Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
For all of the "Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand" talk that you try to get away with...it's incredible that Lemieux gets this treatment. Incredible...lacking credibility.
Over the course of Lemieux's career, the Penguins had a .509 points percentage. You'd think such a vaunted player would have been able to lift a team to above average. Mario Lemieux didn't.
For Crosby that number is .612 and for Ovechkin it's .604.
Just for my own understanding, you're aware that both Crosby and Ovechkin (but not Lemieux except for late in his career) have played in an era that allows for an "average team" to have a points percentage well above 50%?
For all of the "Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand" talk that you try to get away with...it's incredible that Lemieux gets this treatment. Incredible...lacking credibility.
I see. So, Ovechkin gets a lot of the credit for returning them into a "perennial contender" (even though upthread, the president's trophy winners were "flawed"). He doesn't shoulder the load for them losing in the playoffs or losing with Russia. Largely drags them off the floor to the top of the league. Until he doesn't...then it's everyone else.Anyway, I don't think Ovechkin was dealt a bad hand nor did I say that. I think he was dealt a fairly average hand. He came to a lottery team and it turned into a perennial contender largely based on his consistent contributions.
Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.I think lots of all-time greats were dealt better or far better hands
I see. So, Ovechkin gets a lot of the credit for returning them into a "perennial contender" (even though upthread, the president's trophy winners were "flawed"). He doesn't shoulder the load for them losing in the playoffs or losing with Russia. Largely drags them off the floor to the top of the league. Until he doesn't...then it's everyone else.
Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.
Over the course of Lemieux's career, the Penguins had a .509 points percentage. You'd think such a vaunted player would have been able to lift a team to above average. Mario Lemieux didn't.
Old Trottier, rookie Jagr being HHOF can make the statement look stronger than it was, would Barrasso be in the hall without Lemieux ? And a Kevin Stevens was way more important than some of those HHOF at that point.never having much team success without 6-8 other hall of famers.
Indeed Lemieux came into a crappy team, then had a stacked dream team that no player in the current era could even dream of, then he played with the best player in the world, then he played 1.5 season's worth of games on a crappy team again.
Old Trottier, rookie Jagr being HHOF can make the statement look stronger than it was, would Barrasso be in the hall without Lemieux ? And a Kevin Stevens was way more important than some of those HHOF at that point.
The 2 years they won the cup, the Penguins were a .500 teams 32W-33L-5T when Mario was not playing, there is more than HHOF counting in a team construction going on (see some Buffalo sabres era). Superstar which to have a .500 teams without them and it is a good place to be and should put them contender for a cup, but it is not that special either. in 2010 without Ovechkin the Caps went 7 wins-2L-1OL
Were the Mario less 91 and 92 pens that much better than the Kucherov less Lightings at their peak ? Kane less Hawks ? Bergeron less Bruins ?
For the record, "Ovechkin", "negative", "playoffs" aren't keywords for me either. I'm really just trying to ask shorter, simpler questions so I can get all of the logical fallacies in one thread so that I don't have to search hahaI'll throw in that I do not believe that the playoffs are a negative for Ovechkin
