trick is longevity and I mean that in a good way. It is remarkable to be playing like he is at his age. Exactly the opposite of Lemieux.