K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,756
- 26,561
How much value do you put into these later Ovechkin seasons?
- Thread starter 895
- Start date
Consider me incredibly unaware then
Count me in, or out, depending on your viewpoint.
I have finally caught up with this thread. It is beyond amazing how people still complain about Ovechkin's assist totals and lack of top10 finishes in points. Hart voters and All-star team voters consistently vote Ovechkin above players with higher point totals. You have to think they are on to something. But no.
Nobody is going to watch Ovechkin play and figure out that Ovechkin found a way to be useful to the team and create offense without collecting points. He is not only the finisher; once Caps gain the zone, Ovechkin draws a defenseman by his movement in the left circle and his potential lethal shot, and Oshie, Carlson and others score goals because of that. Half of Caps' PP success is Ovechkin ripping off his shots from the left circle; another half is tricking the opponent into believing that the puck is going to Ovechkin right now, making a defending player shadow Ovechkin and scoring on the resulting 4-on-3. Ovechkin does not get points for the latter half, but good luck trying it without Ovechkin.
That is not to mention all those plays when Ovechkin separates someone from the puck by a good hit and creates an odd-man rush - the team scores, Ovechkin gets no points and probably not even a takeaway.
Bottom line: Ovechkin is more valuable than what his points say. He is the man of the system; compared to 2000s, he is not trying to do everything on his own any more, but his usefulness declined less than what the points would suggest. This is the reason why he is getting some Hart votes every season and 20-40 voters put him on the ballot. He is still a top5 player in the league; he is 8th in points starting with 15/16 (his post-30), but make no mistake - he was a bigger force during this time span that Panarin, Wheeler, Gaudreau, who have similar amount of points.
Nobody is going to watch Ovechkin play and figure out that Ovechkin found a way to be useful to the team and create offense without collecting points. He is not only the finisher; once Caps gain the zone, Ovechkin draws a defenseman by his movement in the left circle and his potential lethal shot, and Oshie, Carlson and others score goals because of that. Half of Caps' PP success is Ovechkin ripping off his shots from the left circle; another half is tricking the opponent into believing that the puck is going to Ovechkin right now, making a defending player shadow Ovechkin and scoring on the resulting 4-on-3. Ovechkin does not get points for the latter half, but good luck trying it without Ovechkin.
That is not to mention all those plays when Ovechkin separates someone from the puck by a good hit and creates an odd-man rush - the team scores, Ovechkin gets no points and probably not even a takeaway.
Bottom line: Ovechkin is more valuable than what his points say. He is the man of the system; compared to 2000s, he is not trying to do everything on his own any more, but his usefulness declined less than what the points would suggest. This is the reason why he is getting some Hart votes every season and 20-40 voters put him on the ballot. He is still a top5 player in the league; he is 8th in points starting with 15/16 (his post-30), but make no mistake - he was a bigger force during this time span that Panarin, Wheeler, Gaudreau, who have similar amount of points.
So you are saying Gaudreau, Marchand, etc. deliberately make themselves worse, and then All-star team voters out them at the end of the season?
Or you are saying that all those guys can be better than Ovechkin, then they do something else with their play that makes them even better, but silly All-star team voters do not understand that and keep voting Ovechkin over 7 or whatever better players?
The best equivalent is nobody, because nobody in the first table leads the field in total goals by 30+ goals in 4 seasons.
Bondra (183) is closely followed by LeClair (178), Jagr (176), then Selanne (165) and Tkachuk (164).
Ovechkin (183) is almost a full season ahead of everyone: Kane (151), Kucherov (150), Crosby (146), Tavares (145), Marchand (144).
And that includes the season when Ovechkin had a wrist injury and finished with 33 goals.
Hart voters disagree: in 17/18, 19 of them put Ovechkin on the ballot as a top5 player in the league, but no one had Stamkos on the ballot. In 18/19, Ovechkin collected 12.5% of the vote with 63 voters put him on the ballot, 21 voting him top3. Stamkos showed up on 4 ballots, and judging from his position relative to MacKinnon and Bergeron in Hart voting and All-star voting, it is not like Kucherov stole his votes.
