Do You Think Ovechkin's Legacy Will Improve over Time

[rmartin65]

Ovechkin is top 10 in assists during his career.

It is a simple fact.

It is indeed a simple fact. It is also what I would call not a very useful fact.

Patrick Marleau was 3rd in goals and 6th in points over the course of his career. Was he an all time great goal-scorer/points generator?

Dave Andreychuk was 6th in goals over the course of his career.

Mike Gartner was 2nd in goals.

Anze Kopitar is currently 8th in goals, 3rd in assists, and 5th in points.

Patrice Bergeron was 9th in points over his career.

Each were/are great players. And compared to 99.99999999 percent of hockey players all time, all-time greats. But among all time greats, they just aren't that terribly impressive offensively, despite what the accumulated stats (facts) show.

I mean, you've mentioned before that Ovechkin has gotten relatively little help from teammates relative to other all time greats (and I'd largely agree), but Nicklas Backstrom is 3rd in assists and 10th in points over the course of his career (and that includes this past 8 game season). Mike Green was 5th in goals among defenders. John Carlson is 7th in goals, 3rd in assists, and 4th in points among defenders. Are those guys all time greats too now?

 

[Hippasus]

You seem to be jumping to some conclusions here as floating around is just being on the ice, the whole creating more space is offset but somewhat nullifying the man advantage on the PP, just watch it.

Also while it's true that a 38 year old Ovi definitely isn't a great player anymore his greatness,like 99.9%of players happened in his peak/prime and if you think that he is still a great player his usage by the Capitals coaching suggest otherwise right?

Reality suggests otherwise. I'm sure you're a great goal-scorer in your dreams.

Been reading through this thread and seems like it’s gotten a bit sidetracked.

The hardest thing to do in hockey is score goals and Ovechkin has scored more goals in approximately the same # of games as Gretzky who is regarded as the GOAT.

Yes, Ovechkin doesn’t have as many assists and only had a handful of peak seasons in terms of points. But we are comparing the greatest goal scoring winger to the best of the best and honestly I think he gets a bit underrated.

Assists only occur when the goal is scored. If Ovechkin spent more time / focus on driving play and setting up his team mates would the Capitals have been better off? Highly doubtful. Ovi and the caps are better off letting him score goals rather than drive play. Yes that requires him to be more of a stationary threat but again despite this deficiency he still scores and scores and scores and has scored.
Even after end of his peak he still would occasionally flash the speed and skill to go end to end just much less frequently.


So Ovi is clearly a tier or two above the other great goal scoring wingers like the Bossys, Brett Hulls, Teemu Selanne, and Pavel Bure. 65 goals, 3x Harts, Conn Smythe, 9x Rocket, and 2x Pearson

I mean that resume stacks up with any and every winger short of Jagr.

In terms of all time greats he’s behind the big 4, McDavid, and who else:

Lidstrom, Bourque: Consistently excellent defenseman for 15+ years seems on par with Ovi’s dominance and longevity as a goal scorer.

Crosby, Beliveau: Multi dimensional, multi Cup winning centers with impressive trophy cases.

- Beliveau: Hart x2, Conn Smythe, r-Rocket x2, 10x Cups, Art Ross

- Crosby: Hart x2, Art Ross x2, Conn Smythe x2, Rockets x2, Pearson x3, 3x Cups

Honestly, the more I think about it he’s really a top 10 player. Scoring goals is hard and he is in a class of his own. Yes, he drives play less than other players but he scores goals and has done so at an absolutely elite level for almost 20 years.

Goal scoring finishes:

1st: 9
2nd: 1
3rd: 2
4th: 2
5: 1
9th: 1

14th: 2
18th: 1
39th: 1

Combined with his physicality he truly has been a one of a kind superstar. I think there may be too much focus on him being a stationary scorer who doesn’t have high assist totals and taking for granted that he’s morphed and evolved his game to find ways to contribute offensively and impact the game positively. He is a legend and should be solidly in top 10

When one looks at goal and assist placings, it's hard to ignore.

