FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
Player Discussion Neal Pionk: Part II
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
eco's bones
Registered User
Posters here should keep this in mind with Pionk---right now after 22 games his season prorates to 16 goals and 56 points. That's a guy playing defense in his first full NHL season. Last year those totals would make him our leading scorer as Zucc led with 53. I don't know if he keeps it up but the likelihood is that if our power play continues to produce pretty much as it is he will at least come close to those numbers at least barring major injury. 11 of his 14 points are power play......and I don't know if I'd call the Rangers power play lethal but it's been pretty good and Pionk's turned into its quarterback. He's the main guy making the plays from up top anyway. He's got a shot that keeps goalies honest too.
Anyway if he even comes close to those numbers that's f***ing huge for a 23 year old defenseman and playing tons of even strength and penalty killing minutes besides.
Anyway if he even comes close to those numbers that's f***ing huge for a 23 year old defenseman and playing tons of even strength and penalty killing minutes besides.
LeetchisGod
This is a bad hockey team.
Obviously Pionk is far from a finished product, but it's been awhile since we've had a young defenseman contribute like this offensively. I'm willing to deal with his growing pains.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
This is the guy we thought he could be when we signed him.
He’s been as advertised.
Does he play too much ? Does he have holes defensively ? Does he look over matched at times ?
Yes yes and yes. Still he’s been money for the most part
He’s been as advertised.
Does he play too much ? Does he have holes defensively ? Does he look over matched at times ?
Yes yes and yes. Still he’s been money for the most part
egelband
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2008
- 16,210
- 15,069
There are no stats for:
Flair for the Dramatic.
Head for the Game.
Ice-water In the Veins.
And Guts of Iron.
Flair for the Dramatic.
Head for the Game.
Ice-water In the Veins.
And Guts of Iron.
SA16 if someone ask you if +/- is great stat to compare how good players are, what is your response? Text or data?
So everyone against Pionk and for DeAngelo is saying one thing, really.
The coaching staff, with regards to D, is bad. They're overvaluing a shoddy player and undervaluing a potential stud. This is what is implied. Word it as you will, with whatever stats you want, this is what you're saying. The bottom line is that a coach will, rightfully or erroneously, play who he thinks he should play in a specific circumstance, give X time to that player vs. Y time to the other etc. That's a decision they're making. Why? We don't know. We're not on the ice practicing with them. We're not in the room. We're not analyzing video (with them) after each shift.
I actually have no hot take or heated opinion on this topic one way or another other than to say that if we're reliant on this D corps, including those two, for the future... we're not going far.
I'm having fun watching Pionk, despite his very obvious faults. I'm having fun watching DeAngelo, despite his very obvious faults. I'd like one to be our 2nd line RD and 1PP/2PP righty down the line when we're truly ready to compete but I have no idea, as of now, that either can or will be that for this growing team. I think we'll make out pretty damn well up front, barring stupid trades, and in net. Defense concerns me for at least 2 years to come. Would love to be wrong...
The coaching staff, with regards to D, is bad. They're overvaluing a shoddy player and undervaluing a potential stud. This is what is implied. Word it as you will, with whatever stats you want, this is what you're saying. The bottom line is that a coach will, rightfully or erroneously, play who he thinks he should play in a specific circumstance, give X time to that player vs. Y time to the other etc. That's a decision they're making. Why? We don't know. We're not on the ice practicing with them. We're not in the room. We're not analyzing video (with them) after each shift.
I actually have no hot take or heated opinion on this topic one way or another other than to say that if we're reliant on this D corps, including those two, for the future... we're not going far.
I'm having fun watching Pionk, despite his very obvious faults. I'm having fun watching DeAngelo, despite his very obvious faults. I'd like one to be our 2nd line RD and 1PP/2PP righty down the line when we're truly ready to compete but I have no idea, as of now, that either can or will be that for this growing team. I think we'll make out pretty damn well up front, barring stupid trades, and in net. Defense concerns me for at least 2 years to come. Would love to be wrong...