The stat lines of Ovechkin and Stamkos are also a perfect illustration why goals>assists and being "balanced" is a disadvantage if one is compared to a great goal-scorer. If one values Ovechkin by his points, one will greatly undersell Ovechkin and never understand why Ovechkin is so high in Hart/All-star voting.
JohnnyBerts
Registered User
I love Ovi. I love the type of player he is. He loves to score and plays with a ferocious intensity.
From the hockey I’ve watched, Jágr was definitely a more dominant player. When we compare Gretzky to Ovi, numbers are great, but Ovi didn’t take over a game like Wayne did so-many-times. That’s why I put Crosby and Jágr ahead of Ovi, they impacted the game more profoundly shift to shift and game to game.
From the hockey I’ve watched, Jágr was definitely a more dominant player. When we compare Gretzky to Ovi, numbers are great, but Ovi didn’t take over a game like Wayne did so-many-times. That’s why I put Crosby and Jágr ahead of Ovi, they impacted the game more profoundly shift to shift and game to game.
billybudd
Registered User
- Feb 1, 2012
- 22,049
- 2,252
I think he's cementing himself as one of the very best goalscorers of all time. We're talking like top 3. He might even retire at 1, depending on how many more years of this he's got in him. He's all but guaranteed to get 700 and likely to get 800. If he gets 900, his argument for being the best goalscorer ever will be pretty great.
These later years aren't as flashy as the earlier ones and he gets a lot less touches on the puck these days, but it's still going in the net just the same.
These later years aren't as flashy as the earlier ones and he gets a lot less touches on the puck these days, but it's still going in the net just the same.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I probably put more value on later seasons than most. I remember having this argument about Jagr in his last few years, when he was merely a good secondary scorer post-age 40. To me that is absolutely incredible and gives depth to a player's career arc. So many of them fade away as soon as they hit 30 and lose that half step. The ones who make it into their mid-30s and still dominate are generally in phenomenal athletic condition, and are demonstrating the full range of their talent even in a circumstance where they've lost some of their physical edge over the opposition. Chara's another good example... people talk about him like he's washed up because he's not a Norris contender, but at age 42 he's skating 1st pair minutes on a first-place team that's coming off a Finals run. See what happens to that team when he steps away.
Anyway, back to Ovechkin. Here's one way to look at it. As I type this, he is currently 23 goals shy of Wayne Gretzky in scoring after age 30. Last year's total was the second-highest ever for a player aged 33 or older, behind Jagr's 2006, and early in this season he is pacing to break that record. He's keeping the Caps in the elite tier when they otherwise have no business being there. What he's doing right now is just stupid, bordering on unique in the history of the game. He's surpassed Gretzky in adjusted goals in 400 fewer games, and soon he's going to surpass Jagr... the only one left ahead of him will be Howe, and that's just a matter of whether he chooses to play a silly number of seasons to compile the numbers. I'm already lowkey convinced that he's the greatest goalscorer of all time, just needing to follow through with another elite season or two in order to completely end that argument. To me it's a signal to put away the petty arguments, sit back, and enjoy this guy in the same way we enjoyed Mario in his last few years. Once he's gone, we're not going to get a replacement for Ovie.
Anyway, back to Ovechkin. Here's one way to look at it. As I type this, he is currently 23 goals shy of Wayne Gretzky in scoring after age 30. Last year's total was the second-highest ever for a player aged 33 or older, behind Jagr's 2006, and early in this season he is pacing to break that record. He's keeping the Caps in the elite tier when they otherwise have no business being there. What he's doing right now is just stupid, bordering on unique in the history of the game. He's surpassed Gretzky in adjusted goals in 400 fewer games, and soon he's going to surpass Jagr... the only one left ahead of him will be Howe, and that's just a matter of whether he chooses to play a silly number of seasons to compile the numbers. I'm already lowkey convinced that he's the greatest goalscorer of all time, just needing to follow through with another elite season or two in order to completely end that argument. To me it's a signal to put away the petty arguments, sit back, and enjoy this guy in the same way we enjoyed Mario in his last few years. Once he's gone, we're not going to get a replacement for Ovie.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
As stated, all of the very best players of the last 4 years are scoring at a 1:2 goal:assist ratio (McDavid, Kane, Kucherov, Crosby, etc.), whereas some of the top players from 1995-1998 were scoring closer to 1:1 (Selanne, LeClair).
