Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[MeHateHe]

My instinct is that you'd find more fly by night goal scorers because you can be one-dimensional and/or dumb and still score goals.

You are permitted to say the words “Tim Kerr.”

And no, I was not comparing Warren Young to anyone. I reject the premise that scoring goals is the hardest thing to do, nor is it the only important thing. You could argue it’s not even the most important thing: the most important thing is to have more goals at the end of the game than the other guys. One way you do that is to score a lot but history tells us that a better way is be more well rounded and accountable and not play like your Xbox controller is disconnected while you’re in your own end.

 

[filinski77]

You are permitted to say the words “Tim Kerr.”

And no, I was not comparing Warren Young to anyone. I reject the premise that scoring goals is the hardest thing to do, nor is it the only important thing. You could argue it’s not even the most important thing: the most important thing is to have more goals at the end of the game than the other guys. One way you do that is to score a lot but history tells us that a better way is be more well rounded and accountable and not play like your Xbox controller is disconnected while you’re in your own end.

What would you say is the hardest thing to do in hockey?

If you want to look at goals vs. assists solely - you can not really argue against scoring goals being harder than getting assists. Simple numbers - 32 players had 50 or more assists this year, only 1 had 50 or more goals.
-> Scoring 50 goals is factually harder than scoring 50 assists.
-> Therefore scoring 1 goal is factually harder than scoring 1 assist.

This is of course under the assumption that there is equal effort exerted at an overall level for both passing the puck and scoring the goal - something that I feel would be silly to argue against.

 

[MadLuke]

What would you say is the hardest thing to do in hockey?

Depends on how long of a sentence we have to describe it.

A 28:00 minutes game at defense facing the first line and outscoring it, that something a very elite few achieved to do on a constant basis. In a way what Makar is doing could be harder than what Pacioretty was doing.
A shutout against a great team.
Beating a Tom Wilson in a fight to shift a crowd is in some way an harder challenge for many that going to try to score a goal.

Winning 66% of faceoff on a season long sample size could be harder than them all (but that could just be the equal effort exerted part, that no kids from 6 to 12 train at it as much as they do scoring goals, hard to tell, but some adult seeing it as a way to stay in the big league instead of taking the bus probably did work really hard it during their summers)

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

What would you say is the hardest thing to do in hockey?

If you want to look at goals vs. assists solely - you can not really argue against scoring goals being harder than getting assists. Simple numbers - 32 players had 50 or more assists this year, only 1 had 50 or more goals.
-> Scoring 50 goals is factually harder than scoring 50 assists.
-> Therefore scoring 1 goal is factually harder than scoring 1 assist.

This is of course under the assumption that there is equal effort exerted at an overall level for both passing the puck and scoring the goal - something that I feel would be silly to argue against.

1 truck sized hole in your logic. There's 2 assists awarded per 1 goal.

Therefore, 50 goals = 100 assists in difficulty

100 assists has only been done by Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, McDavid and Kucherov

 

[WarriorofTime]

This hardest thing to do stuff is a bit of a distraction I think. Beating Bob Probert in a fight was a very hard thing to do, but I don't think someone who beats Bob Probert in a fight puts that down as a major resume point for a top 10 list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Unless that's their role...

 

[MadLuke]

There's 2 assists awarded per 1 goal.

Average is more ~1.7 I think and a bit less in some eras, or closer to a 60g->100a type of ratio than 50->100, point still stand, Shutt, Maruks, McDonald, Robitaille, Leach, around 19 players scored 60 versus the 5 for 100 assists.

And outside Gretzky no one ever repeated that 100 assists threshold, and only Mario Lemieux did it comfortably.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Maybe Craig Janney being an Assist per Game guy for a while good comparable for what an all time goal scorer can do for a particular setup man?

 

[filinski77]

1 truck sized hole in your logic. There's 2 assists awarded per 1 goal.

Therefore, 50 goals = 100 assists in difficulty

100 assists has only been done by Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, McDavid and Kucherov

I do not think there is a hole in my logic at all, and you are reaffirming it. You are saying that 50 goals = 100 assists. You are therefore saying that 1 goal = 2 assists, and 1 assist = 0.5 goals.

By YOUR logic, 1 goal is not only harder, it is worth more than 1 assist is.

I agree that 100 assists is harder and more impressive than 50 goals is either way btw. In the context of the example I gave: 32 players had 50 assists this year, and 32 players had 32 goals this year. Big enough sample size to conclude that 32 goals = roughly 50 assists from a pure difficulty perspective. 50/32 = 1.56 - close enough to the average number of assists per goal (which I think is like 1.7)

 

[MadLuke]

The Sedins were in a way almost a thought experiment happening in real life around that debate.

People could have said before them, imagine 2 very similar players, literal twins, one is more a scorer and the other more a passer with split like 25 goals-85 assists versus 45 goals and 60 assists, who is more valuable ?

