Do you think Ovechkin's legacy will improve over time?

[BraveCanadian]

To counter that with an example, before Gretzky and Lemieux, most all time lists had Beliveau behind Hull and Richard for 3rd best ever. The two wingers are more like Ovechkin. Crosby is more like Beliveau. Great career, leader and maybe a tad weak in the individual Trophy case in comparison to his true ability. He also had a lot of incomplete seasons. Yeah Richards trophy case isn’t that great either, but he’d have some Retro Rockets and Smythes.

Time has been kinder to Beliveau’s legacy. He’s usually ranked ahead of Hull and Richard nowadays. I agree with it, but that wasn’t the prevailing opinion back in 1980.

Was that the alternate timeline where Gordie Howe didn't exist?

 

[JackSlater]

To counter that with an example, before Gretzky and Lemieux, most all time lists had Beliveau behind Hull and Richard for 3rd best ever. The two wingers are more like Ovechkin. Crosby is more like Beliveau. Great career, leader and maybe a tad weak in the individual Trophy case in comparison to his true ability. He also had a lot of incomplete seasons. Yeah Richards trophy case isn’t that great either, but he’d have some Retro Rockets and Smythes.

Time has been kinder to Beliveau’s legacy. He’s usually ranked ahead of Hull and Richard nowadays. I agree with it, but that wasn’t the prevailing opinion back in 1980.

I don't think that's much of a counter example. Richard even fits in with what I was theorizing. I am saying that Ovechkin will likely rise relative to Crosby because once people don't remember the player, they will rely heavily on awards/records in a way that people who actually experienced the players don't need to. Richard's reputation did not match his trophy case, rightly or wrongly, and the longer time goes on the more his reputation matches his trophy case rather than the opinions of people who saw him.

This isn't to say that Richard's legacy was completely based on what he actually did on the ice, because he is a very unique case.

 

[wickedwitch]

There should be a name for how every thread about Ovechkin's legacy will eventually have some commentator basically say "actually, he's only scores so many goals because he's selfish and only focuses on that; my favorite player could also score 850 goals if they chose to but they aren't selfish like Ovechkin."

 

[MadLuke]

Maybe Crosby V Ovechkin will not move much over time (or it will, they could become 2 matched to the hip, too close to call item), but their combined legacies could still go up.

Oustide the top 4, no one is really 100% safe to not be one day seen has the equal or inferior to them.

 

[Moose Head]

Was that the alternate timeline where Gordie Howe didn't exist?

Before Gretzky the consensus Orr or Howe then Hull, Richard, Beliveau battling for 3rd which what I tried to say, but I’m admittedly not the greatest writer.

 

[Moose Head]

I don't think that's much of a counter example. Richard even fits in with what I was theorizing. I am saying that Ovechkin will likely rise relative to Crosby because once people don't remember the player, they will rely heavily on awards/records in a way that people who actually experienced the players don't need to. Richard's reputation did not match his trophy case, rightly or wrongly, and the longer time goes on the more his reputation matches his trophy case rather than the opinions of people who saw him.

This isn't to say that Richard's legacy was completely based on what he actually did on the ice, because he is a very unique case.

Yeah, it was a poorly written post on my part. Should have just stuck with Hull and Beliveau to illustrate my point.

 

[Sentinel]

If Ovechkin surpasses Gretzky's goal totals, he will be impossible not to include in the Top10 of all time. In addition to his 3 Harts and 9 Richards.

Crosby, being the jack of all trades and the best of none, will be substantially easier to keep out of Top10 if someone feels like it. In fact, the day McD wins his Cup (even if it's on the last day of his career) is the day he leaps over Crosby.

