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

[Michael Farkas]

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.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

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%?

 

[Midnight Judges]

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%?

Yes, that's a fair point and it can and should be factored in.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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 factor in durability to player value, whereas many hockey fans basically don't, or at least treat it as so insignificant as to not matter.

But in real life, providing value in games is a prerequisite for team success, and contributing to team success (as opposed to individual glory) ought to be the measurement.

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. The team made some great moves (Oshie for Brouwer, drafting Kuznetsov, drafting Holtby in the 4th round) and some unbelievably stupid moves (Forsberg for Erat, letting Trotz walk after winning the cup).

I think lots of all-time greats were dealt better or far better hands - especially the ones who were lucky enough to be paired with multiple other top 50 players of all time. Sometimes that talent clustered in fortuitous ways that are perhaps not even possible in the salary cap era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

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.

I think lots of all-time greats were dealt better or far better hands

Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

You're not accurately summarizing my opinion, but whatever.

You think my posts are inconsistent, but they actually aren't.

A team requires far more to win than any 1 player can provide. Ovechkin's contributions are among the greatest of all time - as evidenced by him flirting with the all-time goals record and top 10 all time in points despite not playing in the high scoring era. He'll likely end his career top 5 in adjusted points.

Ovechkin should get credit for his own contributions on the ice. Nothing more and nothing less. Not extrapolations. Not what you think could or should have happened. But what actually did happen.

An all-time great player can play their entire career on a crappy team. An all-time medium player can be fortunate to play on a dynasty or for multiple great teams. Those things are largely happenstance that are the responsibility of the GM, not the player.

Not the ones you keep going back to. Lemieux was book-ended by expansion-level teams. The rosters make that extremely clear.

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.

There is not much stopping a superstar's entire career from playing out the way Lemieux's first 6 seasons played out. I think the difference is, for folks who are accounting for those things to begin with, it would not impact their assessment.

 

[WarriorofTime]

International makes even less sense to compare. "NHL Franchises" start off on a somewhat equal playing field, if they get a franchise marquee talent, they get a chance to build around them. Sometimes they do a good job, sometimes they do a bad job. We can evaluate how successful a team is in building with the player and then from there assess what that says about the player, and squabble around (the extreme end being daver, the low end being the nihilistic no team success ever matters that you sometimes see). With international though, there's no "building", countries just kinda have who they have lol. A country doesn't just go out and spend draft capital on defense, sign a new goaltender. International resume often just feels likes a Canadian "padding", any Canadian best on best roster is gonna have like 15 hall of fame players. They won't always win because hockey has enough variance, but they are, particularly historically, always a clear favorite.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I just can’t get over how elegant an obfuscating phrase “he never played with another top 200 player” or “never played with another HOFer” is.

“Top 200” and “HOFer” are both career markers, and the scale of the career is just simply the wrong scale for contemplating the amount of support a guy had. Guys like Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Green, Holtby, Semin, Carlson were all at some point seen as amongst the top in their position in the league. A bunch of those Capitals teams had really solid depth guys: Knuble, Laich, Oshie, Wideman, Eller. All of that is hidden underneath the curtain of “no Top 200 Players” because Kuznetsov, Green, Holtby and Semin had high peaks but short primes, and Backstrom never really got the respect he deserved.

If you were to rank every player in the league, season-by-season, between 07-08 and 18-19 (what I’ll call these teams overlapping contention windows), most seasons the average player ranking between them would be at worst a wash, and I imagine the Caps would come out on top for overall team quality more than the Penguins would.

If someone were to sketch out a full lineup value analysis, season by season, and the above isn’t true? Then that’s fine and I’ll accept it. But you’ll never be able to persuade me that “never played with a HOFer” is meaningful outside of being a trivia answer indicating that Evgeny Kuznetsov stopped liking hockey.

 

[MadLuke]

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.

never having much team success without 6-8 other hall of famers.

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.

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.

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 dream 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 ?

92-93 Pens without Mario, 11W-11L-2T, excellent team without their big stars, but did they had some massive flaw for all those big names not being able to more than a .500 team ? Someone like Stevens during those years, without Mario his numbers do not like a superstar at all.