If there were top players right now who had the same consistent predilection towards goals that Selanne and LeClair did - or were over-the-top focused on goals like Bondra was (2:1) - Ovechkin wouldn’t have a gap. He’d be in the logjam. Like Keith Tkachuk. That’s kind of the whole point.
If Kane (probably the second best scorer of the last few years) was scoring closer to a 1:1 ratio of goals:assists like Selanne was (probably the second best scorer of the 1995-1998 period), then Ovechkin’s lead in goals decreases (while Kane’s lead in assists decreases). Do you follow?
Why would someone put Stamkos on a Hart ballot when he’s on a team with Kucherov? Or an All-Star ballot when McDavid, MacKinnon, and Crosby exist? Saying something like “judging from his position relative to MacKinnon” in the context of 2018 and 2019 voting makes me fear that you’re going to tell me that 2018 and 2019 Ovechkin is better than MacKinnon in 2018 and 2019 too.
More than that, Ovechkin getting higher finishes in All-Star votes was part of my argument about how his seasons are getting a little overrated because of his goal-scoring placement. You literally quoted where I talked about three LWs who outscored Ovechkin by 10-16 points each last year.
In terms of goals last year, we’re looking at Ovechkin with 47 behind a goalie and 4 into an empty net and Stamkos with 44 and 1. Explain to me again how me taking Stamkos’ 15 extra assists into consideration is a problem when saying that current Ovechkin is closer to current Stamkos than peak Stamkos?
If he can’t distinguish himself from current Stamkos, then comparing him to peak Stamkos is a stretch.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,186
- 11,015
That's obviously false though, because Ovechkin is one of the very best players over the past 4 seasons.
The main problem with your theory - aside from the obvious backhandedness - is that you rely heavily on the assumption that secondary assists are equal in value to goals, which is pure nonsense.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Yes, considering Ovi is tied with James Neal for goals with 11, a few players behind David Pastarnak who has 15. Neither Neal or Ovi are + players.
Hiliting the paradoxical nature of the NHL since the lost 2004-05 season.
Effectively certain players are in the grey zone where production and salary are at odds with one another.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
1. In the same way Keith Tkachuk was one of the very best players across 1995-1998, sure.
2. How exactly is Ovechkin competition for himself?
The point is that the absence of other scorers (particularly those with high point totals) with balanced goal to assist ratios means that Ovechkin’s 183:133 in 324 games (8th in scoring) stands out more strictly in terms of just goals than Tkachuk’s 164:137 in 274 games (10th in scoring) because there isn’t a John LeClair (178:157; 6th in scoring) or a Teemu Selanne (165:186; 3rd in scoring) also having balanced goal to assist ratios or a Bondra (184:94; 21st in scoring) who is heavily lopsided towards goals.
Among the top ~20 scorers of the past four years, John Tavares has the next closest ratio (145:163), so there’s not even a post-prime Brett Hull (141:146) or Ziggy Palffy (146:135) skewing as heavily towards goals - let alone a Selanne, LeClair, or Bondra - to compare Ovechkin’s goal scoring prowess against.
Post-prime Ovechkin isn’t a better goal scorer than peak Kane or peak Kucherov in this time frame; just a more singularly-focused one. Hence why of the other top-20 scorers from 2016-2019, the one with the worst assist numbers still has ~30 more assists than Ovechkin.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it being taken as a negative that he's generating 50% more scoring chances than anyone else?
From an efficiency standpoint, every other player in the top-10 in goals is shooting in the 20%-30% range... except for Ovechkin, who's shooting an ordinary (for him) 14.5%. It's an extremely safe bet that Neal and Pastrnak will go through some long scoring droughts to bring their numbers back to earth, because nobody shoots 25% for a whole season. Whereas Ovechkin is actually running a little behind the shooting pace he achieved over the entire 2018-19 season.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,186
- 11,015
I must have missed the part where Tkachuk won a conn smythe, 3 Rockets and was top 12 in Hart voting all four seasons.
Your arguments in this thread are disingenuous.
This is the logic I cannot understand, because it treats goals and assists like coins one can put from his right pocket to his left and then back. It is like saying "nah, Gretzky's 92 goals in a season are not at all impressive, because there were multiple 100+ point players that season, and every single one of them could have scored 100 goals (and 10 assists) and beaten Gretzky for the goal-scoring title".
