Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[MadLuke]

Well, that Crosby would have 1957 pts ? for second most of all time, doing it in his era ? with 3 cups-4 finals, the arguments for above Lemieux would not sound that crazy.

1.45 ppg would be quite juicy

 

[Gerulaitis]

Well, that Crosby would have 1957 pts ? for second most of all time, doing it in his era ? with 3 cups-4 finals, the arguments for above Lemieux would not sound that crazy.

1.45 ppg would be quite juicy

Lemieux is head and shoulders above Crosby.
Unless you were talking about Claude Lemieux

 

[The Macho King]

Yeah, any xGF model underrates players who can score from a distance by its very nature, and Ovechkin is the best one of those. It's not really a flaw in the metric because the whole thing about elite talents is that they do unexpected things, and if you force a model to account for every individual shooter's ability you don't really have a model anymore, you just have...reality, which we already had before we started doing math.

That's my issue with xGF and related models. Elite talent by nature should outperform xGF. Those players i rate on actual production.

I think as a whole we've overcorrected to look past actual production to "game flow" and shit.

 

[MadLuke]

Lemieux is head and shoulders above Crosby.
Unless you were talking about Claude Lemieux

Head and shoulder than this Crosby that just beat Gretzky goal records while being one of the best playmaker of all time (how many Art Ross that hypothetical version has raked) ?

Or we are back to talking about the real Crosby ?

 

[Crosby2010]

Ovechkin rightly so has a strong legacy and I don't see it dwindling after retirement. When you have your name at the top of a storied list then future fans will always know you and learn about you.

 

[The Panther]

That's my issue with xGF and related models. Elite talent by nature should outperform xGF. Those players i rate on actual production.

I think as a whole we've overcorrected to look past actual production to "game flow" and shit.

I agree. I must say, I have never looked at any modern advanced stats -- other than occasionally paying attention to points-per-60 or some other fairly basic ones -- because I simply don't find it useful.

When we're talking about above-average NHL offensive forwards, production isn't quite everything, but it's A LOT.

I think of it as the 'Luc Robitaille' test. I think we tend to under-rate Luc Robitaille, simply because he didn't dominate in one category at his peak (like Brett Hull), he didn't win a scoring title (like Jamie Benn), and he wasn't the kind of forward who goes out and dominates with puck-possession and/or physical play (like Lindros). Yet he consistently scored and put up big numbers, from 1986 through 2002. (He scored at about the same rate as Brett Hull.)

 

[Johnny Engine]

Personally, I see the limitations of any one metric as a reason to look closer, not to stop looking.

My expectation with Robitaille is, if these stats were around years ago, he'd be a bit of an xG king, while looking less good through the lens of straight Corsi. His shooting would probably also outperform his personal xG by a little bit, but not by as much as a guy like Gartner would. If you never watched him, you wouldn't know if that meant Robitaille was great at getting into spaces to score (true), or a fat lazy aging power forward who camps out in the crease (not true, but you're going to love what Keith Tkachuk turns into 10 years from now), but you'd have few more breadcrumbs than you would simply by seeing that he scored 50 goals, and you'd know he's not Mike Gartner.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, xG would be quite a bit of different (especially proprietary models that count more valuable pieces of info) too...shot distance and shot type, for instance, change by era.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Well, xG would be quite a bit of different (especially proprietary models that count more valuable pieces of info) too...shot distance and shot type, for instance, change by era.

Yeah that's absolutely true and I thought about getting into that but decided I had rambled enough. My assumption is that closer=better often enough that it holds as a conversational rule of thumb, but I've used words like expect, assume, probably, a whole bunch in the last two posts and that's not an accident.