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

[filinski77]

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

Definitely possible, but important to consider that Ovi finished 11th and 15th the last 2 years in points, and 1st in goals both times (including 2 years ago where Ovi and Crosby were 11th and 12th in points, pretty much the exact same, but Ovi had 20 more goals).

I do not think it would be unusual to see Crosby's 32 and 33 year old seasons have him finish around 10th in points (and definitely nowhere near a rocket), so that should definitely put stuff into perspective. But Crosby is amazing, so he could just as possibly finish top 5 in points just as easily as he could be 15th. My whole point is that it's closer than you would think by looking at it surface level.

 

[daver]

Definitely possible, but important to consider that Ovi finished 11th and 15th the last 2 years in points, and 1st in goals both times (including 2 years ago where Ovi and Crosby were 11th and 12th in points, pretty much the exact same, but Ovi had 20 more goals).

I do not think it would be unusual to see Crosby's 32 and 33 year old seasons have him finish around 10th in points (and definitely nowhere near a rocket), so that should definitely put stuff into perspective. But Crosby is amazing, so he could just as possibly finish top 5 in points just as easily as he could be 15th. My whole point is that it's closer than you would think by looking at it surface level.

Just the season prior to Crosby's worst season of his career in 17/18 (after two consecutive Cup runs), he was the best player in the world, a title that he arguably had held since 2010/11. Last year he was 2nd in Hart voting, something OV hasn't sniffed since 14/15.

I don't think there is any basis to believe Crosby may fare worse at age 34 than OV, certainly nothing to the extent that elevates what OV is doing now. That can stand on its own. Many are appropriately tempering the value being placed on winning the Rocket when it hasn't been matched with high point and Hart finishes.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Those are vastly different than what you said - far more obviously outlandish. Also, they're not negative, meaning they don't take a player's certain skill and imply it doesn't exist.

The primary benefit of accepting hyperbole as legitimate discussion is that it grants more subjective ground to elevate or trash players than the facts do.

Can't we just endeavor to say things that are true, or is that too much to ask?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin being one dimensional offensively this decade (warning - not a literal statement, as Ovechkin plays hockey in a three dimensional plane) is fairly obvious.

Case in point.

Is physicality not a dimension, or aspect, of hockey? Surely you wouldn't claim Ovechkin isn't a physical player. (Or maybe you would, who knows).

If physicality and goal scoring are two undeniable aspects of hockey, then your claims of one dimensionality are false.

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

Hyperbole is ripe for abuse. Accepting it paves the way for legitimized bias. It's pretty obvious this is what some of us want.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I'm pretty sure it was the unfactual part that people were taking issue with.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Still overlooked is that we are approaching the end of the first career cycle in the New Salary Cap Era.. Ovechkin, Crosby are the first exclusive salary cap players to have a career(so far) with one team.

Comparing them to non-salary cap era players in their thirties(30-39 bracket) does not work well due to the differences in how teams are structured in the New Salary Cap Era.

Neither is on a team with an evident prospect on the roster ready to step-in as their replacement and the value of their contracts guarantees playing time while making them untradeable.

 

[JackSlater]

Case in point.

Is physicality not a dimension, or aspect, of hockey? Surely you wouldn't claim Ovechkin isn't a physical player. (Or maybe you would, who knows).

If physicality and goal scoring are two undeniable aspects of hockey, then your claims of one dimensionality are false.

One dimensional offensively, as my post said. It's a different element and it does bring some value.

 

[Midnight Judges]

One dimensional offensively, as my post said. It's a different element and it does bring some value.

So you think physicality is not an aspect of offense in hockey. So necessarily:

Forechecking either doesn't count as physicality that contributes to offense or otherwise Ovechkin doesn't do it, in your opinion.

You think battling in front of the net is either not a physical aspect of offensive hockey, or Ovechkin doesn't do it.

Am I stating this accurately?

 

[K Fleur]

You’re pretty far out to lunch if you’re reading this thread and coming away with the conclusion that people are “trashing Ovechkin”.

 

[filinski77]

Still overlooked is that we are approaching the end of the first career cycle in the New Salary Cap Era.. Ovechkin, Crosby are the first exclusive salary cap players to have a career(so far) with one team.

Comparing them to non-salary cap era players in their thirties(30-39 bracket) does not work well due to the differences in how teams are structured in the New Salary Cap Era.

Neither is on a team with an evident prospect on the roster ready to step-in as their replacement and the value of their contracts guarantees playing time while making them untradeable.

This is an excellent point that I've never really considered, I truly do believe that both Crosby and Ovechkin will play until 40 (if not longer), as long as they have the passion. Their teams need them to stay, and stay as useful players for as long as possible.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

But I don’t know that this is necessarily the case, because we’re comparing him to players who are those all-around offensive packages like Ovechkin was in his prime. Take Draisaitl (4th in LW All-Star voting) last year as an example.

