Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[Staniowski]

In a forum where Ovechkin is slandered on a daily basis, nobody will be surprised.

Who cares though. It's your credibility, not mine.

re: Ovechkin's all-tim3 ranking....there's absolutely no doubt that he is already consensus top 10 all-time. Not everybody agrees, and people can debate whether it's correct and all that, but he's definitely top 10 already as a concensus in the hockey world. And my sense is that he's well inside the top 10, not merely borderline. As are Crosby and McDavid.

 

[Sentinel]

re: Ovechkin's all-tim3 ranking....there's absolutely no doubt that he is already consensus top 10 all-time. Not everybody agrees, and people can debate whether it's correct and all that, but he's definitely top 10 already as a concensus in the hockey world. And my sense is that he's well inside the top 10, not merely borderline. As are Crosby and McDavid.

Ovechkin and Crosby -- yes. McDavid -- very debatable. Not until he, you know...

The most overrated players on this forum are 1950s Canadiens (who are never dinged for playing with each other). The most underrated are Esposito (who is routinely dinged for Orr) and Ovechkin (who may go down as the only Top20 player who never had a HHOF teammate except pre-retirement Fedorov).

 

[Michael Farkas]

The most overrated players are goalies and one-zone/limited wingers.

Also, in some cases, guys who have become "establishment" and who I feel as if they're not eligible for re-evaluation...but that is very pointed commentary, I admit.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Yes, how do you readily contextualize say the 1958-59 Montreal Canadiens, with a +100 goal differential while the other five went -10, -11, -12, -16, -51... ended the season with 4/6 First Team All-Stars while the other two guys were 2nd team. Obviously there was no salary cap to balance out the league, Montreal was developing all its own players so it wasn't subject to a draft system. They were just so far ahead of everyone else. Be like if the Canadian Olympic team played together as a club team, obviously you have to be a great player just to have a seat at that table but playing with all those guys together is surely going to lift everyone up in terms of overall level of play greater than if they were all dispersed.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As always, one can cut through the uncertainty of numbers and votes with proper talent evaluation.

 

[Victorias]

As always, one can cut through the uncertainty of numbers and votes with proper talent evaluation.

Stats can be biased but there is no greater bias than what human beings are capable of, especially when they won’t acknowledge it. That’s why stats and voted trophies are valuable information; every single talent evaluator is biased is some way and makes oversights.

Re: Ovi and driving play. People seem to characterize anyone who is not “driving” as a passenger. However, what a player does without the puck - e.g. getting into position for a shot or finish - can be even more important than puck carrying.

No one in history is better at getting to goal scoring areas and finishing than Ovi. This is despite the fact that everyone on the ice knows where he wants to go and what he wants to do.

If Ovi were this good as a playmaker, we wouldn’t be talking about him as a top 10 player, we would be talking about him as an equal to Gretzky. However, he’s so absurdly good at what he does and what he does is so important to the outcome of the game that it’s more reasonable than not to say he’s a top 10 player.

 

[rmartin65]

Assists =/= "greater play drivers". That's wrong assumption for many players.

I disagree- you aren't driving the play without the puck. And without the puck, you aren't getting assists. I'm not saying you can just pull up the list of assists and say that you have a ranked list of play drivers, but I think there is a pretty strong correlation between assists and play drivers, especially among forwards.

Ovechkin is among those guys which drive play by scoring goals.

I'd argue this is finishing the play, not driving the play.

Here is his goals/assists correlation in W and in L+OTL
W: G=56.8%; A=43.2%
L+OTL: G=51.7%; A=48.3%
His assist ratio drops in wins and rises in losses (L+OTL)

That correlation (in wins G% rises and A% drops) also works with such guys like:
View attachment 1020794

Can you explain this to me a bit more, because I'm afraid I'm missing something.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stats can be biased but there is no greater bias than what human beings are capable of, especially when they won’t acknowledge it. That’s why stats and voted trophies are valuable information; every single talent evaluator is biased is some way and makes oversights.

Re: Ovi and driving play. People seem to characterize anyone who is not “driving” as a passenger. However, what a player does without the puck - e.g. getting into position for a shot or finish - can be even more important than puck carrying.

No one in history is better at getting to goal scoring areas and finishing than Ovi. This is despite the fact that everyone on the ice knows where he wants to go and what he wants to do.

