Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[Hippasus]

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). A player could have a top 6 goals finish and a top 6 assists finish in a season, that wouldn't be tracked only looking at goals and assists. But the resulting top 3 finish in points would be (and should be).

Looking at top 5 finishes let's us look at Richard and Ovechkin a little bit differently- Ovechkin has more top 5 goals finishes, they each have 0 top 5 assist finishes, but Richard has 3 more top 5 points finishes. Was Richard a better producer of assists than Ovechkin? I'd argue no, but it at least makes you think.

As a disclaimer- I don't think simply looking at finishes is the end-all, but from a high level I think we can make some decent insights to spur further discussion and analysis.

I think you may have glossed-over my main point, which is that looking at points as a separate column/category, when one is already accounting for goals and assists separately, is doing a bit of double-counting, given the nature of assists like I mentioned in my initial post. Adding the columns of goals and assists would do away with that problem. By the way, in no way am I trying to denigrate assists. I'm just talking about a more accurate statistical representation when comparing across eras as we are in this thread.

As for the top-five thing you mentioned here, that's just the cutoff you chose. If you see reasons for it missing valuable players, that cutoff could be expanded, or maybe even decreased. At the end of the day, one just has to make a decision about the cutoff being somewhere when one is taking the top-x place finishes approach. There is a statistical work-around that, but it's a bit complicated, time-consuming, and has been delved into before around these parts.

 

[Professor What]

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

I didn't say anything about separating assists by type. But unless you're creating assists out of thin air, he has 726 career assists, primary and secondary combined.

 

[Randyne]

I didn't say anything about separating assists by type. But unless you're creating assists out of thin air, he has 726 career assists, primary and secondary combined.

He has much more secondary assists. They are not counted. But it is pure playmaking, many watch only stats, and if those playmaking actions weren't registered as assists they call him abysmal. Haters gonna hate.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

I think the real issue being discussed is that Ovechkin as a playmaker or assist guy is 2 different animals.

He is fine in his peak (first 6 years) and has some balance but after that he simply doesn't.

Then some people point out the obvious that he became much more of a shooter type of player, then several people have to lose their minds ect.

Here it is after the 10-11 season or 12-13 onwards.

Ovechkin is 47th in assists but that because he is one of the few players in the timeframe to play in over 1000 games and he really just isn't a (top line assist guy as pointed out by Mad Luke) in many seasons despite serious TOI and PP TOI many seasons outside of his peak .

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

It's somewhat similar to Guy Lafleur outside of his 6 year peak, how do we treat that?

 

[wetcoast]

He has much more secondary assists. They are not counted. But it is pure playmaking, many watch only stats, and if those playmaking actions weren't registered as assists they call him abysmal. Haters gonna hate.

What are you even talking about here?

assists that you think Ovi should have had but doesn't?

for a guy with a take like this, perhaps you shouldn't be throwing around stones in that glass house maybe?

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.

And your last line is just pure projection, stop it, its not a good look.

 

[WarriorofTime]

What are you even talking about here?

assists that you think Ovi should have had but doesn't?

If sequence goes Carlson to Ovechkin to Backstrom to Ovechkin then goal it’s credited as Ovechkin goal from Backstrom and Carlson. No idea how many “assists” this “costs” a high end goal scorer since they can’t be credited twice but certainly more for a guy with 900 goals than 600 goals.

 

[wetcoast]

If sequence goes Carlson to Ovechkin to Backstrom to Ovechkin then goal it’s credited as Ovechkin goal from Backstrom and Carlson. No idea how many “assists” this “costs” a high end goal scorer since they can’t be credited twice but certainly more for a guy with 900 goals than 600 goals.

That's a ridiculous argument any way you slice it as it would apply to every player right?

 

[Professor What]

This board is breaking my brain today...

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's a ridiculous argument any way you slice it as it would apply to every player right?

Yes it would apply to every player. Presumably a 900 goal scorer would “lose” more double counted points than a more balanced 600 goal scorer, and it would only effect a goal scorer in a sequence I described, not anybody else in the 1 goal maximum 2 assist setup.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Generally, you can't score without getting the puck across the attack line. Sometimes guys that carry it across multiple lines don't get credit for assists, but they may well have done the hardest part of the work.

 

[Randyne]

What are you even talking about here?

See GIF above. He secondary assisted ton of goals which he scored by himself. That's pure playmaking. By saying it's not, you are deceiving yourself.

 

[Randyne]

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.