Oh God, the "I just ask 'how many'" guy can't ****** count?!?! Haha

Haha?

 

[Gerulaitis]

Why do the "goal scorers are the greatest" proponents always have binary thoughts like this? I guess it makes sense, 1 = good, 0 = bad because these players tend to be more incomplete and therefore it justifies their position based on stats...? Maybe just coincidence...?

Where did I say "goal scorers" are the greatest?

Tikhonov said Gainey was the most complete player. Probably he's right because he's a pro coach and knows his stuff.

Then, shall we say Gainey is greater than Gretzky?

 

[Gerulaitis]

Not in my book. To me, Crosby is squarely below Esposito, even if by a hair (6 vs. 9)

Good one. Esposito is being underrated on these boards

 

[Sentinel]

Good one. Esposito is being underrated on these boards

Very much so. He is clearly a Top10 player of all time.

2 Harts, 5 Art Rosses, 6 r-Richards (including a 76-goal peak), 3 assist leads, and one of the most iconic leadership moments in sports history. He even had a great late-career playoff moment in 1979, when he dragged his lowly Rangers to the SCFs with 20 points in 18 games (similar to Gretzky's 1997 feat).

 

[Gerulaitis]

Very much so. He is clearly a Top10 player of all time.

2 Harts, 5 Art Rosses, 6 r-Richards (including a 76-goal peak), 3 assist leads, and one of the most iconic leadership moments in sports history. He even had a great late-career playoff moment in 1979, when he dragged his lowly Rangers to the SCFs with 20 points in 18 games (similar to Gretzky's 1997 feat).

Esposito is top 10 all time. How cool is that !

New Top 10 (skaters only):

Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux, Fetisov, Ovechkin, Howe, Lidström, Beliveau, Richard, Esposito

 

[Midnight Judges]

It is indeed a simple fact. It is also what I would call not a very useful fact.

Patrick Marleau was 3rd in goals and 6th in points over the course of his career. Was he an all time great goal-scorer/points generator?

Dave Andreychuk was 6th in goals over the course of his career.

Mike Gartner was 2nd in goals.

Anze Kopitar is currently 8th in goals, 3rd in assists, and 5th in points.

Patrice Bergeron was 9th in points over his career.

Each were/are great players. And compared to 99.99999999 percent of hockey players all time, all-time greats. But among all time greats, they just aren't that terribly impressive offensively, despite what the accumulated stats (facts) show.

I mean, you've mentioned before that Ovechkin has gotten relatively little help from teammates relative to other all time greats (and I'd largely agree), but Nicklas Backstrom is 3rd in assists and 10th in points over the course of his career (and that includes this past 8 game season). Mike Green was 5th in goals among defenders. John Carlson is 7th in goals, 3rd in assists, and 4th in points among defenders. Are those guys all time greats too now?

Was Bergeron called a "no points" player by the Penguins fans in this forum?

Is Kopitar called a "no goals" player?

-Because that is the level of dishonesty we're dealing with here.

 

[rmartin65]

Was Bergeron called a "no points" player by the Penguins fans in this forum?

Is Kopitar called a "no goals" player?

-Because that is the level of dishonesty we're dealing with here.

You've been around the HoH board long enough that I feel like you should understand that people (I reject the idea that it is just Pens fans, or Canadians, or whatever group you feel like criticizing today) are speaking in relative terms.

Yes, if I am talking about top 10 players all time, Bergeron is basically nothing offensively and Kopitar is basically nothing in terms of goals scoring. That isn't dishonesty, it's understanding the context of the situation.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It is indeed a simple fact. It is also what I would call not a very useful fact.

I'd say it's one of many useful facts.

 

[Bourque]

Norm Ullman
DET, TOR

Ryan Getzlaf
ANA

Bernie Nicholls
LAK, NYR, EDM, NJD, CHI, SJS

Rod Brind'Amour
STL, PHI, CAR

Luc Robitaille
LAK, PIT, NYR, DET

No. He has one SC, and I realize he's a W, not a C, but he's not a great passer. All those guys have more assists than he does.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You've been around the HoH board long enough that I feel like you should understand that people (I reject the idea that it is just Pens fans, or Canadians, or whatever group you feel like criticizing today) are speaking in relative terms.