Answer, it is quite close... enough to have a debate for who was the best. I do not think there was much Daniel goals are worth 50-60% more than H assists and he was clearly the better player when watching the game at the time or in relative team success when one was missing leaving the other alone.

 

[TrKB PAM]

I find the 1.7 to 1 to be pretty unconvincing when comparing the value of assists to goals. One of the issues is that when discussing individual players, there is no overlap between assists on the same goal - a player can never have two assists on a goal scored. This means that 100 assists contributed to 100 different goals scored. Now, if players could have 100 assists on 60 goal scored, I could see the argument for why goalscoring should be valued at 1.7x ratio.

The main problem is though that these numbers do nothing to establish the causal relationship between assists, the act of scoring a goal and the target value of goals scored by your team. Which drives which more? There's no logical relationship to be inferred from the amount of assists per a goal scored and the value of an individual assist or a goal. The sport is too complex and has too much nuance to be reduced like that.

I believe that the data shows that when changing teams, primary assists and goals are roughly as repeatable, while secondary assists are less but do still have a correlation. That lines up a lot better with the eye-test as well, rather than an egregious 1.7x value difference.

 

[WarriorofTime]

and likewise a player can't get a 2nd assist on their own goal even if they theoretically passed to the guy who passed to them before scoring

 

[wetcoast]

The Sedins were in a way almost a thought experiment happening in real life around that debate.

People could have said before them, imagine 2 very similar players, literal twins, one is more a scorer and the other more a passer with split like 25 goals-85 assists versus 45 goals and 60 assists, who is more valuable ?

Answer, it is quite close... enough to have a debate for who was the best.

Most people and Canucks fans thought Henrik was better overall and some of that is playing center but why punish a guy for playing center.

As for this argument that people are downplaying goals it's the opposite for me as the goals crowd is over playing the goals argument.

It's been pretty obvious that goals and only goals has been the driving force for Ovechkin as suddenly he is in the race and plays in all EN situations in order to score goals

Then in the playoffs when his team is up late in the 3rd by a gail his overtime just isn't there as he never was a guy you really wanted out there to protect a lead except for the goals chase that is.

Ovechkin is the greatest goal scorer of all time but part of his resume suggests that he was really playing for the goals and the rest of his game all time aside from isn't in the top 10,20,30 who knows really but it's just not there and building a top 10 all time case on being the best at something and then downplaying the rest just doesn't pass the smell test.

Top 15 there is an argument and top 10 only happens if we are talking forwards and even then I'm not so sure.

 

[wetcoast]

and likewise a player can't get a 2nd assist on their own goal even if they theoretically passed to the guy who passed to them before scoring

The same would apply to every player though right and this seems like a real leap to try and make something Ovi hasn't been for quite a while and that's being a balanced scoring forward.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Or/also...if assists are the proxy for playmaking ("pure playmaking" as one gentleman (?) put it), would assists generated from missed shots, blocked shots, and rebounds that had no POP intent be removed from the record...?

 

[MeHateHe]

What would you say is the hardest thing to do in hockey?

Now that I think of it, I don't care what the hardest thing to do is. I mean, a lacrosse goal is objectively harder than a tip in, does that make it more worthwhile? Balancing a puck on your nose (unless you're Tim Hunter) would be harder still. Should we induct Harpo the Seal to the Hockey Hall of Fame?

We've got people in this subforum, which is generally populated by a good cross-section of hockey-history-knowers, arguing that because a guy scored the most goals, and because goals are the only thing that matters, then that guy is somehow better than nearly everyone else who played the game.

That's a facile argument, because as Herm Edwards has said billion times on sports clip shows, you play to win the game. Hello?

So, you have the guy with the all-time goalscoring record. Is he one of the greatest players of all time? Of course. But that stat cannot be used on its own as some obejctive measure of the player's worth or, in this case, legacy.

Again, there are folks on this subforum with better historical knowledge than I have who can talk to the overall legacy. I'm mostly objecting to the notion that because a guy scored goals and goals are what's on the scoreboard, that's the only thing we look at.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Most people and Canucks fans thought Henrik was better overall and some of that is playing center but why punish a guy for playing center.

As for this argument that people are downplaying goals it's the opposite for me as the goals crowd is over playing the goals argument.

It's been pretty obvious that goals and only goals has been the driving force for Ovechkin as suddenly he is in the race and plays in all EN situations in order to score goals

Then in the playoffs when his team is up late in the 3rd by a gail his overtime just isn't there as he never was a guy you really wanted out there to protect a lead except for the goals chase that is.

Ovechkin is the greatest goal scorer of all time but part of his resume suggests that he was really playing for the goals and the rest of his game all time aside from isn't in the top 10,20,30 who knows really but it's just not there and building a top 10 all time case on being the best at something and then downplaying the rest just doesn't pass the smell test.

Top 15 there is an argument and top 10 only happens if we are talking forwards and even then I'm not so sure.