Absolutely.
Those haters are clueless. If they hate goals so much, then just turn part of his goals to assists.
Especially when he scored ton of goals which he secondary assisted by himself.
If they hate 900G/700A then may be they will like 700G/900A.

 

[rmartin65]

For what it is worth, I have long been interested in seeing what it would look like if secondary assists could be given to the person who also scored the goal (when appropriate, obviously). Or even if a player scored off of his own rebound, what would that do.

It seems like an immense amount of work to do- re-watching all the games or looking through the all the text play-by-plays.

Honestly, though, I don't know if it would be this silver bullet for the goal-dominant players that some posters think. If anything, I think we'd see the most improvement in players who showcased high-level playmaking and goal scoring ability.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Pure playmaking".



He missed the pass. Thankfully, player 17 hustled up to salvage the puck, then exhibit excellent pace control to make a play against the grain. Then Ovechkin shot it from 50 feet away through a not NHL caliber goaltender.

That's pure all right...by WSH17 haha

 

[Michael Farkas]

For what it is worth, I have long been interested in seeing what it would look like if secondary assists could be given to the person who also scored the goal (when appropriate, obviously). Or even if a player scored off of his own rebound, what would that do.

It seems like an immense amount of work to do- re-watching all the games or looking through the all the text play-by-plays.

Honestly, though, I don't know if it would be this silver bullet for the goal-dominant players that some posters think. If anything, I think we'd see the most improvement in players who showcased high-level playmaking and goal scoring ability.

Then you'd also probably want to dive into chance assist generation. Think of how many excellent passes Ovechkin must have made that all of his horrible, non-HOF (multiple Presidents' Trophy winning) teammates must have borked along the way!

 

[rmartin65]

Then you'd also probably want to dive into chance assist generation. Think of how many excellent passes Ovechkin must have made that all of his horrible, non-HOF (multiple Presidents' Trophy winning) teammates must have borked along the way!

Haha, yep, that is the next logical step for those who “know anything about hockey”.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I like this statistical approach, but to some degree one is double-counting assists if one views points as just as salient as both goals and assists. As WarriorofTime and others have mentioned, there is a 1.7 multiplier associated with the prevalence of assists versus goals. Also, not all assists are created equal. I would just consider the goals and assists column, and adding those together would imply points productivity.

My issue with looking at goals and assists, in isolation, is it favours "specialized" players (ie those who focus more on shooting or passing).

Consider Daniel Alfredsson in 2004. He was well balanced, with 32 goals and 48 assists. He ranked out of the top ten in both categories. But he was T-7th in points. Ranking players by goals and assists, in isolation, would penalize him for being a well-balanced threat. (And in case anyone suggests he got a lot of secondary assists - he didn't. He'd rank exactly the same, tied for 7th, in primary points). Rick Nash got a Rocket Richard trophy, but he only got 17 assists - so he'd get credit for a top five finish, and Alfredsson wouldn't even get credit for a top ten finish, despite Alfredsson outscoring him by 23 points.

Without listing out each player and year, there are plenty of other examples - Gordie Howe, Jari Kurri, Gilbert Perreault, Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Anze Kopitar, Darryl Sittler, etc. I even found one Art Ross winner who was out of the top five in both goals and assists.

There's nothing wrong with a player who focus primarily on goal-scoring or playmaking. But looking at goals and assists in isolation might result in balanced scorers getting underrated.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

delete - duplicate

 

[WarriorofTime]

Ovechkin personally scored 644/3,533 goals (17.7 %) for Washington 2010-11 through 2024-25. 4th in league in team goals over that period.

202 goals from Backstrom (0.235 GPG), 192 goals for Oshie (0.339 GPG), 179 goals from Wilson (0.214 GPG), 171 from Kuznetsov (0.237 GPG), 155 for Carlson (0.145 GPG), 118 from Johansson (0.204 GPG), 93 from Eller (0.169 GPG), 83 from Brouwer (0.283 GPG), 83 from Vrana (0.268 GPG), 79 from Strome (0.322 GPG) to round out the next 10.

 

[rmartin65]

My issue with looking at goals and assists, in isolation, is it favours "specialized" players (ie those who focus more on goals or assists).

Consider Daniel Alfredsson in 2004. He was well balanced, with 32 goals and 48 assists. He ranked out of the top ten in both categories. But he was T-7th in points. Ranking players by goals and assists, in isolation, would penalize him for being a well-balanced threat. (And in case anyone suggests he got a lot of secondary assists - he didn't. He'd rank exactly the same, tied for 7th, in primary points).