If Ovi were this good as a playmaker, we wouldn’t be talking about him as a top 10 player, we would be talking about him as an equal to Gretzky. However, he’s so absurdly good at what he does and what he does is so important to the outcome of the game that it’s more reasonable than not to say he’s a top 10 player.

I don't agree with this philosophically. It's not like non-humans are keeping stats, interpreting stats, and voting on these things. It's bias...but, just written down. Every single writer is biased (in) some way and makes oversights.

And then we pick and choose what stats are good and what stats are not so good.

"A goalie's job is to prevent goals!"
- Ok, here are the goalies that give up the least goals per 60
"Noooooo! That's a team stat, you clod! What we want is the percentage of the most expected situation when a shot occurs...a save."

Ya know, folks don't like plus/minus...there's recent pockets of resistance to "secondary assists", I even see that get used against d-men of all things...and if talent evaluation is generally folded under "bias" (and it is, and it's a good thing in the right hands, in my opinion), then there'd be no reason to suspect anything but bias when people start carving stats up in the same way...because, as you put it, "humans"...

If something is written in a newspaper, it's a collector's item. Even if the writer is typically the weather man...if he said "Cyclone Taylor was a whirling dervish beyond any sight seen heretofore" it's gold.

And I'll single out a poster here because I get the sense that he's watching and understanding the games, if @Staniowski goes, "I think Bill Cowley would have struggled with this because of X, Y, Z, and therefore maybe he's overstated here..." he gets rotten fruit thrown at him. And that's not about him personally, it's just about the concept.

I just don't see how there's this bright line of: talent evaluation = bias and secret ballot from unknown entities = whatever, I don't know, "not biased"? "Less biased"? "Objective"?

Doesn't pass the smell test from my perspective...

 

[rmartin65]

re: Ovechkin's all-tim3 ranking....there's absolutely no doubt that he is already consensus top 10 all-time. Not everybody agrees, and people can debate whether it's correct and all that, but he's definitely top 10 already as a concensus in the hockey world.

I think this thread is clearly showing that there isn't a consensus.

 

[rmartin65]

If something is written in a newspaper, it's a collector's item. Even if the writer is typically the weather man...if he said "Cyclone Taylor was a whirling dervish beyond any sight seen heretofore" it's gold.

In the absence of film, the written records of those who (ostensibly) watched the players play are really all we have to evaluate those players. And the more sources (papers, articles over time, interviews, etc) we get, the more likely it is that the cream of the crop rise to the top. It certainly doesn't mean we are ever going to get a 100% understanding, but it's better than just throwing up our hands and going "welp..."

 

[Randyne]

I disagree- you aren't driving the play without the puck

What? Do you know anything about hockey? Here:
Ovechkin didn't touch the puck=>Goal

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Can you explain this to me a bit more, because I'm afraid I'm missing something.

I think he's saying that, for the five players he looked at (Ovechkin, Hull, Howe, Beliveau and Gretzky), a higher percentage of their points came from goals in wins, and from assists in ties & losses. A couple of comments:

First, is this trend true across a larger sample of players? Would we see the same pattern if we look at (say) Lemieux, Richard, Esposito, Bossy, and Hull (junior)?

Second, we need to consider if there are other factors that affect the analysis. In Gretzky's case, he was a far better goal-scorer in his 20's than in his 30's, and he played on much stronger teams when he was younger. Is the analysis really saying that Gretzky helped his team win by scoring more goals? Or is it saying that Gretzy had a much weaker supporting cast in his 30's, when everyone agrees his goal-scoring ability diminished? (The same is true for Howe, not quite to the same extent).

 

[MadLuke]

Prime Ovechkin was driving plays, making plays, a lot, his skating-strength-puck protection combination, he was able to enter the zone, create space and his shot turned non play into plays. And he still had vision-calm-awareness at speed with the puck to see things and make pass even.

It can be seen by how much more shoots his team took when he was on the ice, he was not just scoring a lot of goals because he was better at taking shots that would have occurred otherwise (like maybe a Patrick Laine or at some point when injured, not in a good stretch older Ovechkin). I feel we can be open to say that any action taken that make a scoring chance more likely is a form of play creation (like in basketball someone that create good shots in many ways), not just the late Joe Thornton way of making them. Being really good at entering the zone (or exiting your own zone cleanly) is a form of creating a play and when you team lack someone able to do it on the PP you regret not having them anymore.

a higher percentage of their points came from goals in wins, and from assists in ties & losses. A couple of comments:

If there is any stronger correlation between scoring goals and winning games simply in general ?, I feel this would make sense (because of the variable 0, 1, or 2 assists per goals)

 

[Michael Farkas]

In the absence of film, the written records of those who (ostensibly) watched the players play are really all we have to evaluate those players. And the more sources (papers, articles over time, interviews, etc) we get, the more likely it is that the cream of the crop rise to the top. It certainly doesn't mean we are ever going to get a 100% understanding, but it's better than just throwing up our hands and going "welp..."

Agree and I would never say otherwise. Because everything exists on a spectrum. Just because I don't think every writer should be taken as gospel doesn't mean that I want to ban all books haha

 

[Nadal On Clay]

What is the argument for Jagr above Ovechkin at this point?

Similar peak, but Ovechkin already has better longevity (No, I don’t care about Jagr racking up 50 pts seasons at 40).

Playoffs are basically a wash (Even though Jagr was never as dominant as 2009 OV).

Pretty sure Ovechkin has a better Hart, Lindsey record too.

 

[Randyne]

The most underrated are Esposito (who is routinely dinged for Orr) and Ovechkin (who may go down as the only Top20 player who never had a HHOF teammate except pre-retirement Fedorov).

Absolutely.
Fedorov factored in 8 points = 0.5% of Ovechkin points
Malkin+Recci+Mario (8 like Fedorov) factored in 442 points = 26.2% of Sid points

Sid is one of the most overhyped player, considering he makes his team worse Sid is the most overrated.

 

[rmartin65]

What? Do you know anything about hockey? Here:
Ovechkin didn't touch the puck=>Goal

Right... you can impact the play without driving it. Would you mind explaining your chart above (particularly in reference to the questions @Hockey Outsider posted)?

I think he's saying that, for the five players he looked at (Ovechkin, Hull, Howe, Beliveau and Gretzky), a higher percentage of their points came from goals in wins, and from assists in ties & losses. A couple of comments:

First, is this trend true across a larger sample of players? Would we see the same pattern if we look at (say) Lemieux, Richard, Esposito, Bossy, and Hull (junior)?

Second, we need to consider if there are other factors that affect the analysis. In Gretzky's case, he was a far better goal-scorer in his 20's than in his 30's, and he played on much stronger teams when he was younger. Is the analysis really saying that Gretzky helped his team win by scoring more goals? Or is it saying that Gretzy had a much weaker supporting cast in his 30's, when everyone agrees his goal-scoring ability diminished? (The same is true for Howe, not quite to the same extent).

Thanks. I kept wanting the numbers to add up to 100 in the column, not in the row.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Some folks will value more balanced, versatile attackers. Especially those with a more dynamic skill set.

 

[rmartin65]

What is the argument for Jagr above Ovechkin at this point?

Similar peak, but Ovechkin already has better longevity (No, I don’t care about Jagr racking up 50 pts seasons at 40).

Playoffs are basically a wash (Even though Jagr was never as dominant as 2009 OV).

Pretty sure Ovechkin has a better Hart, Lindsey record too.

Jagr was more versatile and it shows in their point production (5 times leading the league in points for Jagr vs 1 for Ovechkin).

Ovechkin was top 10 in goals 16 times, assists 3 times, and points 8 times. 27 total top tens.

Jagr was top 10 in goals 8 times, assists 10 times, and points 11 times. 29 total top tens.

Obviously it is a pretty high level look, but it matches the eye test.

 

[jigglysquishy]

goes, "I think Bill Cowley would have struggled with this because of X, Y, Z, and therefore maybe he's overstated here..." he gets rotten fruit thrown at him. And that's not about him personally, it's just about the concept.

For whatever it's worth, I think these discussions can be illuminating. Some guys thrive in really specific conditions. Or eras. Or media biases.

Nighbor thrived in an era where a #1 shutdown defenseman was at it's most valuable. Gretzky thrived in an era where a hyper scoring #1 centre was at it's most valuable.

Clarke and Messier would not get away with their shenanigans today. Matthews wrist shot wouldn't work with a wood stick.

Speed is very valuable now. Acceleration is extraordinarily valuable. Endurance to play 32 minutes like Bourque did is less valuable because no coach will do it. No coach would allow Hall to play every game.

Bourque was better in the late 90s than early 80s but got more award support in the early 80s. A combination of the latter Bruins sucking and him focusing more on defense.

A lot of shine of Potvin is reduced because it's right after Orr. But the game to game reports are extraordinary.

Shore wows the "new" fans of Boston more than the "seasoned" fans of Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa.

Harvey needed a deep system like Montreal to work out his kinks. He peaked as the best defenseman ever to date. But he would have never hit that level on a team like the Rangers or Blackhawks.

"Everyone pre 1950" sucked isn't valuable. But the details are what it is all about.

 

[WarriorofTime]

In the absence of film, the written records of those who (ostensibly) watched the players play are really all we have to evaluate those players. And the more sources (papers, articles over time, interviews, etc) we get, the more likely it is that the cream of the crop rise to the top. It certainly doesn't mean we are ever going to get a 100% understanding, but it's better than just throwing up our hands and going "welp..."

Contemporaries can be kinda dumb themselves. Didn't TSN Top Player List have Kucherov somewhere in the 30s recently? Malkin outside Top 100 centennial list? If we didn't have all we have available to us now, someone in 100 years might look at that and say "I guess this Kucherov guy wasn't actually that good"

 

[WarriorofTime]

Jagr was more versatile and it shows in their point production (5 times leading the league in points for Jagr vs 1 for Ovechkin).

Ovechkin was top 10 in goals 16 times, assists 3 times, and points 8 times. 27 total top tens.

Jagr was top 10 in goals 8 times, assists 10 times, and points 11 times. 29 total top tens.

Obviously it is a pretty high level look, but it matches the eye test.

With the 1.7X ratio, assists and points is going to overlap a lot more than goals and points.

If you just did goals or assists, it's 19 Ovechkin, 18 Jagr, so quite close but edge to Ovechkin instead of edge Jagr.

 

[jigglysquishy]

With the 1.7X ratio, assists and points is going to overlap a lot more than goals and points.

If you just did goals or assists, it's 19 Ovechkin, 18 Jagr, so quite close but edge to Ovechkin instead of edge Jagr.

This devalues assists too much. It downplays that Jagr was consistently a top goal scorer and top assist getter.

It devalues the 8 years in a row he was top 3 in PPG.

In his big four year run he was first in points, first in assists, and second in goals. Being able to do both at the highest level at the same time should be valued very highly.

 

[rmartin65]

Contemporaries can be kinda dumb themselves. Didn't TSN Top Player List have Kucherov somewhere in the 30s recently? Malkin outside Top 100 centennial list? If we didn't have all we have available to us now, someone in 100 years might look at that and say "I guess this Kucherov guy wasn't actually that good"

Yeah, they can be, which is why more information is always better than less. I mean, we had people talking about Toews and Giroux as being better than Crosby at points... yikes.

But with more information, we can see how those are (generally) outliers.

It's not perfect, but it's the best we have until someone invents a time machine and stealthily tapes the earliest decades of the game for us all to watch 100+ years later.

With the 1.7X ratio, assists and points is going to overlap a lot more than goals and points.

If you just did goals or assists, it's 19 Ovechkin, 18 Jagr, so quite close but edge to Ovechkin instead of edge Jagr.

But they have an equal chance at getting those assists? Ovechkin, outside of a handful of years, was so abysmal at getting assists that he had seasons like 2019-2020 where he finished first in goals but still finished outside the top 10 in points (he was T-18th) or 2015-2016 (1st in goals, 15th in points). If he was even a decent producer of assists (and they are clearly so easy to get, right? 1.7 assists per goal, I'm told) he would have coasted into a top 10 or even top 5 finish.

Ovechkin was (is still) an incredible goal scorer. But there is nothing wrong with noting that other players were more well rounded, especially when we are talking about the very best players of all time.

And for what it is worth, I'm not just down on Ovechkin for his (relative) lack of offensive variety- I am lower on Maurice Richard, Pavel Bure, and I'm sure other goal-heavy wingers than I imagine most of the rest of the community is.

 

[WarriorofTime]

This devalues assists too much. It downplays that Jagr was consistently a top goal scorer and top assist getter.

It devalues the 8 years in a row he was top 3 in PPG.

In his big four year run he was first in points, first in assists, and second in goals. Being able to do both at the highest level at the same time should be valued very highly.

yeah i don't think anyone is getting laughed out of rooms for saying they prefer Jagr to Ovechkin, just on the topic of total top 10s