If you even remotely can cast any doubt into my text reply I might take the time to provide some numbers.
But so far you haven’t. All you have done is make false accusations that I am claiming something ‘just because I say so’ which I haven’t done.
SA16, I am sorry but it’s a pretty darn obvious conclusion I am making. The only reason you don’t accept it is because you don’t want to. It would disturb your circles (Archimedes reference
).
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Look, you don't have a single role on the team. You have a role 5v5, a role on the PP and a role on the PK.
Pionk is being asked to play a difficult role 5v5, a role he can't handle really. DeAngelo is being asked to play roughly the same role and doing a lot better with it. Shattenkirk is getting an easier role and doing extremely well. I think there is a possibility that the defencemen could be deployed better 5v5, but there is also a possibility that the team would be doing worse as a whole with different deployment - DeAngelo's and/or Shattenkirk's results could worsen by a larger amount than Pionk's might improve, which would hurt the team as a whole. As it stands, the three pairings get roughly the same TOI/GP in 5v5 situations.
Pionk is playing on the top unit on the PP at the expense of Shattenkirk and DeAngelo. The good news is that he is putting up points on the powerplay at more than double the rate that Crosby has ever managed in his career. The bad news is that everything points toward this being a total fluke. Shattenkirk has a record of being the best PPQB in the NHL and DeAngelo is currently putting up the 3rd highest xGF/60 among PPQBs in the NHL despite playing on our second unit, which has been awful whenever he hasn't been on it. I get that you don't take a player putting up the points that Pionk has been doing out of the situation he is doing it in, but he should be relegated to the second unit sooner rather than later when he inevitably cools off. If our defencemen had scored points at their expected rates on the PP (assuming they get points on 65% of the goals scored, the average rate of PPQB1's), Pionk would have 4 points on 6 PP goals in his 45 minutes, Shattenkirk would have 5 points on 7 PP goals in his 52 minutes and DeAngelo would have 3 points on 4 PP goals in his 24 minutes. As it stands Pionk has 11 points on 11 goals, Shatty has 2 points on 3 goals and DeAngelo 2 points on 2 goals.
Pionk is playing on the top PK unit with Staal and they have been a disaster by every available metric and are bleeding goals against. IMO this needs to change immediately and the first move could be to simply let our 2nd PK pairing (a combo of Skjei/Smith/Claesson) take over the PK1 duties and let Staal-Pionk get an easier assignment and see how that affects things. The way things are going I think Pionk will probably need to be replaced on the PK entirely, but I'm willing to see how he does in an easier role first.
Pionk is being asked to play a difficult role 5v5, a role he can't handle really. DeAngelo is being asked to play roughly the same role and doing a lot better with it. Shattenkirk is getting an easier role and doing extremely well. I think there is a possibility that the defencemen could be deployed better 5v5, but there is also a possibility that the team would be doing worse as a whole with different deployment - DeAngelo's and/or Shattenkirk's results could worsen by a larger amount than Pionk's might improve, which would hurt the team as a whole. As it stands, the three pairings get roughly the same TOI/GP in 5v5 situations.
Pionk is playing on the top unit on the PP at the expense of Shattenkirk and DeAngelo. The good news is that he is putting up points on the powerplay at more than double the rate that Crosby has ever managed in his career. The bad news is that everything points toward this being a total fluke. Shattenkirk has a record of being the best PPQB in the NHL and DeAngelo is currently putting up the 3rd highest xGF/60 among PPQBs in the NHL despite playing on our second unit, which has been awful whenever he hasn't been on it. I get that you don't take a player putting up the points that Pionk has been doing out of the situation he is doing it in, but he should be relegated to the second unit sooner rather than later when he inevitably cools off. If our defencemen had scored points at their expected rates on the PP (assuming they get points on 65% of the goals scored, the average rate of PPQB1's), Pionk would have 4 points on 6 PP goals in his 45 minutes, Shattenkirk would have 5 points on 7 PP goals in his 52 minutes and DeAngelo would have 3 points on 4 PP goals in his 24 minutes. As it stands Pionk has 11 points on 11 goals, Shatty has 2 points on 3 goals and DeAngelo 2 points on 2 goals.