 

[Vilica]

There is one bit of Ovechkin's legacy that I've been wanting to throw in a mathematical thread somewhere but there hasn't been a good spot for it. It involves sample sizes and what we think we know about ranges of outcomes.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
05-06/17-18	1003	607	515	1122	4896	0.124	4.88

That's Ovechkin after 13 years and 1000 games in the NHL, averaging 4.88 shots per game, and shooting 12.4% for his career. We have 13 individual season-samples, and we have 2 peaks at 14.6/14.5%, the first his peak year in 07-08, the other in the shortened season of 12-13, and a valley at 8.7% in 10-11. One would think that this is a large enough sample size to have an accurate grasp of Ovechkin's potential range of outcomes in terms of shooting, but let's look at his next 5 years.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
18-19/22-23	344	215	148	363	1459	0.147	4.24

He loses about 15% of his shot volume, but it seems those were all the ones that weren't going in anyway, as his cumulative shooting percentage for these 344 games was higher than his peak shooting percentage seasons in his first 1000 games. He had 3 separate years over 15% (though none higher than 15.4%), all of them full seasons (however the 19-20 season of 68 games is theoretically partial).

One would think that having 1000 games and nearly 5000 shots on goal would be a big enough sample to have a settled range, but apparently not. I've always wanted to use this in response to someone putting too much emphasis on a small sample size, showing that even in the biggest of samples, it's all still randomness in the end.

Also, I did a breakdown by EV/PP, to see if the power play had any effect, and it really did not.

EV	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	179	160	339	1551	0.115	3.54
13-14/17-18	402	132	97	229	1210	0.109	3.01
18-19/22-23	344	144	101	245	961	0.150	2.79
PP	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	90	103	193	662	0.136	1.51
13-14/17-18	402	104	53	157	632	0.165	1.57
18-19/22-23	344	70	47	117	494	0.142	1.44

It is remarkable that we have ~13600 minutes of Ovechkin at even strength, and all the evidence shows he's an 11% shooter at even strength, and then in his next ~5400 even strength minutes he shoots 15%.

[PS There's a 3 goal 2 assist 15 shot discrepancy between hockey-reference and NHL that I'm not going to chase down for the purposes of this post.]

 

[MadLuke]

There is one bit of Ovechkin's legacy that I've been wanting to throw in a mathematical thread somewhere but there hasn't been a good spot for it. It involves sample sizes and what we think we know about ranges of outcomes.

Could it be just goaltender equipment being reduced ?

overall save percentage went down a lot in that 19-24 versus the previous 11-18 era:

2	2023-24	NHL	1312	3.11	0.63	3.02	20.98	79.02	30.1	27.2	.903	2.91
3	2022-23	NHL	1312	3.18	0.65	3.07	21.31	78.69	31.1	28.1	.904	2.97
4	2021-22	NHL	1312	3.14	0.60	2.89	20.61	79.39	31.4	28.5	.907	2.92
5	2020-21	NHL	868	2.94	0.57	2.89	19.78	80.22	29.8	27.1	.908	2.74
6	2019-20	NHL	1082	3.02	0.60	2.97	20.03	79.97	31.3	28.4	.910	2.82
7	2018-19	NHL	1271	3.01	0.58	2.92	19.78	80.22	31.3	28.5	.910	2.81
8	2017-18	NHL	1271	2.97	0.61	3.04	20.18	79.82	31.8	29.0	.912	2.78
9	2016-17	NHL	1230	2.77	0.57	2.99	19.10	80.90	30.1	27.5	.913	2.59
10	2015-16	NHL	1230	2.71	0.58	3.11	18.66	81.34	29.6	27.1	.915	2.51
11	2014-15	NHL	1230	2.73	0.57	3.06	18.66	81.34	29.8	27.3	.915	2.52
12	2013-14	NHL	1230	2.74	0.59	3.27	17.89	82.11	30.0	27.4	.914	2.56
13	2012-13	NHL	720	2.72	0.61	3.32	18.22	81.78	29.0	26.5	.912	2.54
14	2011-12	NHL	1230	2.73	0.57	3.31	17.31	82.69	29.7	27.1	.914	2.54
15	2010-11	NHL	1230	2.79	0.64	3.54	18.02	81.98	30.3	27.7	.913	2.61
16	2009-10	NHL	1230	2.84	0.68	3.71	18.23	81.77	30.2	27.5	.911	2.66
17	2008-09	NHL	1230	2.91	0.79	4.16	18.95	81.05	30.1	27.4	.908	2.73
18	2007-08	NHL	1230	2.78	0.76	4.28	17.75	82.25	29.0	26.3	.909	2.61
19	2006-07	NHL	1230	2.95	0.85	4.85	17.58	82.42	29.5	26.7	.905	2.77
20	2005-06	NHL	1230	3.08	1.03	5.85	17.68	82.32	29.9	27.0	.901	2.92

We could expect everyone shoot percentage getting a bump.