Without listing out each player and year, there are plenty of other examples - Gordie Howe, Jari Kurri, Gilbert Perreault, Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Anze Kopitar, Darryl Sittler, etc. I even found one Art Ross winner who was out of the top five in both goals and assists.

There's nothing wrong with a player who focus primarily on goal-scoring or playmaking. But looking at goals and assists in isolation might result in balanced scorers getting underrated.

Thanks for explaining it better than I could!

I have to know, though- who is the Art Ross winner outside the top 5 in both goals and assists? Jamie Benn?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Haha, yep, that is the next logical step for those who “know anything about hockey”.

silver bullet, what. It's just a fact that a goal scorer presumably "could" have gotten credited with an assist if they literally weren't already credited as the goal scorer on a play that happened, that's not a logical step away from "this guy would get more points if he had better linemates". No idea how many more assists Ovechkin gets if the Capitals remained a team with multiple goal scoring threats like they were in Ovechkin's earlier career. Presumably more but that's speculation.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for explaining it better than I could!

I have to know, though- who is the Art Ross winner outside the top 5 in both goals and assists? Jamie Benn?

That didn't take long. Yes, it was the infamous Jamie Benn. (I'll go off topic here. It was such a disappointing Art Ross win. I don't care that he won it with 87 points. The number itself doesn't matter. It's the fact that he didn't pull into the lead until the final three minutes of his season. The Stars had already been eliminated. They were playing the playoff-bound Predators, who were missing their top three players (Rinne, Weber and Josi). He tied for the scoring title due to an empty net goal in an utterly meaningless regular season game against an opponent resting up for the 1st round, and then he won it due to a goal with 9 seconds left in the game, when half the Predators literally looked like they weren't even trying).

 

[Hippasus]

My issue with looking at goals and assists, in isolation, is it favours "specialized" players (ie those who focus more on goals or assists).

Consider Daniel Alfredsson in 2004. He was well balanced, with 32 goals and 48 assists. He ranked out of the top ten in both categories. But he was T-7th in points. Ranking players by goals and assists, in isolation, would penalize him for being a well-balanced threat. (And in case anyone suggests he got a lot of secondary assists - he didn't. He'd rank exactly the same, tied for 7th, in primary points).

Without listing out each player and year, there are plenty of other examples - Gordie Howe, Jari Kurri, Gilbert Perreault, Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Anze Kopitar, Darryl Sittler, etc. I even found one Art Ross winner who was out of the top five in both goals and assists.

There's nothing wrong with a player who focus primarily on goal-scoring or playmaking. But looking at goals and assists in isolation might result in balanced scorers getting underrated.

I think you and rmartin65 may be misunderstanding my suggestion. I think points production is implied by summing the two columns of goals and assists together. My argument was that setting up the table as goals, assists, and points can lead to a double-counting issue, in particular as far as assists are concerned.

As for the cutoff, in this case top-five, that is just a decision that the presenter of the statistics needs to make. I did a comparison against peers study for goals a while back and went for top-three. A poster on this site thought that to be somewhat arbitrary, but to me that is the mark of an elite goal-scorer. It's pretty much a judgment call, unless one want to put together a mountain of statistical analysis and go all the way down the league! But then again, even that would be a judgment call.

 

[rmartin65]

silver bullet, what. It's just a fact that a goal scorer presumably "could" have gotten credited with an assist if they literally weren't already credited as the goal scorer on a play that happened, that's not a logical step away from "this guy would get more points if he had better linemates". No idea how many more assists Ovechkin gets if the Capitals remained a team with multiple goal scoring threats like they were in Ovechkin's earlier career. Presumably more but that's speculation.

I don't know, I see a couple Washington/Ovechkin fans lamenting Ovechkin's poor teammates in a few of these Ovechkin threads. Seems like an easy enough connection for me, but maybe I don't "know anything about hockey".

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don't know, I see a couple Washington/Ovechkin fans lamenting Ovechkin's poor teammates in a few of these Ovechkin threads. Seems like an easy enough connection for me, but maybe I don't "know anything about hockey".

I never said you don't know anything about hockey.

The whole 2nd assist on own goal is just a stat quirk/discussion that i think flowed out of a discussion on double counting assists for goals/assists/points finishes and topic on assists being more prevalent. I don't think there's a "silver bullet" that would suggest Ovechkin is actually a better playmaker than Crosby or something.