You can have supernova help that do not show in a HHOF column and you can have regular help that end up in the HHOF, Andrei Markov, Dany Heatley will not end up in the hall or Lecavalier but people that played with the peak version of them did not had less help than people that played with Kevin Lowe. Peak Mike Richards-Backstrom-Been-Panarin-Gaudreau-Spezza, etc... are not big drop from a past 30 Joe Mullen

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think the thing though is regardless of any particular snapshot opinions of Semin, Green, Kuznetsov, Carlson, etc. at any one moment, we did have the benefit of actually watching the series in question. Pittsburgh played a competitive series with Washington in each of their seasons that resulted in a cup in the Crosby/Malkin era, and likewise in the season Washington won the Cup.

In the four series that Washington and Pittsburgh played in 2009, 2016, 2017 and 2018, Crosby had 13 goals, 17 assists, 30 points (1.2 PPG, one missed game), +5. Ovechkin had 15 goals, 18 assists, 33 points (1.27 PPG), +6. It'd be hard-pressed for me to say the difference in those particular Series was really that Crosby was just a better/more winning player. I don't think its unreasonable to say Green/Semin in 09, Kuznetsov in 16, Holtby in 17 had some big letdown performances when they really needed more. And that's not so unexpected because going back to it, they were players that had some good seasons but were not all time great players in their own right.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

You want to call it 6 other hall of famers instead of 8? Fine by me. It's a massive advantage any way you slice it.

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

Yes, this is a fair point. Agree.

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 ?

The record, as you point out, suggests not. And at the same time, I have a hard time seeing how all those hall of famers could possibly fit on one team in the salary cap era.

Transpose it to today's $88M cap:

Jagr $4M - (Bedard makes $4.5M)
Coffey: $11.5M - same as Karlsson
Lemieux: $16M - $2M more than Draisaitl
Trottier: $7.5M $2M discount from 35 yo Jamie Benn
Mullen: $7M
Recchi: Cheap entry level steal for '91 but gets a big bump to $6M after year 3 for '92
Murphy: $9.5M same as McAvoy
Francis: $8M
Barrasso: $7M (somewhere between Sorokin and Binnington)
Stevens: $6.5M (Tom Wilson-ish money)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, that was fun, to make up all that stuff haha - which I know ya hate.

Let's look at the facts instead...
1991 Penguins
Jagr $150k (entry level, Bedard does NOT make $4.5 mil)
Coffey $900k (8th in NHL, 4th among D)
Lemieux $2.5 mil (2nd in NHL, Gretzky $3 mil, Stevens $2.175)
Trottier $400k+bonuses ($320k in bonuses, most of which were for winning the Cup)
Mullen $200k (250th in the NHL)
Recchi $105k (entry level)
Murphy $270k (~120th in the NHL)
Francis $350k (53rd in NHL)
Barrasso $365k (50th in NHL)
Stevens $150k (two-way contract)

So, you have three entry level deals. One of the highest paid players in the league. I wonder...

Lemieux is 20% behind Gretzky. Ovechkin is 10% behind Toews for #1 hit.

So, let's be charitable and call it Lemieux = Ovechkin
Nick Backstrom is the 48th highest cap hit in 2018, so that's a wash with Francis.
Evgeni Kuznetsov was the 20th highest cap hit in the NHL in 2018, there's no equivalent to that at forward here. So let's do a package deal Kuznetsov and Niskanen (90th highest cap hit) as a wash with Coffey and Murphy. So that's 8th and 120th for 20th and 90th.

Holtby is the ~60th highest cap hit in the NHL, that's a wash with Barrasso.

Vrana on his ELC washes with Jagr on his. They both were third-line level producers on their respective teams.

Caps had Oshie as the 90th highest cap hit and a big impact to their run. I guess if we're just doing a mostly salary wash, I guess we can charitably cancel that with Trottier?

Tom Wilson was making $2 mil. That's a below average league salary at that time. Joe Mullen was also below league average salary (~$270,000). Seems like a good wash.

The Caps have several big ticket defensemen like Carlson, Orpik and Orlov...they're ATOI combines for ~67 minutes a game. None of those guys were on entry levels, we also have to try to account for entry level Chandler Stephenson. So, maybe Washington's #1 d-man and Stephenson for Kevin Stevens on an entry-level? That seems unnecessarily generous to the Caps, but there's room to spare here.