Pionk is playing on the top PK unit with Staal and they have been a disaster by every available metric and are bleeding goals against. IMO this needs to change immediately and the first move could be to simply let our 2nd PK pairing (a combo of Skjei/Smith/Claesson) take over the PK1 duties and let Staal-Pionk get an easier assignment and see how that affects things. The way things are going I think Pionk will probably need to be replaced on the PK entirely, but I'm willing to see how he does in an easier role first.
Blue Blood and Stasi- Actually I don't agree with those summery attempts.
They are based relative numbers that are faulty since the usage have been attached to Pionk and not his partners. In simple English, Pionk's D partners get easier usage when not paired with him and harder minutes when paired with him. Hence you are comparing different things when you compare a D's performance next to Pionk with the same D's performance away from him.
We also have a few very obvious with and without samples. Pionk has not played all games this season. When he was scratched and McQuaid played in his position McQuaid's CF% was 30% and 33%. You don't think Quinn knows exactly what he would get if he put Shatty and Staal out there against the top units on the other team?
In addition we have for years had Ds getting the sweat spot minutes putting up tremendous relative numbers. From Diaz to Clendenning to Yandle to Skjei-Smith and so forth and so forth. And every single time these same Ds get tougher minutes an odd game here or there you go and check how they are doing their relative numbers sky dives completely. Supposedly the numbers are supposed to account for this -- but they don't even remotely do that. And anyone that can't see that are again blatantly disregarding obvious numbers.
Looking at the numbers, who would have done a better job: Pionk or Clendenning if we could transport how he played back a few years for us forward in time? Its AC and its not even close. Diaz? Its same and its not even close. Smith from the Skjei-Smith pairing getting 3rd pairing minutes? Its Smith and its not even close.
The numbers show that Pionk's usage obviously isn't optimal but the value put into them is waaay overblown.
They are based relative numbers that are faulty since the usage have been attached to Pionk and not his partners. In simple English, Pionk's D partners get easier usage when not paired with him and harder minutes when paired with him. Hence you are comparing different things when you compare a D's performance next to Pionk with the same D's performance away from him.
We also have a few very obvious with and without samples. Pionk has not played all games this season. When he was scratched and McQuaid played in his position McQuaid's CF% was 30% and 33%. You don't think Quinn knows exactly what he would get if he put Shatty and Staal out there against the top units on the other team?
In addition we have for years had Ds getting the sweat spot minutes putting up tremendous relative numbers. From Diaz to Clendenning to Yandle to Skjei-Smith and so forth and so forth. And every single time these same Ds get tougher minutes an odd game here or there you go and check how they are doing their relative numbers sky dives completely. Supposedly the numbers are supposed to account for this -- but they don't even remotely do that. And anyone that can't see that are again blatantly disregarding obvious numbers.
Looking at the numbers, who would have done a better job: Pionk or Clendenning if we could transport how he played back a few years for us forward in time? Its AC and its not even close. Diaz? Its same and its not even close. Smith from the Skjei-Smith pairing getting 3rd pairing minutes? Its Smith and its not even close.
The numbers show that Pionk's usage obviously isn't optimal but the value put into them is waaay overblown.
As a matter of fact, if we are looking at the numbers like some are, we have for the last 10 years not had ONE DEFENSEMEN on this team that would have done a worse job than Pionk in the role he is getting. Not one. He is the worst D for this role we have had the last 10 years. Everyone else to dress up in red, white and blue would have done a better job for us and we as a team would have done better.
Ask yourself -- is that correct? Is Pionk the worst D by far we have had the last 10 years and would everyone else be an upgrade?