 

[MadLuke]

If Ovechkin surpasses Gretzky's goal totals, he will be impossible not to include in the Top10 of all time. In addition to his 3 Harts and 9 Richards.

This underrating creativity

What if someone come up with:
Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
McDavid
Beliveau
Hull
Hasek
Jagr
Bourque

And the fact that Ovechkin surpassing Gretzky goal totals should be virtually 100% irrelevant (he would be the greatest scorer even if he does not do it).

 

[Sentinel]

This underrating creativity

What if someone come up with:
Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
McDavid
Beliveau
Hull
Hasek
Jagr
Bourque

And the fact that Ovechkin surpassing Gretzky goal totals should be virtually 100% irrelevant (he would be the greatest scorer even if he does not do it).

It will not be irrelevant. It will be viewed as his greatest accomplishment. As in "Gretzky has the most points, Ovechkin the most goals."

Not sure what this has to do with creativity. Unless you want to put Datsyuk in the Top10.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If Ovechkin surpasses Gretzky's goal totals, he will be impossible not to include in the Top10 of all time. In addition to his 3 Harts and 9 Richards.

What if he falls one short...?

 

[MadLuke]

It will not be irrelevant. It will be viewed as his greatest accomplishment. As in "Gretzky has the most points, Ovechkin the most goals."

Not sure what this has to do with creativity. Unless you want to put Datsyuk in the Top10.

I mean some people will be able to create Top 10 without Ovechkin in the future, we see a lot of stuff, some people excluded Jagr or Hasek of top 10, maybe some exclude Crosby right now.

yes it will, but how much scoring 892 or 895 goals in your career should matter... 850+ goals in the era he played and 9 rocket already make him the greatest nhl goal scorer ever imo, 895 goals is trivia, which agree if we go a top 10 greatest player is a big deal, top 10 best player ever virtually 100% irrelevant scoring 896 goals or 893, same has scoring 756 vs 753.

 

[seventieslord]

There is one bit of Ovechkin's legacy that I've been wanting to throw in a mathematical thread somewhere but there hasn't been a good spot for it. It involves sample sizes and what we think we know about ranges of outcomes.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
05-06/17-18	1003	607	515	1122	4896	0.124	4.88

That's Ovechkin after 13 years and 1000 games in the NHL, averaging 4.88 shots per game, and shooting 12.4% for his career. We have 13 individual season-samples, and we have 2 peaks at 14.6/14.5%, the first his peak year in 07-08, the other in the shortened season of 12-13, and a valley at 8.7% in 10-11. One would think that this is a large enough sample size to have an accurate grasp of Ovechkin's potential range of outcomes in terms of shooting, but let's look at his next 5 years.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
18-19/22-23	344	215	148	363	1459	0.147	4.24

He loses about 15% of his shot volume, but it seems those were all the ones that weren't going in anyway, as his cumulative shooting percentage for these 344 games was higher than his peak shooting percentage seasons in his first 1000 games. He had 3 separate years over 15% (though none higher than 15.4%), all of them full seasons (however the 19-20 season of 68 games is theoretically partial).

One would think that having 1000 games and nearly 5000 shots on goal would be a big enough sample to have a settled range, but apparently not. I've always wanted to use this in response to someone putting too much emphasis on a small sample size, showing that even in the biggest of samples, it's all still randomness in the end.

Also, I did a breakdown by EV/PP, to see if the power play had any effect, and it really did not.

