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

[K Fleur]

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

I don’t see any posters in here “minimizing” Ovechkin either.

 

[GreatGonzo]

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 same 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.

Who is doing that?

Goals win games and ultimately it’s more difficult to score goals than to produce assists. Your comparison still makes no sense considering a MAJORITY of people here and in the league still think Crosby is better no matter how many goals Ovechkin scores. A player that is more balanced offensively isn’t always seen as “better” than the player with more goals, for example, your saying a player who is 3rd in goals, 10th in assists, and 3rd in points gets “nothing” and that makes him a victim. Scoring the most goals in a season deserves an award, it’s a difficult thing to do no matter what.

I mean to be honest, Ovechkin as a goal scorer is better than a majority of NHL players total offense. The ones that are more dynamic get their dues no matter what, but they can be seen as better than Ovechkin despite a Rocket. If your 3rd in points and Ovechkin ends up.....let’s say 12th, but is number one in goals.....shouldn’t being number one in a big offensive statistic worth a lot?

 

[quoipourquoi]

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?

Yeah, I’d say LeClair is too good and Bondra isn’t good enough, but Tkachuk felt kinda right, even if he missed too many games to lead the league from 1996-1999 (trailing LeClair by 17 goals and 28 games). With a little bit more health, he might have been able to defend his 1997 goal-scoring title better than he did in 1998 and 1999 (not that Selanne was much healthier).

Tkachuk winning the goal-scoring title (52 goals, 34 assists, -1) over six players (47-51 goals, 41-72 assists, +21 through +44) on the strength of his 8 empty-netters is the sort of thing that should give anyone pause about the isolated value of leading the league in goals.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If your 3rd in points and Ovechkin ends up.....let’s say 12th, but is number one in goals.....shouldn’t being number one in a big offensive statistic worth a lot?

No. See my Tkachuk example.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

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.

I mean, it's not like Ovechkin has started taking more shots in the last few years and that is what is propelling him to score 50+ goals. He has always been a high volume shooter. His shot totals have actually been on the decline for the last few seasons with the exception of his 14 game stretch this season.

An argument can be made that if any of those players you mentioned started focusing solely on goals, they would become worse goal scorers. What makes many of them so prolific is their unpredictability, not their shooting ability. If they become more predictable and teams catch on, maybe they don't score as many goals. Who's to say that the ability to get high quality shots towards the net isn't an acquired skill in itself. Maybe those players only take that many shots because those are the shooting opportunities that are provided to them.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yeah, I’d say LeClair is too good and Bondra isn’t good enough, but Tkachuk felt kinda right, even if he missed too many games to lead the league from 1996-1999 (trailing LeClair by 17 goals and 28 games). With a little bit more health, he might have been able to defend his 1997 goal-scoring title better than he did in 1998 and 1999 (not that Selanne was much healthier).

Tkachuk winning the goal-scoring title (52 goals, 34 assists, -1) over six players (47-51 goals, 41-72 assists, +21 through +44) on the strength of his 8 empty-netters is the sort of thing that should give anyone pause about the isolated value of leading the league in goals.

tbh, even if his assist totals and points placements are too high, value-wise current ovechkin is basically peak stamkos to me.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No. See my Tkachuk example.

So Ovechkin is like Tkachuk? I mean sounds like more belittling the impact Ovechkins goal scoring has. Being the top goal scorer in one season is also different than being THE best goal scorer of this generation.

I also didn’t see anyone saying Tkachuk was the better offense player than anyone, which apparently was the issue. Ovechkin isn’t seen as a superior player just because he has lead the league in goals, but at some point doing it 8 times including the last 2 times should count for something.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

Yeah, I’d say LeClair is too good and Bondra isn’t good enough, but Tkachuk felt kinda right, even if he missed too many games to lead the league from 1996-1999 (trailing LeClair by 17 goals and 28 games). With a little bit more health, he might have been able to defend his 1997 goal-scoring title better than he did in 1998 and 1999 (not that Selanne was much healthier).