I feel the main critics will turn around how soon in his career and how often did the Capitals had better stats with him on the bench than on the ice despite very favorable deployment and linemates among teammates (which goes quite strong against the lack of support narrative outside the early years). Which is counterbalanced by his powerplay play like you say, the cap for a reason where a mainstay at the top during his career.I'm not really sure I understand the criticism of Ovechkin's career fully outside of just Top x player squabbling
Season | OvGD | OfGF | TeamGD | TeamGF% | ratio OvGF% / caps GF% |
20072008 | 34 | 61.0% | -17 | 44.8% | 1.36 |
20082009 | 18 | 56.3% | 5 | 51.4% | 1.10 |
20092010 | 51 | 70.4% | 28 | 55.5% | 1.27 |
20102011 | 26 | 61.2% | -2 | 49.5% | 1.24 |
20112012 | 0 | 50.0% | 4 | 50.9% | 0.98 |
20122013 | 5 | 53.2% | 4 | 51.8% | 1.03 |
20132014 | -27 | 38.3% | 10 | 52.5% | 0.73 |
20142015 | 12 | 55.0% | 16 | 54.0% | 1.02 |
20152016 | 26 | 61.4% | 16 | 53.6% | 1.15 |
20162017 | 9 | 53.8% | 59 | 64.0% | 0.84 |
20172018 | 10 | 53.4% | 11 | 52.4% | 1.02 |
20182019 | 12 | 53.5% | 20 | 54.2% | 0.99 |
20192020 | -3 | 48.9% | 30 | 57.1% | 0.86 |
20202021 | 0 | 50.0% | 21 | 55.4% | 0.90 |
20212022 | 14 | 54.5% | 12 | 52.4% | 1.04 |
20222023 | -9 | 46.7% | -6 | 48.9% | 0.96 |
20232024 | -17 | 43.3% | -15 | 46.8% | 0.92 |
Season | Crosby GD | PensGD | CrosbyGF% | PensGF% | ratio |
20072008 | 19 | 4 | 61.4% | 51.0% | 1.21 |
20082009 | 12 | 17 | 54.4% | 54.0% | 1.01 |
20092010 | 18 | -6 | 55.8% | 48.5% | 1.15 |
20102011 | 22 | -1 | 63.8% | 49.8% | 1.28 |
20112012 | 17 | 14 | 67.3% | 52.1% | 1.29 |
20122013 | 28 | 8 | 69.4% | 53.1% | 1.31 |
20132014 | 23 | -11 | 58.3% | 47.2% | 1.24 |
20142015 | 14 | -2 | 56.3% | 49.5% | 1.14 |
20152016 | 21 | 9 | 58.1% | 52.2% | 1.11 |
20162017 | 23 | 20 | 58.6% | 54.0% | 1.09 |
20172018 | 3 | 0 | 51.1% | 50.0% | 1.02 |
20182019 | 29 | -4 | 59.1% | 49.1% | 1.20 |
20192020 | -3 | 20 | 47.9% | 53.9% | 0.89 |
20202021 | 10 | 26 | 55.0% | 57.8% | 0.95 |
20212022 | 27 | 9 | 60.8% | 51.7% | 1.18 |
20222023 | 12 | -21 | 53.9% | 45.6% | 1.18 |
20232024 | 15 | 4 | 54.1% | 50.9% | 1.06 |
Because Crosby is a CENTER. And all others are WINGS. *facepalm*Not sure why didn't include Crosby as an elite passer but that it exactly the point. Crosby's offensive versatility allowed for more offensive depth on the Pens. He could produce with any quality of linemate; Ovechkin needed another elite forward on his line. This was especially apparent during the playoffs.
You can't complain about the Caps' lack of support when the Pens roster outside of Malkin and Crosby is possibly the weakest for a Cup winner in NHL history.
Yes, because Cups matter. You can argue all you want but you won't convince many people. Without the Cup Ovechkin would be a massive afterthought, the second best player after McDavid not to win it.Ovechkin and Bobby Hull have a lot in common, and one thing they have in common is winning 1 Cup apiece, despite being on highly competitive teams much of their careers. (In fact, when young Hull won his only Cup, his team wasn't really considered "competitive" yet -- it was more like a surprise win.)
I hope people bear this in mind when evaluating players, esp. post-Lock Out.
Let's imagine a scenario (sorry Caps' fans) where Kuznetsov doesn't score in overtime in game 6 vs. Pittsburgh. The Pens win to tie the series and then they win it in game 7.
So — basically because of 1 goal (and possibly one further game) — Ovechkin is now near the end in 2024, having never won a Stanley Cup. I am 100% sure that a lot of people on here would be ranking him far lower than they do on account of his never having won the Cup.
Is this in any way logical? I guess there's a debate to be had, but I just think the whole idea of prioritizing a single Stanley Cup win as some sort of "eternal grace" bestowed on a player's career (which, say, Lindros or Kariya or Dionne or — so far — McDavid won't get) is very silly.
What matters more: Cups, or performance?Yes, because Cups matter.