EV	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	179	160	339	1551	0.115	3.54
13-14/17-18	402	132	97	229	1210	0.109	3.01
18-19/22-23	344	144	101	245	961	0.150	2.79
PP	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	90	103	193	662	0.136	1.51
13-14/17-18	402	104	53	157	632	0.165	1.57
18-19/22-23	344	70	47	117	494	0.142	1.44

It is remarkable that we have ~13600 minutes of Ovechkin at even strength, and all the evidence shows he's an 11% shooter at even strength, and then in his next ~5400 even strength minutes he shoots 15%.

[PS There's a 3 goal 2 assist 15 shot discrepancy between hockey-reference and NHL that I'm not going to chase down for the purposes of this post.]

Interesting stuff. One thing: shooting percentage really only counts the shots that hit a goalie or the back of the net. Shot attempts would give us a more accurate take on how accurate he's shooting. For example, fewer shots on goal might just mean the same number of shot attempts, but more of them went wide or into shinpads.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Interesting stuff. One thing: shooting percentage really only counts the shots that hit a goalie or the back of the net. Shot attempts would give us a more accurate take on how accurate he's shooting. For example, fewer shots on goal might just mean the same number of shot attempts, but more of them went wide or into shinpads.

Also notable that Ovechkin takes a lot of his shots from a relatively severe angle, so a larger number of missed shots likely come with that territory.

 

[JackSlater]

A lot of people are going to suddenly boost Ovechkin when he sets the goal record. It's lazy but it's also a given. He is already a justifiable pick to be in the top ten but if someone has him jump a player or players due to Gretzky not scoring more goals, it's hard to take their thought process seriously.

 

[jigglysquishy]

This isn't to say that Richard's legacy was completely based on what he actually did on the ice, because he is a very unique case.

As an aside, I just finished Lafleur's book and you get a good sense of Richard in it. Lafleur had immense pressure to be the next in the lineage of great Cup winning Habs.

As a hockey player, he needed to fill Beliveau's shoes.

As a star, as a Canadien, as a Quebecer, he needed to fill Richard's shoes.

Richard is spoken of in the highest terms, but as a hockey player he is spoken of in the same category as Beliveau and Harvey.

Lafleur alludes to Morenz in a similiar way. A top hockey player whose cultural impact outweighed his on ice impact.

 

[Sentinel]

I mean some people will be able to create Top 10 without Ovechkin in the future, we see a lot of stuff, some people excluded Jagr or Hasek of top 10, maybe some exclude Crosby right now.

yes it will, but how much scoring 892 or 895 goals in your career should matter... 850+ goals in the era he played and 9 rocket already make him the greatest nhl goal scorer ever imo, 895 goals is trivia, which agree if we go a top 10 greatest player is a big deal, top 10 best player ever virtually 100% irrelevant scoring 896 goals or 893, same has scoring 756 vs 753.

You can argue what should or should not matter. That's entirely up to you.
I GUARANTEE you THIS number WILL matter. Without the all-time record, you can still argue in favor of Gretzky (four 70+ goal seasons to Ovy's zero, etc.). After 895, you cannot.

Ovechkin and McDavid still have something to gain, Crosby does not IMO.

My Top15 (proactively, in lieu of future accomplishments from 8 and 97):

1. Wayne Gretzky (C)
2. Gordie Howe (RW)
3. Bobby Orr (D)
4. Mario Lemieux (C)
5. Dominic Hasek (G)
6. Phil Esposito (C)
7. Connor McDavid (C)
8. Alexander Ovechkin (LW)
9. Sydney Crosby (C)
10. Bobby Hull (LW)
11. Jaromir Jagr (RW)
12. Eddie Shore (D)
13. Jean Beliveau (C)
14. Sergei Makarov (RW)
15. Guy Lafleur (RW)
16. Nicklas Lidstrom (D)
17. Doug Harvey (D)
18. Patrick Roy (G)
19. Raymond Bourque (D)
20. Mark Messier (C)

 

[jigglysquishy]

As an FYI, Sydney is the women's spelling.