Every player scores the maximum amount of goals he can. Goal totals from 2016-2019 tell us that 150 is the maximum amount of total goals a human goal-scorer could score. And then there is Ovechkin with 183.
The fact that the best goal-scorers of 2016-2019 were, on average, more productive players than the best goal-scorers of 1995-1998 (your 2:1 and 1:1 goals:assists ratios) does not change anything. If Tkachuk or LeClair or Bondra showed up in 2016-2019, they would end up with close to the same 150 goals, because I do not feel that Kane and Kucherov at their peak are way worse at scoring goals. Maybe a tad worse - so give the current versions Tkachuk/LeClair/Bondra another 10 goals, it is not going to make them Ovechkin's equals in goal-scoring.
Things like that actually make any goal-scoring discussion futile. You know, Joe Thornton is in fact a better goal-scorer than Kovalchuk, Kovalchuk is "just a more singularly-focused one". But sure as hell Thornton could have had 1000 career goals now if he just stopped making so many passes.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
11 goals is 11 goals regardless of the number of scoring chances required.
Generating 50% more scoring chances. Yet Edmonton in more games has allowed fewer goals so the defensive side of generating scoring chances is not in play.
Presently the difference between the Caps and Oilers is the contribution from the supporting players.
Ovechkin is easy to watch. Know where to find him on the ice and like an aging John Bucyk, scoring 51 goals at age 35, shooting 22.7% is relatively efficient compared to contemporaries
John Bucyk Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
OK, but there's absolutely no question that 14.5% shooting is actually sustainable, unlike 20-30% shooting. And that you'd rather have the guy who's generating 50% more chances than the other guy, knowing that across an 82-game schedule that shooting luck is going to even out and there's going to be a clear gap between their overall performances.
I mean is there anyone out there who actually thinks James Neal is one of the best players in hockey right now? Really?
Canadiens1958
Registered User
The issue is value which is a function of various factors including who else can replicate the same performance.
So far Neal is holding his own. Or someone obtained for Lucic, is doing what Ovi is. Other factors must be considered.
Neal is far from one of the best players but like a fast food hamburger, he does the job.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
It’s a good analogy. Grabbing a fast food burger in a pinch... maybe you catch them on a good day and it’s not noticeably different than a healthy meal. Keep doing that over and over, and the differences appear in the extreme. No amount of money savings will make up that gap.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Except society does not have the constraints of a Food Cap in dollars - different from an economic gap between social stratas.
Ovechkin becomes an UFA in 2021. He would start the 2021-22 season as a 36 year old. Project salary and expectations going forward.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'm not sure the word "generating" is quite appropriate here, when the game plan is usually for other players to do the hard work of generating scoring chances which he then reaps. Especially on the power play, on which he currently has the fourth-highest TOI per game in the league. (Not to mention, any stats that are based on "all situations" are going to skew heavily in favor of players who get the most PP time.)
I don't know where these stats are sourced from, or I'd check myself, but I'd be curious to see if Washington actually gets the most scoring chances when he's on the ice, or if they just get a normal amount and he gets an inordinate share of them. Don't get me wrong, it says a lot that the team thinks he's their best bet to score and that they play accordingly, but scoring chances are generated by a team, not typically by a single player, and typically not by this particular single player.
I've seen many Ovy highlights this year, as well as two full games. Dismissing him as "just a finisher" is too simplistic; he's still a great player, excellent, actually. He has surprised me on a few occasions already. But at the same time, if you think he generates chances like a Marchand, Wheeler, Gaudreau, Kane, or, I hate to say it, like a Crosby, you may not be watching objectively.
I don't know where these stats are sourced from, or I'd check myself, but I'd be curious to see if Washington actually gets the most scoring chances when he's on the ice, or if they just get a normal amount and he gets an inordinate share of them. Don't get me wrong, it says a lot that the team thinks he's their best bet to score and that they play accordingly, but scoring chances are generated by a team, not typically by a single player, and typically not by this particular single player.
