How much value do you put into these later Ovechkin seasons?

[Midnight Judges]

Not to drag Crosby into this, but one thing that's always bugged me is the "Ovechkin has more trophies than Crosby" argument. That's literally true, but it's because the NHL has an award that rewards Ovechkin's specialty (goal-scoring). Crosby (like Jagr) was a well-rounded offensive talent - and there's no trophy for that.

Even if we pretend leading the NHL in the most important stat is insignificant, Ovechkin still equals Crosby in hardware.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

For those harping on Ovechkin for not reaching the 40 assist mark for the past 8 seasons, had he finished with 2 more assists in each of the last 2 seasons, would that really change how you view him? Or would you then raise the bar to 50 assists? I mean, prior to the last few seasons, I remember quite a few people mentioning that he hadn't reached the 30 assist mark in a long time. Now that he has done that, it's gone up to 40 assists.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Even if we pretend leading the NHL in the most important stat is insignificant, Ovechkin still equals Crosby in hardware.

It's not about pretending that goal-scoring is insignificant - it's recognizing that a singular focus on goal-scoring, combined with dismal assist numbers (for a Hall of Fame forward at that stage in his career) isn't necessarily better than more well-rounded offense.

Besides, saying that they're even (9-9, I believe) in major trophies is a much better representation of what happened on the ice, rather than saying that Ovechkin is ahead 16-11.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's not about pretending that goal-scoring is insignificant - it's recognizing that a singular focus on goal-scoring, combined with dismal assist numbers (for a Hall of Fame forward at that stage in his career) isn't necessarily better than more well-rounded offense.

Besides, saying that they're even (9-9, I believe) in major trophies is a much better representation of what happened on the ice, rather than saying that Ovechkin is ahead 16-11.

Ovechkin is top 10 in the NHL in assists over the course of his career. Calling that "dismal" or "a singular focus on goal-scoring" is not representative of the truth.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Capitals won a Cup with him in these later years so I am sure Capitals fans value that over his early years even if he was better offensively in those early years. He keeps winning Maurice Richard Trophies so for a neutral fans he is still of high value in these later years.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Ovechkin is top 10 in the NHL in assists over the course of his career. Calling that "dismal" or "a singular focus on goal-scoring" is not representative of the truth.

The key phrase was "at that stage of his career".

Here's a table showing assists by HOF forwards, post expansion, ages 26 to 33, minimum 500 games (Ovechkin played 609 games) - Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Ovechkin isn't on the table because he's not in the Hall yet, but he has 240 assists from ages 26 to 33. That would rank him 5th lowest (Glen Sather is listed here, but wasn't inducted into the HOF as a player) - ahead of only three primarily defensive forwards (Gainey, Carbonneau and Keon) and perhaps the worst HOF forward post expansion (Gillies). That's not exactly great company.

On a per game basis, Ovechkin is 4th lowest (behind only Gainey, Gillies and Carbonneau). Even if we reduce the cut-off to a very low 100 games, the only other HOF forwards with fewer assists per game is Dick Duff (another weak pick).

It's true that Oveckin spent most of his career in a low-scoring era. Hockey-reference.com gives him 275 adjusted assisted during that span. Sorting the same table by adjusted assists, he ranks better (37th out of 46), but still not great - and mostly ahead of either those same defensive forwards, or low-end HOFers (Ciccarelli, McDonald, etc). On the other hand - his adjusted assist totals would be surpassed by a bunch of players not on the table (because they're not in the Hall yet) - like Thornton, both Sedins, Jagr, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Iginla, Bergeron, and Hossa - so that pushes him lower still.

The point is - Ovechkin has been 3rd in scoring over that these years (2012 to 2019 - ages 26 to 33). I'm not criticizing him for having low assist totals. That, in isolation, doesn't mean anything. But saying that he's been 3rd in scoring over the past eight years is a much better indication of how he's played, rather than saying that five Richard trophies trumps the fact that he's been out-produced by a couple of his peers.

 

[GreatGonzo]

It's not about pretending that goal-scoring is insignificant - it's recognizing that a singular focus on goal-scoring, combined with dismal assist numbers (for a Hall of Fame forward at that stage in his career) isn't necessarily better than more well-rounded offense.

Besides, saying that they're even (9-9, I believe) in major trophies is a much better representation of what happened on the ice, rather than saying that Ovechkin is ahead 16-11.

When your one of the best goal scorers of all time, it’s safe to say that that’s one “singular focus” has been more impactful than anything else, enough so to win many major individual awards, a Stanley cup, and be recognized as one of the best players of this generation.