It was used a lot in the late 00s as a homophobic slur.

 

[Vilica]

Quick and dirty shot attempts in the same breakdown:

	Total			EV			PP			SH
	SA	SAPG		SA	SAPG		SA	SAPG		SA	Missing
07-08/12-13	4574	10.44		2955	6.75		1353	3.09		17	249
07-08	907	11.06		592	7.22		254	3.10		1	60
08-09	1027	13.00		627	7.94		322	4.08		15	63
09-10	818	11.36		496	6.89		249	3.46		1	72
10-11	771	9.76		499	6.32		222	2.81			50
11-12	610	7.82		451	5.78		155	1.99			4
12-13	441	9.19		290	6.04		151	3.15			0
13-14/17-18	3699	9.20		2381	5.92		1245	3.10		2	71
13-14	766	9.82		504	6.46		260	3.33		1	1
14-15	825	10.19		516	6.37		266	3.28			43
15-16	779	9.86		475	6.01		277	3.51			27
16-17	624	7.61		413	5.04		211	2.57			0
17-18	705	8.60		473	5.77		231	2.82		1	0
18-19/22-23	2841	8.26		1860	5.41		974	2.83		7	0
18-19	668	8.25		441	5.44		227	2.80			0
19-20	602	8.85		409	6.01		193	2.84			0
20-21	351	7.80		240	5.33		111	2.47			0
21-22	642	8.34		404	5.25		237	3.08		1	0
22-23	578	7.92		366	5.01		206	2.82		6	0

Decline a bit more pronounced, but it's basically in line with shots. I actually think 11-12 and 16-17 sort of conspire to drag down the averages, since both shots and shot attempts are a bit of a proxy for time on ice, and Ovechkin's time was restricted in both years. Regardless, it's still about the same 15% between samples.

Also, MadLuke, sure save percentage went down, from .9111 to .9138 to .9078, but Ovechkin's jump from 12.4 to 14.7 is the equivalent of turning a goalie from an 0.876 to 0.853. That difference of 0.023 is almost four times as large as the 0.006 difference between 0.9138 and 0.9078 (if we assume a 100 shot sample size).

 

[MadLuke]

Also, MadLuke, sure save percentage went down, from .9111 to .9138 to .9078, but Ovechkin's jump from 12.4 to 14.7 is the equivalent of turning a goalie from an 0.876 to 0.853. That difference of 0.023 is almost four times as large as the 0.006 difference between 0.9138 and 0.9078 (if we assume a 100 shot sample size).

In term of puck going in, .915 of 2015 and 2016 season vs .903 of last year

That 8.5 vs 9.7, 14% more shots are going in.

14.7 vs 12.4 is 18.5% more shots that are going in.

 

[wetcoast]

What if he falls one short...?

Exactly.

The goals record really doesn't mean anything at this point, it's not like his 31 goals last season moved the needle for Ovi in any way shape or form for all time rankings.

Even if he never scores another NHL goal or beats Gretzky by 1,5,10 or 15 it's of no significance to his all time ranking except to those that progate this (false) narrative but then again you, and many others, already know that.

As an FYI, Sydney is the women's spelling.

It was used a lot in the late 00s as a homophobic slur.

He knows that already, some people just can't cope with crosby be ranked higher all time by most people and that won't change.

Even worse though was his including Esposito at 6th which is just a really weird take even if one doesn't believe in the Orr bump, which I do, as Phil was absolutely horrible in the playoffs during his Black Hawk days and that just can't be glossed over that easily.

 

[daver]

There is one bit of Ovechkin's legacy that I've been wanting to throw in a mathematical thread somewhere but there hasn't been a good spot for it. It involves sample sizes and what we think we know about ranges of outcomes.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
05-06/17-18	1003	607	515	1122	4896	0.124	4.88

That's Ovechkin after 13 years and 1000 games in the NHL, averaging 4.88 shots per game, and shooting 12.4% for his career. We have 13 individual season-samples, and we have 2 peaks at 14.6/14.5%, the first his peak year in 07-08, the other in the shortened season of 12-13, and a valley at 8.7% in 10-11. One would think that this is a large enough sample size to have an accurate grasp of Ovechkin's potential range of outcomes in terms of shooting, but let's look at his next 5 years.