Tkachuk winning the goal-scoring title (52 goals, 34 assists, -1) over six players (47-51 goals, 41-72 assists, +21 through +44) on the strength of his 8 empty-netters is the sort of thing that should give anyone pause about the isolated value of leading the league in goals.

I understand what you're getting at here but last season was the only season where you could point to his ENG as the reason he lead the league in goals. Take away those empty netters and he still finishes 2nd in goals. Tkachuk on the other hand would be near the bottom 10. Ovechkin was also better than most of the players who finished in the top 10 while Tkachuk was arguably the worst aside from Bondra. When you look at it from that perspective, it does seem like you're belittling him regardless of whether or not you intended to.

 

[quoipourquoi]

tbh, even if his assist totals and points placements are too high, value-wise current ovechkin is basically peak stamkos to me.

Hmm. I don’t believe he’s drawn separation from current Stamkos.

2017-18
Ovechkin: 82 GP, 49-38-87
Stamkos: 78 GP, 27-59-86

2018-19
Stamkos: 82 GP, 45-53-98
Ovechkin: 81 GP, 51-38-89

 

[quoipourquoi]

So Ovechkin is like Tkachuk? I mean sounds like more belittling the impact Ovechkins goal scoring has.

Is it inherently insulting to be compared to the best years of Keith Tkachuk?

I posted the top-21 scorers from that 1995-1998 range (the Bondra years) in the same post as the top-21 scores from the last four seasons.

1. Jagr - 270 GP, 176-240-416
2. Francis - 283 GP, 90-265-355
3. Selanne - 275 GP, 165-186-351
...
10. Tkachuk - 274 GP, 164-137-301

1. Kane - 327 GP, 151-230-381
2. Kucherov- 313 GP, 150-229-379
3. McDavid - 287 GP, 128-244-372
...
8. Ovechkin- 324 GP, 183-133-316

It’s not belittling; Keith Tkachuk was good at hockey.


I think the 1995-1998 period saw a greater variety of G:A ratios from the very best offensive players, which makes Tkachuk less of a standout in terms of only looking at goals. The top-5 scorers from 2016-2019 all hover around that 1:2 G:A ratio, whereas Selanne and LeClair being closer to 1:1 means Tkachuk is going to have stronger competition in a goals race. And there’s no one even close to doing now what Bondra was doing then (2:1), which is why he took two titles.

But if you find the stigma attached to Tkachuk to be too much to process the rest of what I am presenting - that goal-scoring titles aren’t actually the best measure of goal-scoring ability - then you’re welcome to equate Ovechkin’s value to one of the other 20 players on that list.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, I’d say LeClair is too good and Bondra isn’t good enough, but Tkachuk felt kinda right, even if he missed too many games to lead the league from 1996-1999 (trailing LeClair by 17 goals and 28 games). With a little bit more health, he might have been able to defend his 1997 goal-scoring title better than he did in 1998 and 1999 (not that Selanne was much healthier).

Tkachuk winning the goal-scoring title (52 goals, 34 assists, -1) over six players (47-51 goals, 41-72 assists, +21 through +44) on the strength of his 8 empty-netters is the sort of thing that should give anyone pause about the isolated value of leading the league in goals.

Tkachuk's assists also declined as he aged.

 

[filinski77]

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.

But you’re making the assumption that players could just “decide” to score more if they sacrificed passing plays, which isn’t a good assumption because most players just make the play that has the best chance to score a goal. Ovechkin often gives up shot attempts to be able to make a play, regardless of if that goes in the net or not.

You’re saying Drai has better scoring ability than Ovi based off that, but what about looking at who’s setting them up?

Drai had 25 goals primarily assisted from McDavid last year

Ovi had 8 from Backstrom, and 6 from Kuznetsov.

Gotta consider that Drai had a lot of great opportunities just from having HALF his goals coming right from the best player in the league, wouldn’t you?

 

[quoipourquoi]

You’re saying Drai has better scoring ability than Ovi based off that, but what about looking at who’s setting them up?

Drai had 25 goals primarily assisted from McDavid last year

Ovi had 8 from Backstrom, and 6 from Kuznetsov.