He’s a goal scorer, using his “lack of” assists totals for anything that may misrepresent how great of a player he is, is ridiculous. What’s the proper assists total for a player of his caliber anyway? Why does he need better assists totals he gain any approval?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

As for the "singular focus on goal-scoring" comment - no that's not a literal statement. No player is singularly focused on any one thing. But taken figuratively, the statement is true. Looking at those same 46 players (the 46 in the table, minus Glen Sather, plus Ovechkin) - the average forward had 41% of their points come from goals. I don't think it would be inaccurate or insulting that the forwards with the lowest percentage (Oates, Clarke and Francis - in the range of 25-27%) are singularly focused on playmaking. Ovechkin has the highest percentage coming from goals (60%) - Hull and Gartner, who I'd also describe are singularly focused on goal-scoring, were the only two players within 8% of Ovechkin.

Again, my comments were "at that age" - from 26 to 33. Nobody disagrees that Ovechkin was a much more well-rounded offensive force prior to that, when he was at his peak.

 

[The Panther]

Even superficially, you want to leave a good taste in one's mouth...going out like Dryden or Bossy and going out like, say, Messier are two different things...

You just had to bring up Messier, didn't you?

Let's pause to remember that Ovechkin is currently in his 15th season. In Messier's 15th season, he scored 30 playoff points and won the Stanley Cup. In Messier's 17th season, he was 2nd in Hart voting (Ovechkin's 10th season was the last time he was that high in Hart voting).

Point being: There is still every chance Ovechkin could end up on a terrible team for his last several seasons.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

When your one of the best goal scorers of all time, it’s safe to say that that’s one “singular focus” has been more impactful than anything else, enough so to win many major individual awards, a Stanley cup, and be recognized as one of the best players of this generation.

He’s a goal scorer, using his “lack of” assists totals for anything that may misrepresent how great of a player he is, is ridiculous. What’s the proper assists total for a player of his caliber anyway? Why does he need better assists totals he gain any approval?

I think you've misunderstood my post. My point is that we shouldn't give undue weight to Ovechkin's past several Richard trophies. You need to look at total production - or else you'd (incorrectly) rank Ovechkin as the best player from 2013 onwards.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I think you've misunderstood my post. My point is that we shouldn't give undue weight to Ovechkin's past several Richard trophies. You need to look at total production - or else you'd (incorrectly) rank Ovechkin as the best player from 2013 onwards.

I know exactly what your saying, my point and question is why? Undue weight? Why is being one, arguably the best goal scorer of all time not enough to not try to minimize his offensive impact with this idea that there should be a minimum assists count that is required?

I mean your whole agenda makes zero sense and is very black and white. Why is it you assume people think he’s the best player since 2013 because he’s been the best goal scorer? Anyone with half a hockey mind knows this isn’t true, and to be honest, I have rarely seen anyone call Ovechkin the best player, in fact I’ve heard the opposite since 2013. He’s not a playmaker, he’s a goal scorer. And he isn’t just any goal scorer.

Ovechkin has gotten more flack than any talent and that’s a Fact, and your opinion only reinforces the idea that no matter what he just doesn’t get his dues because of this or that. It was defense, his “leadership,” he’s selfish, he doesn’t make anyone around him better....he’s accomplished more than most players ever have and ever will.

 

[Chrisgo]

Kinda funny

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perhaps it is time to review second half career production and performance.

 

[Midnight Judges]

As for the "singular focus on goal-scoring" comment - no that's not a literal statement.

What is the benefit of making non-literal statements?

 

[Midnight Judges]

The key phrase was "at that stage of his career".

Here's a table showing assists by HOF forwards, post expansion, ages 26 to 33, minimum 500 games (Ovechkin played 609 games) - Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Ovechkin isn't on the table because he's not in the Hall yet, but he has 240 assists from ages 26 to 33. That would rank him 5th lowest (Glen Sather is listed here, but wasn't inducted into the HOF as a player) - ahead of only three primarily defensive forwards (Gainey, Carbonneau and Keon) and perhaps the worst HOF forward post expansion (Gillies). That's not exactly great company.

On a per game basis, Ovechkin is 4th lowest (behind only Gainey, Gillies and Carbonneau). Even if we reduce the cut-off to a very low 100 games, the only other HOF forwards with fewer assists per game is Dick Duff (another weak pick).