Ovechkin is a bit unique in terms of the more goals to assist ratio (because again, assists are just more common generally) and that carrying into a high point result largely off the strength of goal finishes (it's just fundamentally more common to see the opposite of relatively low goal, high assist totals carrying the way to high point totals).

Of the top 50 goal scorers with more goals than assists

1) Ovechkin: 11th in points
5) Brett Hull: 25th in points
8) Gartner: 35th in points
19) Bobby Hull: 57th in points
20) Ciccarelli: 52nd in points
24) Bossy: 63rd in points
26) Nieuwendyk: 64th in points
33) M. Richard: 110th in points
35) K. Tkachuck: 75th in points
46) Bondra: 133rd in points

One other thing of note, is that Ovechkin is pretty middle of the pack in terms of career assists from players currently in the top 50 in career goals (494+ as of end of this season), ranking Tied-25th (with Robitaille) out of 50. Which I suppose could be a good or bad thing.

 

[K Fleur]

The hardest thing to do in hockey is be a Sabres fan.

 

[wetcoast]

Ovechkin is a bit unique in terms of the more goals to assist ratio (because again, assists are just more common generally) and that carrying into a high point result largely off the strength of goal finishes (it's just fundamentally more common to see the opposite of relatively low goal, high assist totals carrying the way to high point totals).

Of the top 50 goal scorers with more goals than assists

1) Ovechkin: 11th in points
5) Brett Hull: 25th in points
8) Gartner: 35th in points
19) Bobby Hull: 57th in points
20) Ciccarelli: 52nd in points
24) Bossy: 63rd in points
26) Nieuwendyk: 64th in points
33) M. Richard: 110th in points
35) K. Tkachuck: 75th in points
46) Bondra: 133rd in points

Not really sure what this shows exactly as lots of those guys either played in less games, Bobby Hull, Richard and Bossy come to mind or where never considered top players more like compilers like Ciccarelly, Gartner, Niewendyk.

Brett Hull also had a total of 11-9-20 in the ENP section during his career and arguably was a better defensive player than Ovi but he finishes his career on a strong well balanced Detroit team, if he had just sent for goals as he aged his totals no doubt could have been quite a bit higher one would think.

That's all part of the evaluation of comparing all time players taking everything into context.

One other thing of note, is that Ovechkin is pretty middle of the pack in terms of career assists from players currently in the top 50 in career goals (494+ as of end of this season), ranking Tied-25th (with Robitaille) out of 50. Which I suppose could be a good or bad thing.

He is 56th overall and assuming that he isn't back next year McDavid will pass him as he is only 5 assists behind.

Kuch and Mack probably early in 26-27

His playmaking keeps him out of the top 10 for me or put another way when comparing total impact and all of the highs and lows every player bring to his resume Ovi is outside of the top 10 for me.

 

[wetcoast]

The hardest thing to do in hockey is be a Sabres fan.

Being a Canucks fan isn't much better.

 

[895]

I genuinely don’t think there is any defense for the argument that an assist is as valuable as a goal.

Awarding two assists per goal and adding goals and assists together to make points were both arbitrary decisions.

Imagine a hypothetical where the NHL awards 4 assists per goal. Has the value of an assist changed? Of course.

I don’t know the exact value of an assist compared to a goal but surely it must be less than 1.

 

[WarriorofTime]

if he had just sent for goals as he aged his totals no doubt could have been quite a bit higher one would think.

Brett Hull was always “sent for goals” because he’s Brett Hull

 

[MadLuke]

Imagine a hypothetical where the NHL awards 4 assists per goal. Has the value of an assist changed? Of course.

True, same if there were a single assist and not automatically the last one that touched the puck, but a judge awarding them on "relevant past" type of criteria.

The idea is a proxy for actual team goal added over replacement and goals could be a more direct one, but I think it get moot once your reach (in both case) more assists or goals than your replacement... And that why EV points seem to translate more directly to team goals than PP, for shorthanded goal from a special player it risk to be almost 1:1 net added team goals.

Extra marginal points over say 80 pts (will change year over year and maybe with rare exception if you were getting giant minutes on the Oilers power play a strong year) will tend to mean you generated extra goals

 

[wetcoast]

Brett Hull was always “sent for goals” because he’s Brett Hull

Don't let the facts get in the way here the last 3 years Hull was in the top 10 was ages 30,31,32

30 2nd
31 7th
32 7th.

Ovechkin

30 1st
31 2nd
32 1st
33 3rd
34 2nd
35 7th
36 2nd
37 12th missed 9 games.

and some complain when Ovechkin is referred to as a shooter umh okay

 

[WarriorofTime]

Don't let the facts get in the way here the last 3 years Hull was in the top 10 was ages 30,31,32

30 2nd
31 7th
32 7th.

Ovechkin

30 1st
31 2nd
32 1st
33 3rd
34 2nd
35 7th
36 2nd
37 12th missed 9 games.

and some complain when Ovechkin is referred to as a shooter umh okay

So he didn’t age as well as Ovechkin it happens, are you inferring he could have if he just felt like it