Gotta consider that Drai had a lot of great opportunities just from having HALF his goals coming right from the best player in the league, wouldn’t you?

So you agree that looking at the ranked leaders in goals might not tell the whole story as to who has the best goal-scoring ability?

I would think that having McDavid would help... though there are obviously examples like 1998 Selanne where a players G:A ratio heavily skewed towards goals when their teammate was out and the normalized when their teammate was healthy. So what if the existence of McDavid (also a great goal scorer, just as Kariya was) is actually leading Draisaitl to pass more often than he would if he wasn’t playing with such a good scorer?

That’s why I think goal-scoring lists maybe shouldn’t be viewed in isolation, and that maybe too much is made out of leading the league in that category - particularly in situations when there are comparable goal scorers with far better assist numbers.

I highlighted Draisaitl because he literally lost the Rocket Richard on empty net goals. Like I said, 7 of the 14 players who outscored Ovechkin had 40+ goals, and if I wanted to pick the best goal scorer, I’d probably take Kucherov.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin has a Hart, a Hart runner-up, 3 more top 10 Hart finishes, and a Conn Smythe in the past 7 seasons to go with 6 goal scoring titles.

Comparing him to Keith Tkachuk (who had 1 goal scoring title and one 10th place Hart finish and one 14th place finish in his entire career) is a disaster.

 

[seventieslord]

7 seasons.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't get it here. Ovechkin leads the NHL in goals 8 times, is more "isolated" with his goal scoring in what is now his 15th (!) season and people think this is a bad thing? Over the years he has gotten to be more exclusively of a goal scorer and not as much of a point leader but let's not forget he did have an Art Ross at one point. I think it is hard to call him anything but the most pure goal scorer in the game's history. When I say "pure" I mean someone who tends to focus on goals more than any other aspect of his game. Before this I'd have said Bossy for instance. I will still contend that Gretzky leading the NHL in goals by large margins while he led the NHL in assists and points by large margins is more impressive and I'll take him and Lemieux as the better "goal scorers" but not the better "pure" goal scorers, if that makes sense to anyone.

But so what? If you are putting up Bondra-like numbers in your 15th season isn't that still good? 50 goals 25-30 assists while still being pretty physical is quite a post-prime career. If he isn't a top 10 player still he's close enough. It wasn't that long ago (2018 playoffs) where his physical play made a huge difference between winning and losing.

No, I think a guy that is still flirting with 50 goals a season has a ton of value in his later seasons. When the days come that Ovechkin can't crack 40 anymore and is more of a 30 goal guy I suspect he'll retire and pack it in long before anyone on here thinks he should. I don't see him hanging around hobbling and scoring 25-30 goals a year. That just isn't him. Goal scoring is his game and perhaps it has changed a bit the demographics of how he scores (scores more with his laser shot on the one-timer) than in the past where he did that but still flew all over the ice scoring, but he was still a 1st team all-star last year. He is asked the other day what the Leafs need to do in order to win a Cup (I think he has experience with this) and even though some criticized him he scores 4 points against them the other day. I mean, if he still doesn't have value, then who does?

 

[sr edler]

I didn't watch the 2019 Worlds (except highlights from Finland's games in the knockout stages) but why did Ovechkin only have 3 points in 10 games while Kucherov & Gusev had 16 points each? It seems like a relatively steep discrepancy. Was he injured?

I know it's just the Worlds and I know Kucherov is at his peak while Ovi is old and such, but Ovi's international resume has always left you a bit puzzled. His wrecking ball game doesn't translate that well to big ice? I know he can skate, so skating shouldn't be that big of a problem. Vision? Problems playing the slower non-set piece game?

 

[Canadiens1958]

I didn't watch the 2019 Worlds (except highlights from Finland's games in the knockout stages) but why did Ovechkin only have 3 points in 10 games while Kucherov & Gusev had 16 points each? It seems like a relatively steep discrepancy. Was he injured?