Years	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
18-19/22-23	344	215	148	363	1459	0.147	4.24

He loses about 15% of his shot volume, but it seems those were all the ones that weren't going in anyway, as his cumulative shooting percentage for these 344 games was higher than his peak shooting percentage seasons in his first 1000 games. He had 3 separate years over 15% (though none higher than 15.4%), all of them full seasons (however the 19-20 season of 68 games is theoretically partial).

One would think that having 1000 games and nearly 5000 shots on goal would be a big enough sample to have a settled range, but apparently not. I've always wanted to use this in response to someone putting too much emphasis on a small sample size, showing that even in the biggest of samples, it's all still randomness in the end.

Also, I did a breakdown by EV/PP, to see if the power play had any effect, and it really did not.

EV	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	179	160	339	1551	0.115	3.54
13-14/17-18	402	132	97	229	1210	0.109	3.01
18-19/22-23	344	144	101	245	961	0.150	2.79
PP	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	Shots	Sh%	SPG
07-08/12-13	438	90	103	193	662	0.136	1.51
13-14/17-18	402	104	53	157	632	0.165	1.57
18-19/22-23	344	70	47	117	494	0.142	1.44

It is remarkable that we have ~13600 minutes of Ovechkin at even strength, and all the evidence shows he's an 11% shooter at even strength, and then in his next ~5400 even strength minutes he shoots 15%.

[PS There's a 3 goal 2 assist 15 shot discrepancy between hockey-reference and NHL that I'm not going to chase down for the purposes of this post.]

There was a general rise of shooting %'s from 18/19 onwards.

From 12/13 to 17/18, the avg. shooting % for the Top 10 was 15.7%

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

From 18/19 to 23/24/18, the avg. shooting % for the Top 10 was 17.4% (an 11% increase)

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Ovechkin went from 13% to 14.2% (a 9% increase), not quite keeping up with the increase.

 

[The Panther]

I certainly don't see Ovechkin or anyone as a lock for fans' top-10 player rankings just because he hit "X" number of goals. This is the kind of logic that put Dave Andreychuk in the Hall of Fame.

Obviously being number 1 in all-time NHL goals is a stunning achievement and merits its own kind of attention, but I don't think these kinds of things will suddenly make knowledgeable fans rank a player higher.

As someone noted, there will be a big media hype if / when Ovechkin breaks the goals record, and there will follow an inevitable period of "teflon man" about him, but this will get balanced out with father time.

 

[DitchMarner]

I certainly don't see Ovechkin or anyone as a lock for fans' top-10 player rankings just because he hit "X" number of goals. This is the kind of logic that put Dave Andreychuk in the Hall of Fame.

Obviously being number 1 in all-time NHL goals is a stunning achievement and merits its own kind of attention, but I don't think these kinds of things will suddenly make knowledgeable fans rank a player higher.

As someone noted, there will be a big media hype if / when Ovechkin breaks the goals record, and there will follow an inevitable period of "teflon man" about him, but this will get balanced out with father time.

Peak and prime seasons are definitely the most important when it comes to ranking players in general and ranking goal scorers, but I think some knowledgeable fans can be become too dismissive of career milestones (just as casual fans and media types tend to make too big a deal of such things).

Does adding 25-35 goal seasons at the end of his career make Ovechkin a better or greater goal scorer than guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Richard etc? No, because such seasons pale in comparison to what those players did in their best seasons and over their primes as far as goal scoring is concerned. But that doesn't mean the value of 25-35 goal seasons late in a player's career is zero, either (even if we are talking about a guy who's led the League in goals nine times). Hockey is a grind. Players age and lose their abilities. It can be a challenge and a testament to a player's goal scoring smarts and devotion to achieving a goal to bang in those last 70 or so goals and get the record.