But Ola, Quinn does not have any alternatives!? Of course he does. Brandon Smith can play on the right side. Claesson can play on the right side. John Gilmour can play on the right side. Its not like someone is putting a gun to Quinn's head forcing him to play Pionk 25-30 minutes a night...
Lets just call a spade a spade -- the numbers and how they are used in relation to Pionk is pure and utter crap. And its extremely obvious.
Ask yourself -- is that correct? Is Pionk the worst D by far we have had the last 10 years and would everyone else be an upgrade?
But Ola, Quinn does not have any alternatives!? Of course he does. Brandon Smith can play on the right side. Claesson can play on the right side. John Gilmour can play on the right side. Its not like someone is putting a gun to Quinn's head forcing him to play Pionk 25-30 minutes a night...
Lets just call a spade a spade -- the numbers and how they are used in relation to Pionk is pure and utter crap. And its extremely obvious.
Ola, stop being so damn arrogant when you make your arguments. Not going to argue against you because it's just not worth it, just drop the arrogance.
I would be less arrogant if anyone even remotely could back up their claims. But you can't. If you don't want arrogant responses, don't post boneheaded claims that you can't back up.
His play is not at all record level bad or inarguable awful, despite the coach using him more than any other D. Multiple NHL coaches that is. I am not the one claiming that and then day in and day out pointing at CF% rel. ONLY and then being unable to even start to respond to obvious flaws in the stats.
But Ola, you haven't backed up any of your claims with anything that isn't subjective, vague or blind appealing to authority.
Give us something objective to back up your claims in this thread.
Pionk is playing most of his minutes with Zibanejad on the ice with him, if his matchups are indeed tough (i haven't looked it up) then playing with our best center sure would counteract that, give us numbers on this?
Give us something objective to back up your claims in this thread.
Pionk is playing most of his minutes with Zibanejad on the ice with him, if his matchups are indeed tough (i haven't looked it up) then playing with our best center sure would counteract that, give us numbers on this?
eco's bones
Registered User
FWIW it reads more like exasperation than arrogance to me.....but then I happen to agree with most of what he's saying. A lot of these stats need more qualifying. Any case here we are on a 9-1-1 run and people are bitching about how bad Pionk is and he's a main reason we're on the run......and the coaching staff---their decision making anyway seems to be another key component. All this second guessing--the old adage 'don't fix what isn't broken'. Right now the team is doing fine and Quinn etc. haven't hesitated to shuffle players around when they're not happy with something.
I have to say I like all of Pionk, DeAngelo and Shattenkirk when they're playing point on the power play but so far Pionk has been the best. He moves the puck to left or right quickly and with accuracy and he sees and reacts to the options instinctively. That makes him a very good quarterback option on a power play--he's not all that far away from Gostisbehere in that regard IMO. He has a very good shot--better than DeAngelo's and maybe even better than Shattenkirk's. But really they all can do that job pretty well.
Mike in Houston
Registered User
Yeah, exactly.
And when it comes to PP usage -- put a lie detector on me and it would be hard to state anything else than that I think the motive for Quinn playing Pionk there is Quinn wanting an alibi for claims that he is anti-kids. Also, I think Shatty/TDA contributes more to the 2nd unit. The job description for our PPQB on the top unit is more about to just refer the puck to Ziba and take the odd slapper. On the 2nd PP unit there is more work to do for the PPQB. And I am also the first to admit that Pionk's production right now is (i) totally unsustainable and (ii) totally dependent on usage. Still think he is doing a good job, you don't just get those pts by putting the skates on the ice.
On the topic that usage does not matter at all: Let me illustrate one -- of MANY -- problems with the way the measuring of QoC is done.
Against Dallas Pionk played about 72% of his 5 on 5 ice time against Seguin, Rads and Benn. This is the shift chart from that game:
As you can see on 24 occasions there is an overlap at either the very start or the very end of a shift (remember this because it will be relevant at the end). So of the ice time Seguin, Radulov and Benn has against other Rangers than Pionk, a significant part of those 2-3 minutes is the very first seconds of a shift or the very last seconds of a shift. Everyone can see that right?