Alex Ovechkin
81 GP, 51-38-89, 338 shots, 4 ENG
Leon Draisaitl
82 GP, 50-55-105, 231 shots, 0 ENG

Goal-scoring isn’t done in a vacuum, so having the most goals shouldn’t necessarily mean that a player is the best goal scorer. It wouldn’t have taken more than a minor adjustment in predilection to change the recipient of the Rocket Richard Trophy. I don’t know that it is necessarily in Draisaitl’s best interest to make that adjustment however.

7 of the 14 players who outscored Alex Ovechkin last season were also 40+ goal scorers, so if they sacrificed their playmaking and forced plays where they were the shooter, I don’t see Ovechkin winning the Rocket Richard Trophy. If Draisaitl, Gaudreau, and Marchand (who all outscored Ovechkin by 10-16 points) all tweaked their focus, I don’t see Ovechkin taking an All-Star selection, let alone 1st Team.

Nikita Kucherov
82 GP, 41-87-128, 246 shots, 1 ENG

If Kucherov wanted 10 extra goals (7 behind a goaltender, 3 into an empty net to stay consistent with Ovechkin’s totals) at the sacrifice of the 47-assist lead he had over Ovechkin, I think he could have done it. So I wouldn’t say Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer last year than Kucherov. More goals, but not more ability.

 

[K Fleur]

Draisaitl was on a team last year(and pretty much his whole career) that was probably never even in the position to get an empty net goal

 

[JackSlater]

So you think physicality is not an aspect of offense in hockey. So necessarily:

Forechecking either doesn't count as physicality that contributes to offense or otherwise Ovechkin doesn't do it, in your opinion.

You think battling in front of the net is either not a physical aspect of offensive hockey, or Ovechkin doesn't do it.

Am I stating this accurately?

Basically you are, and you again seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the basic terminology of hockey discussion. Playing defence at an elite level allows a player to get the puck back and then go on offence, but no reasonable person would call defence an offensive skill unless they simply reject any separation of offence, defence, and the other aspects of hockey. Ovechkin is a pretty one dimensional offensive player this decade. He brings little defensively, but he does have a hitting game that adds value overall.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

I think you're reading something into my posts that simply isn't there. My point, which I thought was clear, is that you can't just count up Richard trophies and use that as a trump card against players who produce more in total. ("Trophy > no trophy" isn't a good argument). Now I admit there wasn't a lot of that in this thread, but it was more of a preventative measure against an argument that I've seen all the time.

It's not about being well rounded for the sake of being well rounded. The point is, someone who's 1st in goals, 258th in assists and 27th in points will get a trophy, and someone who's 3rd in goals, 10th in assists and 3rd in points gets nothing. (Lest someone think that's another Ovechkin/Crosby comparison - it's actually Peter Bondra versus Alexei Zhamnov to illustrate the point).

I don't have an agenda with respect to Ovechkin and have never criticized his defense or leadership, or said/implied he's selfish. I didn't think I needed to state that Ovechkin was one of the greatest players of all-time because it's obvious. But because he has a unique player profile, with clear and specific strengths and weaknesses, I think two people can have assessments of his career that are pretty far apart, depending on what attributes they value.

 

[Canadiens1958]

But I don’t know that this is necessarily the case, because we’re comparing him to players who are those all-around offensive packages like Ovechkin was in his prime. Take Draisaitl (4th in LW All-Star voting) last year as an example.

Alex Ovechkin
81 GP, 51-38-89, 338 shots, 4 ENG
Leon Draisaitl
82 GP, 50-55-105, 231 shots, 0 ENG

Goal-scoring isn’t done in a vacuum, so having the most goals shouldn’t necessarily mean that a player is the best goal scorer. It wouldn’t have taken more than a minor adjustment in predilection to change the recipient of the Rocket Richard Trophy. I don’t know that it is necessarily in Draisaitl’s best interest to make that adjustment however.

7 of the 14 players who outscored Alex Ovechkin last season were also 40+ goal scorers, so if they sacrificed their playmaking and forced plays where they were the shooter, I don’t see Ovechkin winning the Rocket Richard Trophy. If Draisaitl, Gaudreau, and Marchand (who all outscored Ovechkin by 10-16 points) all tweaked their focus, I don’t see Ovechkin taking an All-Star selection, let alone 1st Team.

Nikita Kucherov
82 GP, 41-87-128, 246 shots, 1 ENG

If Kucherov wanted 10 extra goals (7 behind a goaltender, 3 into an empty net to stay consistent with Ovechkin’s totals) at the sacrifice of the 47-assist lead he had over Ovechkin, I think he could have done it. So I wouldn’t say Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer last year than Kucherov. More goals, but not more ability.