Yes, if I am talking about top 10 players all time, Bergeron is basically nothing offensively and Kopitar is basically nothing in terms of goals scoring. That isn't dishonesty, it's understanding the context of the situation.

There is no benefit to being inaccurate unless the objective is to distort.

Why is it I have to push for true things to be said (where Ovechkin is concerned)?

Is it too much to ask of this group?

 

[rmartin65]

I'd say it's one of many useful facts.

I don’t see how a metric that shows Patrick Marleau as a top 3 goalscorer is useful.

There is no benefit to being inaccurate unless the objective is to distort.

Why is it I have to push for true things to be said (where Ovechkin is concerned)?

Is it too much to ask of this group?

I feel like you aren’t reading what I am saying- everything is relative. Nobody thinks that Ovechkin is literally a shoot only player who has never passed the puck or who has never gotten an assist. What is being said is that in comparison to the other to 10 (15, 20?) candidates, Ovechkin is quite poor at generating assists.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Much easier to make exaggerated and hyperbolic statements then do partial walkbacks and claim you meant in the context of like ten players historically then to just discuss with balance and nuance. We’re all guilty of it to some degree I suppose.

 

[rmartin65]

Much easier to make exaggerated and hyperbolic statements then do partial walkbacks and claim you meant in the context of like ten players historically then to just discuss with balance and nuance. We’re all guilty of it to some degree I suppose.

Sure, that's what is happening. Or I expected everyone to be able to understand the context of the discussion. Alex Ovechkin's peers, when we are talking about his legacy, aren't guys like Zemgus Girgensons. I don't care that Ovechkin is better producer of assists than those guys- that does nothing for his legacy, there are hundreds of players better than those guys. Ovechkin is so freaking good at hockey that he is having his legacy compared to the very best of the best of all time, I am shocked I have to qualify every statement with that. But here we are, I guess.

But sure, assume negative intent. That's a sure-fire way to have good discussions.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Sure, that's what is happening. Or I expected everyone to be able to understand the context of the discussion. Alex Ovechkin's peers, when we are talking about his legacy, aren't guys like Zemgus Girgensons. I don't care that Ovechkin is better producer of assists than those guys- that does nothing for his legacy, there are hundreds of players better than those guys. Ovechkin is so freaking good at hockey that he is having his legacy compared to the very best of the best of all time, I am shocked I have to qualify every statement with that. But here we are, I guess.

But sure, assume negative intent. That's a sure-fire way to have good discussions.

Well your good intent will be easier to infer if you just say what you actually mean which I think is a much more balanced “compared to Gretzky, Lemieux Howe and others, Ovechkin lags far behind in assists” instead of saying things people have pretty routinely said on this and other discussions and then leaving it to assume you’re not actually part of that group that believes the literalness of those statements.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Nobody thinks that Ovechkin is literally a shoot only player who has never passed the puck or who has never gotten an assist.

Then what is the benefit of saying it?

What is being said is that in comparison to the other to 10 (15, 20?) candidates, Ovechkin is quite poor at generating assists.

Why would assists be a point of such extreme emphasis over points?

Ovechkin is 5th all time in adjusted points. I mean yeah, a higher percentage of his points are goals (which are substantially harder to accumulate than assists). The goals to assists ratio (relative to point totals) is a plus for Ovechkin in any balanced way of looking at offensive contributions. Any comprehensive adjustment to account for this would only have his point totals going up.

BTW, are Maurice Richard's individual season assist rankings (6,8,9 or something like that during WWII) a point of such emphasis? Richard was ranked 13 places above Ovie by this forum - which IMO is kinda hard to defend.

Nevermind the confusion between ability and role. Ovechkin has demonstrated an ability to make incredible passes. It's just that he's got the greatest shot of all time and so the team benefits more from his goal accumulation than putting him in position to take face-offs and accumulate points via volume of touches.