I know it's just the Worlds and I know Kucherov is at his peak while Ovi is old and such, but Ovi's international resume has always left you a bit puzzled. His wrecking ball game doesn't translate that well to big ice? I know he can skate, so skating shouldn't be that big of a problem. Vision? Problems playing the slower non-set piece game?

One of the key elements of Ovi's game is familiarity.

How well does he know International players including Russian teammates/coaches and rinks?

 

[Sam Spade]

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.

Wouldn't the Art Ross be that trophy? Crosby has two. If there was an award for the NHL's assist leader, Crosby would have exactly one of them, '13-'14, to go with his two Rockets. So five offensive awards in 15 seasons.

He is extremely consistent getting points, which is reflected in his career PPG, just as Ovechkin is one of the best ever at consistently scoring goals.

That being said, Crosby has been the PPG leader five seasons, three of them he played full seasons, Ovechkin has three PPG leader seasons.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Wouldn't the Art Ross be that trophy?

But there’s only the one trophy. So Kucherov and his 128 points wins it. The five other players with 100-116 points (35-50 goals, 55-75 assists) do not get a trophy. The eight other players with 90-99 points do not get a trophy. A player with 89 points gets a trophy - literally the only other offensive trophy presented.

Talking about the creation of an Assists Trophy is basically just doubling the issue here. Obviously Kucherov led the league in assists but Blake Wheeler’s 20-71-91 statline would put him closer to the award than Patrick Kane’s 44-66-110 statline. Just like Kane could find some more goals at the cost of his assists, he could find more assists at the cost of his goals, so looking strictly at Assists rankings wouldn’t tell us who the best playmakers are, but rather which top players skewed more heavily towards playmaking.

Goals trophies and Assists trophies just add bulletpoints to players’ resumes that ignores that they may not be one of the league’s very best scorers. 15th place in points isn’t, like, that great. But the bulletpoint is the same as the one 2nd or 3rd place scorers like 1999 Selanne, 2000 Bure, 2007 Lecavalier, 2012 Stamkos, and 2017 Crosby received. That’s the problem; Ovechkin isn’t having seasons like those, but the award is the same.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

It's real interesting to see some people discredit Ovechkin's back-9 when the same people might, for example, be the first to jump on the Gordie-Howe-longevity train - a train that deserves to be full, even though Howe didn't win a single award after 1963.

 

[daver]

It's real interesting to see some people discredit Ovechkin's back-9 when the same people might, for example, be the first to jump on the Gordie-Howe-longevity train - a train that deserves to be full, even though Howe didn't win a single award after 1963.

Howe was older than OV when he won his last Art Ross so not sure how that alone doesn't place him higher for his back nine given his elite scoring finishes before and after that (even after consideration for league size). Howe was arguably still the best player in the world after 64/65 at age 36, while OV hasn't made a real case for best player since 2013 at age 30.

Pointing out that OV isn't garnering major Hart or Lindsay consideration with his Rocket wins is hardly discrediting him.

 

[Plural]

Wouldn't the Art Ross be that trophy? Crosby has two. If there was an award for the NHL's assist leader, Crosby would have exactly one of them, '13-'14, to go with his two Rockets. So five offensive awards in 15 seasons.

He is extremely consistent getting points, which is reflected in his career PPG, just as Ovechkin is one of the best ever at consistently scoring goals.

That being said, Crosby has been the PPG leader five seasons, three of them he played full seasons, Ovechkin has three PPG leader seasons.

Only 5 (I know it's world class) seasons as PPG leader for Sid? I would have guessed 7 or 8.

 

[Sam Spade]

Only 5 (I know it's world class) seasons as PPG leader for Sid? I would have guessed 7 or 8.

One he played 41 games and I don't think that one is even recognized as leading but I could be wrong. The other one were he is number one he played 36 of 48 games. He missed a lot of time from his peak seasons.

 

[Plural]

One he played 41 games and I don't think that one is even recognized as leading but I could be wrong. The other one were he is number one he played 36 of 48 games. He missed a lot of time from his peak seasons.

That 36 games was shortened season to be fair. I think it needs to count.