I've seen many Ovy highlights this year, as well as two full games. Dismissing him as "just a finisher" is too simplistic; he's still a great player, excellent, actually. He has surprised me on a few occasions already. But at the same time, if you think he generates chances like a Marchand, Wheeler, Gaudreau, Kane, or, I hate to say it, like a Crosby, you may not be watching objectively.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
They’re genuous. You just disagree with them. Just as you did Hockey Outsider’s when you thought it was tantamount to “slander”.
Get over it, I guess?
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
You act like this is a 100 assist to 100 goal swing. Draisaitl needed 1 goal. Kane needed 4.
14 players outscored Ovechkin last year, but I specifically highlighted the 7 that were 40+ goal scorers, so you can stop attacking the strawman you’ve assembled.
Across four seasons, Kane and Kucherov are trailing by ~8 goals each season but are putting up ~25 assists more. They don’t exactly need an even exchange. And Kucherov hadn’t even broken out yet in 2016 and 2017. In the last two seasons, it’s more like trading ~8 goals for, what, 40 assists?
It’s not a whole lot different than the gap between Bondra and Selanne from 1995-1998. Bondra had 20 more goals; Selanne had 90 more assists. Could Selanne move some coins from the right pocket to the left pocket? Well, yeah, and that’s how he got a Hart nomination in 1998 (52 goals, 34 assists in 73 games) while sharing a goal-scoring title with Bondra (52 goals, 26 assists in 76 games).
Notice how Crosby - the other Rocket Richard winner of the past 4 seasons - had his worst assists-per-game number of his career thus far in 2017 when he won the Rocket Richard? He moved the change.
The difference between current Ovechkin and Kane and Kucherov and Crosby and all of these other great goal scorers who are massively outpointing Ovechkin isn’t a difference in goal-scoring ability but a difference in preference of pockets.
But yeah, Joe Thornton = Ilya Kovalchuk, amirite? You say that like someone who either forgot or never knew that Joe Thornton used to be a pretty good goal scorer in the DPE before skewing heavily towards playmaking. He’s basically the poster child for how goal to assist ratios are as much about choice as anything. I think the only worse example you could have given would be if you had somehow highlighted Gretzky losing the goal-scoring title in 1986 (down 21 goals from the previous season) when he was chasing 160+ assists.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,186
- 11,015
I can only speculate as to why many of the posts in the HoH forum demonstrate a massive bias against Ovie.
As to the “if,” there is no doubt.
Last edited:
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,186
- 11,015
If a player could trade a secondary assist for a goal, they would elect to do that virtually 100% of the time. Anything else would be poor decision making.
Draisaitl had 10 more secondary assists than Ovie last season while playing with McDavid (and missing the playoffs). Kane had 14 more secondary assists (while also missing the playoffs). This factor alone reduces the point difference between them to 6 and 7. So if we assume Kane could have traded all 7 of his additional primary assists for goals - which is pure nonsense - then he ties Ovechkin in goals.
Additionally, if you can speculate that Draisaitl could have scored more goals, I can also do the same for Ovie. Actually I can do better than that. I can provide video evidence:
https://www.nbcsports.com/washingto...ed-alex-ovechkin-gives-hat-trick-set-tj-oshie
Regardless, your entire point here is speculation, and the inclusion of secondary assists indicates that it's not particularly scrupulous.
quoipourquoi said:
Ah, and now the true motivations are revealed.
Since the start of the 17-18 season (2.2 seasons) Crosby has all of 13 more points than Ovie - a difference 100% comprised of secondary assists. They are even in primary points but Ovechkin has 36 more goals in that time frame. Your depiction includes 6 point annual differences, characterized as "massive." I rather think they're not, but the concurrent 16 goal difference certainly is: there are 2.72 points recorded for every goal in a typical season.
I like how you lump Crosby with Kucherov - who has 41 more points than Crosby during the most recent ~ 200 games, and act like the 13 secondary assist difference between Crosby and Ovechkin is a huge drop off. That's a neat trick.
Since the start of the 14-15 season, Crosby has all of 4 more primary points than Ovie, and 72 fewer goals. It jumps to 7 more primary points/87 more goals for Ovie dating back to Crosby's secondary assist inflated 2014 MVP season. 5 primary points for Crosby/104 goals for Ovie if we include Ovie's MVP season from the year before.
A whopping 5 more primary points over the course of 8 seasons with 104 fewer goals.