 

[rmartin65]

Well your good intent will be easier to infer if you just say what you actually mean which I think is a much more balanced “compared to Gretzky, Lemieux Howe and others, Ovechkin lags far behind in assists” instead of saying things people have pretty routinely said on this and other discussions and then leaving it to assume you’re not actually part of that group that believes the literalness of those statements.

We are in a thread literally talking about "Ovechkin's legacy"- who else are we comparing his legacy with?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don’t see how a metric that shows Patrick Marleau as a top 3 goalscorer is useful.

If you’re in the Patrick Marleau legacy thread and said Patrick Marleau is an abysmal goal scorer and then said “I meant it in the context of Brett Hull” I’d say that’s a silly statement.

 

[WarriorofTime]

We are in a thread literally talking about "Ovechkin's legacy"- who else are we comparing his legacy with?

the long-lasting impact of Alexander Ovechkin over the course of his hockey career

 

[RevengeOfTheDrai]

What is being said is that in comparison to the other to 10 (15, 20?) candidates, Ovechkin is quite poor at generating assists.

Ovechkin in his prime was a great playmaker. He had multiple 50 assist seasons in a league where that was difficult, and could have had 60 assists without missed games. He adapted his style and perhaps it was best for the Caps that he became a trigger man goalscorer. The caps already had a playmaker in Backstrom on his line. The role he played impacted his assist generation.

 

[rmartin65]

Then what is the benefit of saying it?

Figures of speech? If someone says something is "the bomb", do you take it to mean that person literally thinks that the object/concept is an explosive device? I certainly hope not. And again, it's because the underlying assumption is that people understand that it isn't meant to be literal.

Why would assists be a point of such extreme emphasis over points?

They aren't? Which is why Ovechkin is in this discussion. It's why guys like Thornton and Henrik Sedin aren't in this discussion.

Ovechkin is 5th all time in adjusted points. I mean yeah, a higher percentage of his points are goals (which are substantially harder to accumulate than assists). The goals to assists ratio (relative to point totals) is a plus for Ovechkin in any balanced way of looking at offensive contributions. Any comprehensive adjustment to account for this would only have his point totals going up.

You seem very intent on just ranking players by career totals (adjusted or otherwise). That's one way to do it, for sure. I don't think it gets us much in terms of actually figuring out the greatest players of all time, though.

Also, there are issues with the adjusted points formula. I can't find it at the moment, but I believe @Hockey Outsider or @overpass (or one of those other posters much more comfortable speaking numbers than I am) has gone into it in the past.

BTW, are Maurice Richard's individual season assist rankings (6,8,9 or something like that during WWII) a point of such emphasis? Richard was ranked 13 places above Ovie by this forum - which IMO is kinda hard to defend.

They are to me. I don't have Richard that high, and have Ovechkin considerably higher than Richard.

Nevermind the confusion between ability and role. Ovechkin has demonstrated an ability to make incredible passes. It's just that he's got the greatest shot of all time and so the team benefits more from his goal accumulation than putting him in position to take face-offs and accumulate points via volume of touches.

Ah, so now we care about ability and role instead of just totals?

Highlights are not a good way to judge talent.

But yes, Ovechkin was an incredible player, one who occasionally flashed the ability to make some pretty fantastic passes. But he didn't flash that ability with the regularity that a number of other players (insert all-time great players caveat here, @WarriorofTime ) did, which is why it is perfectly valid to have an argument/discussion of whether or not he is a top ten player of all time.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Figures of speech? If someone says something is "the bomb", do you take it to mean that person literally thinks that the object/concept is an explosive device? I certainly hope not. And again, it's because the underlying assumption is that people understand that it isn't meant to be literal.

….

But yes, Ovechkin was an incredible player, one who occasionally flashed the ability to make some pretty fantastic passes. But he didn't flash that ability with the regularity that a number of other players (insert all-time great players caveat here, @WarriorofTime ) did, which is why it is perfectly valid to have an argument/discussion of whether or not he is a top ten player of all time.

