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

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,171
11,004
So, the point is...

Lemieux advancing beyond the 2nd round in 4 of his 7 career playoff experiences, and 3 of 3 (?) best on best international tournaments (winning Gold in all of them) is equivalent or near equivalent to Ovechkin's 1 in 15 and 0 for 5 internationally?

That's where you went with that: "if defense is all result-based, then surely, the playoffs must be somewhere around that too...therefore Ovechkin must be..." situation. You brought famous winner and extremely-efficient-at-advancing-to-win stuff Mario Lemieux into the mix...?

"Best on best" lol. Those match-ups were mostly lopsided. It was often an NHL allstar team beating up on teams that were half full of failed NHL prospects. And actually Lemieux lost the worlds and world juniors, but I guess your point is....losing to lesser teams somehow isn't as bad as losing to...better teams who are still far inferior to Lemieux's team even if you remove Lemieux?

I like how you paint Lemieux's playoff career as "4 for 7" when in reality his career spanned 17 NHL seasons over 22 years, and he played in the playoffs in 8 different seasons (not 7).

So like, missing the playoffs five times - back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in - doesn't even register? Your opinion is that the team success standard abruptly cuts off at the playoff line, and everything below that is tossed out of history?

Lemieux's teams missed the playoffs 9 times in his 17 seasons (58% of the time).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,171
11,004
Mike and I went over the secondary/goal scorer thing a couple years ago and the preliminary conclusion is that its about 5-10%, across everybody, and subject to a ton of variance. It obviously affects someone who scores 40 goals more than someone who scores 20 goals, but the percentage of goals it affects is in the same ballpark.

[I went searching for the post and found it here: Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread. I thought there was another follow-up from Mike where he broke down his video assessment of some goals but couldn't find it.]

As someone who in the end is mostly 'Points Uber Alles' in regards to forward impacts, I still understand that there's a shit ton of randomness involving points scored. In the end, it all sort of washes out, the positive and negative variance, and true talent mostly shines through over a larger sample.

There is however one points-related Ovechkin stat that I do want to point out that does affect him more than others. Nobody would disagree that Ovechkin is one of the most impactful players on the Power Play in NHL history, and yet when you look at his IPP (individual points percentage) compared to a whole host of other players, his total is substantially lower than just about everybody else. Thus, even though he's been on for almost 175 more power play goals than Crosby, he only has around 40 more power play points [in the 07-08 to 23-24 period]. If you look at the averages of a whole bunch of players, the superstars are around 70%, the stars are around 65%, and Ovechkin's at 60%. The forwards around him (or lower) include Pavelski, Marchand, Benn, Toews, E. Staal, Perry, Duchene, and Voracek, mostly secondary stars. [Even the players known more for their one-timers/shooting are still much higher - Stamkos 68.6, Pastrnak 69.9, Matthews 66.1. I went through 57 forwards and 28 defensemen, the highest scorers since 07-08 and summed their PPP and oiGF according to hockey-reference's extra stats.]

If you assume Ovechkin's power play impact is equivalent to the superstar players that are his normal peers, that would mean boosting his IPP to that 70% range, which would lead to an extra 84 points, or about 5 points per season (84/17, since we're missing the data from 05-06 and 06-07).

But again, I refer you back to my initial statement that there's a ton of randomness involved in points, and positive and negative variance wash out, and true talent shines through in a larger sample. We certainly have a large enough sample to state that Ovechkin's true talent on the power play is a 60% IPP. Whether that's an accurate measure of his power play talent is more subjective.

That's interesting data. I'm not surprised by it.

Ovechkin, on the PP especially, is worth quite a lot even just as a decoy. Teams have to lean a defender towards him more so than against other NHL players in that same point position. This created lots of space and quasi 4 on 3 opportunities for Oshie/Backstrom/Carlson/Green/Kuznetsov/Johhansson/Wilson, not to mention goalies leaning Ovie's way.

It would be one thing is the Capitals were doing this with a decent powerplay. But in fact they have the #1 powerplay in the NHL over the course of Ovechkin's career. And while those other players have come and gone from the Capitals (and one of them is even a fringe hall of famer), Ovechkin is the common denominator.

I think your way of quantifying it is pretty neat.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,405
9,651
NYC
www.youtube.com
So like, missing the playoffs five times - back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in - doesn't even register? Your opinion is that the team success standard abruptly cuts off at the playoff line, and everything below that is tossed out of history?

Lemieux's teams missed the playoffs 9 times in his 17 seasons (58% of the time).
Not tossed out, it didn't seem relevant to the conversation. If it is, then...are you saying that Lemieux was also a bad regular season player and therefore his teams didn't qualify for the playoffs?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad