Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[WarriorofTime]

I mean Crosby even with the injuries has 13 top 10 scoring finishes to Ovi's 8, just let that sink in for a minute.

I mean Crosby has 2 Art Rosses to Esposito’s 5 and is viewed as better so Art Ross results aren’t everything.

 

[wetcoast]

I mean Crosby has 2 Art Rosses to Esposito’s 5 and is viewed as better so Art Ross results aren’t everything.

That was my point with that poster and any poster that simply counts trophies and doesn't look a little deeper.

Most people here in this section know that the difference between a Conn Smythe winner for example and the top 2 playoffs seasons from Kuch and Kopitar in years they didn't win the Conn Smythe is slight and almost meaningless when put into context.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think just referencing the 1.7 assists-per-goal stat is a little myopic, to be honest. The value in looking at top 5 goals, assists, and points is that it accounts for players who are more balanced (or less balanced, as the case may be).

Would only accomplish that if goals and assists had a closer to 1:1 ratio. Otherwise it just overprioritizes assists since they get counted as their own category and a much greater weight in points. Honestly could probably just do goals and points as the two tracked categories for these purposes. Does double count goals but high goal totals are less likely to huge point totals by themselves.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not a big fan of adjusted points, to be honest. It's better than looking at raw totals, but I think comparing people relative to their peers makes a lot more sense

Yes. Like how Ovechkin, the non-Art Ross threat, post leading league in PPG three years consecutively, was still second in cumulative points 2010-11 through 2015-16 (against his peers)?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think there's a lot of things at play here that aren't being readily considered. The whole "well, there's 1.7 per 1 of these...therefore..." business feels like a shortcut to nowhere. I would think we'd want to do a large scale evaluation on "goal creation" before declaring "well, tellurium is more rare than gold...therefore we should invest in tellurium".

I know the game is deeper than 1.7 > 1.

I also think that perspective matters. I think I said this before, but if the NHL only kept goals for the last 100+ years and then someone went back through every game and produced a list of "all the passes that helped create goals", we'd consider it the greatest epiphany since Frank Nighbor. Hell, it'd probably be considered an "advanced stat" haha

For the record, I'm not arguing wholly that assists = goals. There are some assists that are absolute rubbish. There are some goals where the goal was the easiest part of the play. I just don't think anyone has done the work necessary on this. While 1.7 is still greater than 1, that's as far as it goes for me.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Not really- everything is relative, right? For a player in the discussion for top 10 all time, Ovechkin is an abysmal producer of assists.

Also, where are you seeing T-45th in assists? I'm on NHL.com and I see him at T-55.

Ovechkin is 5th all time in adjusted points, 11th all time in raw points (and climbing) despite playing in a lower scoring era.

So basically if we replaced 200 of his goals with secondary assists, you would rank him higher? -Clearly that would not make sense unless you thought secondary assists were significantly better than goals.

And yet that seems to be the implication of this emphasis on assists.

 

[rmartin65]

Would only accomplish that if goals and assists had a closer to 1:1 ratio. Otherwise it just overprioritizes assists since they get counted as their own category and a much greater weight in points. Honestly could probably just do goals and points as the two tracked categories for these purposes. Does double count goals but high goal totals are less likely to huge point totals by themselves.

You could, but then you are ignoring assist finishes.

The idea isn't to just total up the top 5 finishes and say that, yep, player X has 12 top 5 finishes across the categories and player Y only has 9, so player X is better. The idea is that we can and should be looking across a variety of inputs (stats, talent evals, contemporary opinions, etc) to get a holistic view of a player's historical value/greatness.

I mean, Esposito has 8 top 5 goals finishes, 8 top 5 assist finishes (that always surprises me), and 8 top 5 points finishes. Nobody (ok, very few people) has Esposito in the top 10, and, in my opinion, he shouldn't be, despite the fact that he looks very good by these metrics.

Yes. Like how Ovechkin, the non-Art Ross threat, post leading league in PPG three years consecutively, was still second in cumulative points 2010-11 through 2015-16 (against his peers)?

Yes? I think Ovechkin was/is a heck of a player. A borderline top-10 player all time. It is absolutely no surprise to me than Ovechkin was second in points over a 5 year period.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I mean, Esposito has 8 top 5 goals finishes, 8 top 5 assist finishes (that always surprises me), and 8 top 5 points finishes. Nobody (ok, very few people) has Esposito in the top 10, and, in my opinion, he shouldn't be, despite the fact that he looks very good by these metrics.

The obvious factor here is Esposito was playing with Bobby Orr.

Ovechkin was playing with....who exactly? And where do those players rank all time? Are any of them in the top 100? Top 200? Top 300? Are any of them even hall of fame material (Backstrom, maybe?).

Point being, Ovechkin has always been the focal point of every defense the Capitals ever faced. If you look at all the top 30 players of all time, do any of them have a lower ranked running mate than Ovie?

 

[Michael Farkas]

So basically if we replaced 200 of his goals with secondary assists, you would rank him higher? -Clearly that would not make sense unless you thought secondary assists were significantly better than goals.

Secondary assists, primary assists, whatever...if those 200 assists supported him being a more balanced attacker, more of a dual threat on the ice, then yes...I would have Ovechkin higher. Because at 700 goals or 900 goals, I consider him the same caliber of goal scorer already.

Stats are just an attempted proxy for on-ice play. If what you're insinuating is that, potentially, Ovechkin is a different player - a player capable of more from a playmaking perspective (200 assists doesn't guarantee that, but maybe...) would change my opinion of him for the better. A scenario where Ovechkin was a couple of tiers better in terms of playmaking leaves Maurice Richard in the dust, certainly...

 

[rmartin65]

Ovechkin is 5th all time in adjusted points, 11th all time in raw points (and climbing) despite playing in a lower scoring era.

Mike Gartner is 8th overall in career goals. Is he the 8th best goal scorer of all time? Patrick Marleau is 17th (!) in adjusted career goals. I hope that doesn't make sense to you.

So basically if we replaced 200 of his goals with secondary assists, you would rank him higher? -Clearly that would not make sense unless you thought secondary assists were significantly better than goals.

First, I think you are poisoning the well here a bit by saying secondary assists, not primary assists. Are 65 of the goals I am replacing Ovechkin's EN goals? Do the secondary assists lead to game tying or winning goals?

Second- sometimes assists (including the secondaries) require more skill/ability than the goal they enable.

Long story short- there are too many moving pieces to make this a worthwhile thought experiment.

And yet that seems to be the implication of this emphasis on assists.

I don't think we have to look at things in such a binary way.

 

[rmartin65]

The obvious factor here is Esposito was playing with Bobby Orr.

Ovechkin was playing with....who exactly? And where do those players rank all time? Are any of them in the top 100? Top 200? Top 300? Are any of them even hall of fame material (Backstrom, maybe?).

Point being, Ovechkin has always been the focal point of every defense the Capitals ever faced. If you look at all the top 30 players of all time, do any of them have a lower ranked running mate than Ovie?

Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the point- we use context, we don't just rely on stats (adjusted, raw, career, whatever).

 

[WarriorofTime]

Losing plot here, 1.7 assist to goal ratio isn't some raw indictment on anything, you can think whatever you want about it, it was really just a comment on how assist guys and guys that lean assist to goals are more likely to carry that to high point totals/finishes which was what we were talking about. That's just a very base level statistical commentary not making a value judgement on if the 2nd assist was more important than the goal on a particular play, lol.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Yes? I think Ovechkin was/is a heck of a player. A borderline top-10 player all time. It is absolutely no surprise to me than Ovechkin was second in points over a 5 year period.

Well no, he's actually 1st through multiple (overlapping) 5 year periods. 2005-06 through 2009-10, 2006-07 through 2010-11, 2007-08 through 2011-12, 2008-09 through 2012-13.

That specific 5-year period is just a reflection of what "post-peak, not Art Ross threat" level Ovechkin was still accomplishing as far as relativity to peers in terms of a "rank against top scorers vs. point adjusting" topic.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Secondary assists, primary assists, whatever...if those 200 assists supported him being a more balanced attacker, more of a dual threat on the ice, then yes...I would have Ovechkin higher. Because at 700 goals or 900 goals, I consider him the same caliber of goal scorer already.

That is weird to me.

900 goals benefit the team more than 700 goals.

I mean yes, your player skill assessment doesn't have to change (aside from perhaps longevity) but the point of the game is not to dazzle, but to contribute to one's team.

So yeah I get that many people care exclusively about being dazzled, and care virtually nothing about the degree to which a player is helping their team (and this is how Orr and Lemieux get smuggled into conversations with Gretzky and Howe). But personally I think that is myopic and missing the big picture.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That is weird to me.

900 goals benefit the team more than 700 goals.

I mean yes, your player skill assessment doesn't have to change (aside from perhaps longevity) but the point of the game is not to dazzle, but to contribute to one's team.

So yeah I get that many people care exclusively about being dazzled, and care virtually nothing about the degree to which a player if helping their team (and this is how Orr and Lemieux get smuggled into conversations with Gretzky and Howe). But personally I think that is myopic and missing the big picture.

Dazzle? With secondary assists? What's going on here? haha

Skill assessment != dazzle. You know that already, but were perhaps caught off guard by the answer.

900 is greater than 700. You guys are hot at math this morning. We got 1.7 over 1 AND 900 over 700. You'd be a stud over in "By The Numbers" haha

 

[Midnight Judges]

The stats tether us to reality...undesirable as that may be for some of us.

 

[rmartin65]

Well no, he's actually 1st through multiple (overlapping) 5 year periods. 2005-06 through 2009-10, 2006-07 through 2010-11, 2007-08 through 2011-12, 2008-09 through 2012-13.

Hey, that's great- I'm a big Ovechkin fan (I think he's a borderline top 10 players all time).

But this goes back to what I said earlier about focusing one what a poster means versus what they say- I think it is pretty clear that I was responding to the time period you posted, not referencing his entire career. I mean, I even said 5 years, when the referenced time frame (2010-11 through 2015-16) is actually six years.

That specific 5-year period is just a reflection of what "post-peak, not Art Ross threat" level Ovechkin was still accomplishing as far as relativity to peers in terms of a "rank against top scorers vs. point adjusting" topic.

Five (or six!) years is a long time- Ovechkin is a good player, so it is no surprise that he is second over that time period. But the highest he placed in any one season during that time period is 7th (19 points behind first), T-37th (44 points behind first), 3rd (4 points behind first), 8th (25 points behind first), 4th (6 points behind first), and 15th (35 points behind first). So Ovechkin was an Art Ross contender in... maybe 2 seasons out of those five? That's good, but I don't think that means he was a consistent Art Ross threat over that timeframe.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The stats distance us from the reality of the game...as difficult as it is to understand for some of us.

Ya know, credit where credit is due, being a tabloid-style poster is actually a bit of a kick haha

 

[WarriorofTime]

Oh a pity, we were almost having a real discussion for a minute

 

[Michael Farkas]

No, no we weren't haha

 

[WarriorofTime]

Hull has assist finishes of 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th

Ovechkin has assist finishes of 6th, 6th, 10th

6 team or even 6 plus expansion 6 is going to be significantly easier for a top line forward to achieve a high assist "finish". There's just way less guys getting top line ice time/1st powerplay opportunity to begin with. Those are honestly pretty comparable results. Ovechkin is 41st in career adjusted assists despite being abysmal or abysmal for a top 10 candidate.

 

[Randyne]

For a player in the discussion for top 10 all time, Ovechkin is an abysmal producer of assists.

Do you know anything about hockey?
Only goals generate assists. Nothing else. Players can pass each other till their deaths, but without a goal there is no assist.
Ovechkin produced ~1500 assists.

 

[Professor What]

Do you know anything about hockey?
Only goals generate assists. Nothing else. Players can pass each other till their deaths, but without a goal there is no assist.
Ovechkin produced ~1500 assists.

That's not what he's talking about, and I feel pretty sure you know it. Ovi is not a playmaker. He's incredibly weak there for someone in a top 10 conversation. Note, I'm not saying there's no case for him in the top 10, even if I don't agree with it, but let's not twist around what other people are saying.

 

[rmartin65]

6 team or even 6 plus expansion 6 is going to be significantly easier for a top line forward to achieve a high assist "finish". There's just way less guys getting top line ice time/1st powerplay opportunity to begin with.

That's a fair point. It's one of the reasons I think it is important to look at more than just stats.

Those are honestly pretty comparable results.

Ovechkin is 41st in career adjusted assists despite being abysmal or abysmal for a top 10 candidate.

Career adjusted assists- definitely not my thing. One, I don't think the stats are adjusted in an accurate manner (and others around here have posted why, I believe). Second, career stats are compiled stats. I don't particularly value compiled stats, because it gives you some pretty crazy results. I mean- Ron Francis has the 7th most adjusted career points! Is he the 7th greatest offensive producer?

 

[Randyne]

That's not what he's talking about, and I feel pretty sure you know it. Ovi is not a playmaker. He's incredibly weak there for someone in a top 10 conversation. Note, I'm not saying there's no case for him in the top 10, even if I don't agree with it, but let's not twist around what other people are saying.

Did you count all his secondary assisits? All. Why many of them are not counted as a playmaking action? It is pure playmaking.