Well, interesting but not really on point.

Ovechkin is playing on a team where 30+ players dominate and get key ice time:

2019-20 Washington Capitals Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Kane and Toews play on a team where young players contribute offensively:

2019-20 Chicago Blackhawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Ovechkin, Kane and Toews have virtually the same annual salary cap hit.

One team has replacements in sight, one does not.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Peter Bondra. That’s perfect. Alex Ovechkin now is like a better version of how I felt about Peter Bondra from 1995-1998 (leading goal scorer twice in four seasons, as well as overall).

Ovechkin (2016-2019) has the better G:A ratio (183:133 vs. Bondra’s 184:94) and is appropriately higher in the scoring chart, while still not challenging the really good players’ numbers.

So what is the best equivalent? Keith Tkachuk (164:137)? It’s not bad to say a player’s down years are like the best years of Keith Tkachuk.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Basically you are, and you again seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the basic terminology of hockey discussion. Playing defence at an elite level allows a player to get the puck back and then go on offence, but no reasonable person would call defence an offensive skill unless they simply reject any separation of offence, defence, and the other aspects of hockey. Ovechkin is a pretty one dimensional offensive player this decade. He brings little defensively, but he does have a hitting game that adds value overall.

Your opinion is that Ovechkin's physicality, forecheck, net front presence cannot be described as an aspect of offense in hockey, even if they directly contribute to offense.

You are tying yourself in knots to trash a player you don't like. That much is obvious.

Nevermind that Ovechkin is an elite playmaker:







Alex Ovechkin From His Knees Makes Beautiful Pass On Tom Wilson Goal

 

[Midnight Judges]

So this:



and this:



are the same aspect of the game as this:



You think net front presence and dirty net front goals are the same skill (or aspect) as long distance slap shots, and on that basis we can call Ovechkin one dimensional (so long as we ignore his playmaking and physicality).

It's pretty absurd really.

 

[JackSlater]

Your opinion is that Ovechkin's physicality, forecheck, net front presence cannot be described as an aspect of offense in hockey, even if they directly contribute to offense.

You are tying yourself in knots to trash a player you don't like. That much is obvious.

Nevermind that Ovechkin is an elite playmaker:







Alex Ovechkin From His Knees Makes Beautiful Pass On Tom Wilson Goal

I don't know if you bothered to read the post you quoted since that post already answered your question. That Ovechkin is a often a good hitter makes him a better player, it does not give him another dimension offensively, just like being good at takeaways wouldn't give a player another dimension in an offensive sense even though it can lead to offence. As for Ovechkin being an elite playmaker, that ship sailed long ago.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That Ovechkin is a often a good hitter makes him a better player, it does not give him another dimension offensively...

Of course it does. Forechecking sustains offense. It happens every game. It can accomplish a similar result as being great at puck protection, which again is sustained offense.

You deny it for the nakedly obvious fact that you desire to call Ovechkin one dimensional.

 

[K Fleur]

Ovechkin is a very good passer. That doesn’t make him still an elite playmaker. A couple YouTube videos won’t change that.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

the last four years of ovechkin feel way too good to be compared to bondra's peak. bondra is only slightly higher in those four years than leclair in goals. including this season, ovechkin since 2016 is 40 goals above pat kane.

i struggle to think of a comparable goal scorer. both late 90s selanne and early 2000s bure were too high in the points race to be compared to ovechkin. but how adam oates, say 2000 to 2002, only if you swapped assists for goals?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin is a very good passer. That doesn’t make him still an elite playmaker. A couple YouTube videos won’t change that.

We can debate elite vs very good. I'm fine with that.

Calling him one dimensional implies that he sucks at passing. It's a blatant intent to slander.

 

[JackSlater]

Of course it does. Forechecking sustains offense. It happens every game. It can accomplish a similar result as being great at puck protection, which again is sustained offense.

You deny it for the nakedly obvious fact that you desire to call Ovechkin one dimensional.

Forechecking is a useful aspect of hockey and a boon for any player who is good at it. Ovechkin deserves credit for having a good hitting game that can help his team out when it doesn't have the puck. The key though is that his team doesn't even have the puck when he is hitting, and forechecking itself is not something that "sustains offense" because it happens when the other team has possession. It's a plus for Ovechkin, but not something that makes him less one dimensional offensively.

Perhaps I desire to call Ovechkin one dimensional offensively (you once again forget that last part) because he is one dimensional offensively. I do wish that it was nakedly obvious.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

You’re pretty far out to lunch if you’re reading this thread and coming away with the conclusion that people are “trashing Ovechkin”.

Not trashing but minimizing. The first thing to go on a player is the goal scoring.