It's true that Oveckin spent most of his career in a low-scoring era. Hockey-reference.com gives him 275 adjusted assisted during that span. Sorting the same table by adjusted assists, he ranks better (37th out of 46), but still not great - and mostly ahead of either those same defensive forwards, or low-end HOFers (Ciccarelli, McDonald, etc). On the other hand - his adjusted assist totals would be surpassed by a bunch of players not on the table (because they're not in the Hall yet) - like Thornton, both Sedins, Jagr, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Iginla, Bergeron, and Hossa - so that pushes him lower still.

The point is - Ovechkin has been 3rd in scoring over that these years (2012 to 2019 - ages 26 to 33). I'm not criticizing him for having low assist totals. That, in isolation, doesn't mean anything. But saying that he's been 3rd in scoring over the past eight years is a much better indication of how he's played, rather than saying that five Richard trophies trumps the fact that he's been out-produced by a couple of his peers.

You are going out of your way to isolate a way to trash Ovie.

He'd be 7th in points on that list (after adjusting) and second in goals (4 behind Esposito - who played all those season with Bobby Orr). If we change it to age 27-33 Ovie goes to 6th in points and first in goals. Seems pretty good to me.

Your point is that if we replaced some of his goals with secondary assists you would rate him higher?!? You'd claim he was more "well rounded?" or not "singularly focused on goal scoring?" That would just make him a player who contributed less.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What is the benefit of making non-literal statements?

Sometimes people have conversations with other people. It's not just an exchange of computer code and DNA strands. If anything, I'll keep my eyes peeled* for any person who takes every statement said as literal. You're patient zero on that.


* - this is going to hurt

 

[bobholly39]

I think they're very important. I'm honestly pretty amazed at how good Ovechkin has continued being so late into his career.

I think it hurts his legacy a lot that Crosby has been even more consistent, and is ageing even better (2 yrs younger though). It would be that much more impressive for either player if their counterpart wasn't doing as good. Because it's rare for players to age that well.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

What is the benefit of making non-literal statements?

It's an established part of hockey literature. Was Howie Morenz literally as fast as a meteor? Was Elmer Vasko literally a moose? The use of non-literal phrasing (similes, metaphors, etc) makes the writing more engaging.

If we want to be strictly literal, then we can simply state that, during the age range in question, Ovechkin generated a higher percentage of his offense from goals (lower percentage from assists) than any other HOF forward post expansion.

That's not a criticism, by the way - I don't understand why people are getting so defensive over a factual observation about Ovechkin's style after his peak ended.

 

[JackSlater]

Ovechkin being one dimensional offensively this decade (warning - not a literal statement, as Ovechkin plays hockey in a three dimensional plane) is fairly obvious. What is being pointed out is that simply trophy counting is going to overrate him compared to more balanced offensive players, or giving him credit as a great offensive player and also as a great goalscorer as if they are separate things is double dipping (warning - not a literal statement, as credit is not something that can be dipped into in the literal sense). It shouldn't be an issue in the history section at least.

 

[VanIslander]

Not top ten but "compiling" Rocket trophies?

This thread is absurd.

 

[Theokritos]

It cannot be understated the reputational blackhole he avoided. It changed everything. He was looking into the abyss, and Marcel Dionne and Joe Thornton were looking right back at him !

Nice picture. Well done.

 

[filinski77]

Not top ten but "compiling" Rocket trophies?

This thread is absurd.

I agree, I see the merit in the arguments, and I definitely agree that Ovi hasn't been the total all-around offensive package he used to be. But goalscoring is still the hardest and most important thing to do in hockey, and Ovi is showing that even in the back half of your career, he can be 32-34 and still be better than the elite kids that are at their peaks and primes, and that is something that is truly amazing.

Who knows how great Crosby will be when he's 34 compared to the McDavids and Eichels etc.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ovechkin being one dimensional offensively this decade (warning - not a literal statement, as Ovechkin plays hockey in a three dimensional plane) is fairly obvious. What is being pointed out is that simply trophy counting is going to overrate him compared to more balanced offensive players, or giving him credit as a great offensive player and also as a great goalscorer as if they are separate things is double dipping (warning - not a literal statement, as credit is not something that can be dipped into in the literal sense). It shouldn't be an issue in the history section at least.

Four if time is considered a dimension.

 

[JackSlater]

Four if time is considered a dimension.

Well, that's true. I've fallen to the perils of being literal.

 

[daver]

Who knows how great Crosby will be when he's 34 compared to the McDavids and Eichels etc.

I imagine it will be pretty good considering he has been better in his late 20s to early 30s than OV was.