Leave top 10 out of it. Do you agree two statements on Ovechkin’s legacy: 1) he was an all time goal scorer who was pretty good/solid at generating assists and 2) he was an all time goal scorer but was abysmal at generating assists… are two wildly different statements about one’s “legacy”. The notion that I’m supposed to infer the second if you say the first is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There is that minor detail that Ovechkin played 9 fewer games.

Haven't you consistently taken the position that it's a bad thing when a player misses games? There's no question that Ovechkin played at a higher level than Crosby in 2010 and was the "better" player. But it's closer if the question is "more valuable" (which is what the Hart is supposed to reward).

The Hart trophy voters have consistently penalized players for missing games. Between 1950 and 2025 (75 years), there have only been 12 instances when a forward was a Hart finalist, while missing 10+ games (four of those were Gretzky or Lemieux). It's likely that Ovechkin would have won the Hart, had he not missed those 10 games. (Being a finalist while missing 10+ games is historically rare - so, again, if there was a voter conspiracy against him, you'd think they would have stuck to historical patterns, and not made him a finalist at all).

Also, Ovechkin was far superior defensively. Crosby was on the ice for 75 non PP goals against. For Ovechkin it was 44.

Crosby was on the ice for 57 5v5 goals against (which is fine). Ovechkin for 33 (which is quite excellent). Their total 5v5 minutes weren't actually all that different.

I'm going to refer back to this post. You constantly go back and forth as to whether plus/minus, goals against, etc are meaningful or not, depending on whether it makes Ovechkin look good (and/or Crosby look bad).

And Crosby was obviously playing in front of a better blue line (Gonchar, Letang, Goligoski, Orpik vs Green, Poti, Schultz, Morrison) and a better goal tender (MAF vs Theodore).

You're trying to evaluate which team was better defensively, based on which players have better reputations. But you need to look at the actual level of performance. In 2010, the Capitals goalies had a 91.1% save percentage, and the Penguins goalies had a 90.4% save percentage. (The gap increases if we're looking at ES only, which is what drives plus/minus). Pittsburgh allowed around 2 fewer shots per game (at ES, and overall). Ultimately I think the Penguins were better defensively, but Washington got clearly better goaltending, which resulted in the Capitals allowing fewer goals.

 

[rmartin65]

If you’re in the Patrick Marleau legacy thread and said Patrick Marleau is an abysmal goal scorer and then said “I meant it in the context of Brett Hull” I’d say that’s a silly statement.

Why? It's true- Patrick Marleau was an abysmal goalscorer relative to players like Brett Hull. On an all-time great scale, Marleau's goal scoring ability is not really worth noting, regardless of whatever career total he compiled his way to. Two times top 10 in goals. Only 1 time top 5. Zero times top 3. Yeah, it's better than a lot of players, but if we are talking legacy there is a higher bar, right?

the long-lasting impact of Alexander Ovechkin over the course of his hockey career

That's not a "who", it's a "what". So again, who are we supposed to be comparing Ovechkin's legacy to here?

Ovechkin in his prime was a great playmaker. He had multiple 50 assist seasons in a league here that was difficult, and could have had 60 assists without missed games. He adapted his style and perhaps it was best for the Caps that he became a trigger man goalscorer. The caps already had a playmaker in Backstrom on his line.

His assist finishes are 6, 6, 10. That's not particularly good for a top-10 of all time candidate. Shoot, Jason Spezza has finishes of 2, 7, 9. Are we ready to crown him as a great set up guy (on a historically great level, since I have to say this now)?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Why? It's true- Patrick Marleau was an abysmal goalscorer relative to players like Brett Hull. On an all-time great scale, Marleau's goal scoring ability is not really worth noting, regardless of whatever career total he compiled his way to. Two times top 10 in goals. Only 1 time top 5. Zero times top 3. Yeah, it's better than a lot of players, but if we are talking legacy there is a higher bar, right?

Because that’s not how discussion happens. Legacy goes far deeper than a discussion about the top 10 all time. Right? I straight up don’t believe you that if someone posted a thread about Patrick Marleau your first thought would be to post that he was abysmal. It would be unproductive at best and bad faith at worst.