Then the other two Caps impact d-men for Recchi?

We still have two above-average salary guys in Eller and Burakovsky that we don't have a match for right now. But that might just be because of a non-exhaustive list from MJ.

Excited to find out why this doesn't count or that entry level contracts are just luck or something haha

 

[JackSlater]

I'll throw in that I do not believe that the playoffs are a negative for Ovechkin, especially the unfairly maligned early Ovechkin who was excellent on some weak/flawed teams. He had some crappy runs on decently strong teams, but so does everyone. International isn't really a plus for him but I don't think it's fair to call it a negative given how widely teams can vary.

I don't think that the playoffs will matter for people who didn't actively watch Ovechkin. It would if he never got a Stanley Cup, but he did get one.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll throw in that I do not believe that the playoffs are a negative for Ovechkin

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 haha

"Points per game is nonsense"...unless it's Ovechkin the playoffs.
"Ovechkin had it tough, unlike Lemieux"...except the Penguins were a clown shoe organization for all but about three years of Lemieux's career (Bowman years).
"Secondary assists are just noise and don't matter"...also, "hockey is the ultimate team game"

And on and on...so now we're randomly assigning retrospective salaries to the Penguins "dream team" which I've decided to randomly compare to the 2018 Caps which had two #1 centers (and maybe a third depending on how much someone loves Chandler Stephenson's Vegas years), three top pair d-men (four?), and a goalie who was way better than Barrasso.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not really sure I understand the criticism of Ovechkin's career fully outside of just Top x player squabbling. Not a dominant player driver outside of his 5-year peak but likely made up by being a top x [whatever] powerplay force for basically whole career. Goal scoring premium, and overall some of the best longevity. So idk, like placing a special premium on the quality of a player's 6th through 10th best seasons maybe?

1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 10 -> floating ten-year timeline of point finishes beginning with Ovechkin's rookie year

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 -> floating ten-year timeline of goal finishes beginning with Ovechkin's rookie year.

It seems like the particular criticisms morph and evolve every subsequent sentence with the consistent basis being an overall reluctance to give a player their flowers ("yeah but, if only this, however that"). Yeah if we're just squabbling over x player or x + 1, x + 2, then fine, but I think the career is as good as you could ask, got his Cup, got 3 wc golds for a country that oscillates between 2nd and 4th in power ranks. Will be a well deserving all-time goal king if the gets there, for however long he holds that title. At the very least, right there with Jagr for best non-North American forward ever.

 

[MadLuke]

I'm not really sure I understand the criticism of Ovechkin's career fully outside of just Top x player squabbling

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.

At even strength, Ovechkin vs the capitals without Ovechkin on the ice by seasons:

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​

Which do show how impressive peak Ovechkin was but in all the bolded seasons his team was not outscoring the opponent significatively or doing much worst the the others cap lines, for an all time great that an hard sales.

Specially with the narrative that it should have been particularly easy as they were not that good of a team support wise.

To note maybe 2008 being the season that the stats are easily available make it look worse, 2006-2007 I can imagine his line doing better than the rest of the team, than again he was team worst -19 in 2007, maybe not by much. how many all-time great would not have a good reason for this (like Gretzky was the other line for Messier or it was Forsberg-Kamensky for Sakic) and happening so many times.

It could be fluky even over a full season, but when it is year after year, with the higher offensive zone start and you play with the best center (which mean you face your opponent best opposition but that the norm and the same pre 2012), something is going on (could be that the rest of the teams was severely underrated)

If we compare to his obvious contemporary that was hurt a lot here by having an all-time great as a competition for his off the ice comparable like Crosby, he should do much worse at this.

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​

Only 4 season the Pens were not significantly better when Crosby was on the ice
2009 Malkin ArtRoss season
2018 Malkin-Kessel line when they scored 190 pts together

he was still not worst at least even during that type of competition.

His actual bad 41 games season in 2020 and then the 2021 when he did extremely well, the rest of team PDO simply did not had time to normalize during a shorter covid season.

In total during all those years
Crosby.: 1155 GF, 865 GA, 57.2GF% +290
pensNo.: 1932 GF, 1846GA, 51.1GF% +86

Ovechkin: 1155GF, .994GA, 53.7GF% +161
capsnoOv: 1894GF, 1698GA, 52.7GF% +196

 

[The Panther]

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.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

Because Crosby is a CENTER. And all others are WINGS. *facepalm*

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.

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.

 

[The Panther]

Yes, because Cups matter.

What matters more: Cups, or performance?

 

[Sentinel]

What matters more: Cups, or performance?

Both. No Cups -- no legacy.

 

[rmartin65]

Both. No Cups -- no legacy.

So if Ovechkin never won the Cup in 2018...?

 

[Sentinel]

So if Ovechkin never won the Cup in 2018...?

Correct. He wouldn't sniff the Top10 even if he breaks Gretzky's record.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

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.

At even strength, Ovechkin vs the capitals without Ovechkin on the ice by seasons:

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​

Which do show how impressive peak Ovechkin was but in all the bolded seasons his team was not outscoring the opponent significatively or doing much worst the the others cap lines, for an all time great that an hard sales.

Specially with the narrative that it should have been particularly easy as they were not that good of a team support wise.

To note maybe 2008 being the season that the stats are easily available make it look worse, 2006-2007 I can imagine his line doing better than the rest of the team, than again he was team worst -19 in 2007, maybe not by much. how many all-time great would not have a good reason for this (like Gretzky was the other line for Messier or it was Forsberg-Kamensky for Sakic) and happening so many times.

It could be fluky even over a full season, but when it is year after year, with the higher offensive zone start and you play with the best center (which mean you face your opponent best opposition but that the norm and the same pre 2012), something is going on (could be that the rest of the teams was severely underrated)

I was curious to see how Ovechkin's numbers would look at 5v5 so I put this together.

Season	Ovechkin GD	CapsGD	OvechkinGF%	CapsGF%	Ratio
20092010​	45​	75​	70.30%​	61%​	1.15​
20102011​	14​	13​	57.30%​	52.40%​	1.09​
20112012​	-3​	2​	48.50%​	50.30%​	0.96​
20122013​	5​	6​	53.60%​	51.7​	1.04​
20132014​	-26​	-17​	36.40%​	47.10%​	0.77​
20142015​	2​	11​	50.90%​	51.90%​	0.98​
20152016​	26​	38​	63.80%​	56.40%​	1.13​
20162017​	15​	65​	57.30%​	61.20%​	0.94​
20172018​	14​	17​	55.70%​	52.60%​	1.06​
20182019​	16​	36​	56.00%​	55.00%​	1.02​
20192020​	-5​	16​	47.50%​	52.70%​	0.9​
20202021​	8​	26​	56.10%​	55.50%​	1.01​
20212022​	12​	21​	55.10%​	53.10%​	1.04​
2022023​	-1​	-10​	49.50%​	48.60%​	1.02​
20232024​	-20​	-32​	40.20%​	45.00%​	0.89​

He looks quite a bit better here when looking at his more recent seasons (17/18-22/23) compared to his numbers at ES. At ES, his numbers will be more influenced by game situations (EN, 4v4, 3v3, etc). Obviously, they don't stand out to the level of his peak years but he's still a positive contributor more often than not. I wonder how much we can take from this alone without considering the quality of linemates, team, and goaltending, among other things.

 

[MadLuke]

Obviously, they don't stand out to the level of his peak years but he's still a positive contributor more often than not.

Depends where we put the bar to say positive (to be somewhat statically significant above neutral), if we say it is around 1.05+ that would be 5 time in those 15 years. It is still really good to be neutral facing the best opposition that make your line an average first line type, which for everyone else is an really high bar, for top 10 players of all time that really low specially if it pushed with some bad support narrative, McDavid dominate something like this as of now, Gretzky-Orr crush it despite great support.

 

[seventieslord]

Interestingly, (1.15 + 1.09 + 0.96 + 1.04 +0.77 + 0.98 + 1.13 + 0.94 + 1.06 + 1.02 + 0.90 + 1.01 + 1.04 + 1.02 + 0.89)/15 = 1.00