If shots were evenly distributed during a shift this would not impact the numbers. I.e. if as many shots was taken by a line on average like the 1st second after a shift started, the 3rd second after the shift started, the 5th second after a shift started, the 7th second after a shift started and so forth. So is this the case?
To me its not a surprise that this is not the case. This is how the shots are distributed in relationship to the time passed since the shift started.
As you can see there is of course a dramatic increase in shots taken the first 8-10 seconds of a shift. It starts at zero for like sec 1-2 before reaching full capacity 8-10 sec in. The biggest difference for shots against is of course the first seconds after a FO, and that isn't relevant as far as I can judge since you get the match up you want from the time the puck is dropped after a FO. But there is also a dramatic increase in shots against after an on the fly shift during the first 8-10 seconds. In addition we can see how S/60 levels off the longer into the shift you get. There is also of course a drastic decrease in shots the last seconds of a shift that does not end with a FO.
So what we can see is that there is a Golden Age of a shift for an offensive player. It starts about 5 seconds in and peaks at about 40-50 seconds.
So when do you want to play against a top player to get top CF%?
1. Early on a shift.
2. Late on a shift.
3. Absolutely not the first 5 seconds of a shift after a FO in your own end.
So lets apply this to the actual shift chart above: It is obvious that Pionk faces a larger portion of Seguin, Benn and Radulov's Golden Age of a shift, ie there most productive time of a shift, and that other players on our team instead faces a much larger portion of the most ineffective time of Seguin, Benn and Radulov's shift.
In addition:
1. The above is -- of course -- true. I support it with data, but that is of course unnecessary because anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is the case. Its extremely logical. Is anyone really surprised? Didn't think so.
2. Why is so many "experts" on this topic completely unaware of the above? Well they can answer for themselves (OK we know that they are world champions of putting their heads in the sand and that we won get a reply, but still...), but one HUGE reason that is very obvious when you read articles, follow ppl on twitter and what not is that NOBODY IS LOOKING. Everyone active with metrics in public channels is looking to confirm how reliable the numbers are, nobody -- that at least haven't come up with a solution for a flaw -- is looking for them.
3. This is just one of many many many flaws in the numbers. Another very big factor that I am 110% sure of that I can prove is the existence of real Poison Pill-shifts. You get 15-20 CAs against during a game. It is very common during a game that there are a number of shifts that are very predictable that they will mean a lot of CAs against during that single shift. The most obvious example is of course when you are up by a goal with 50 seconds left and a FO in your own end. The stats those last 50 seconds in that situation is extreme. But there are other shifts too that most certainly breaks the pattern. You want to bet that the D the coach trusts the most get the by far biggest burden of those shifts too? We are probably talking 90% of that ice time. If you ever coached, how easy isn't it to recognize the feeling of "this is going to be a tough shift against?" And you basically never spend a ton of time in the attacking zone those shifts... And there are many factors like that.
Against Dallas Pionk played about 72% of his 5 on 5 ice time against Seguin, Rads and Benn. This is the shift chart from that game:
As you can see on 24 occasions there is an overlap at either the very start or the very end of a shift (remember this because it will be relevant at the end). So of the ice time Seguin, Radulov and Benn has against other Rangers than Pionk, a significant part of those 2-3 minutes is the very first seconds of a shift or the very last seconds of a shift. Everyone can see that right?
If shots were evenly distributed during a shift this would not impact the numbers. I.e. if as many shots was taken by a line on average like the 1st second after a shift started, the 3rd second after the shift started, the 5th second after a shift started, the 7th second after a shift started and so forth. So is this the case?
To me its not a surprise that this is not the case. This is how the shots are distributed in relationship to the time passed since the shift started.
As you can see there is of course a dramatic increase in shots taken the first 8-10 seconds of a shift. It starts at zero for like sec 1-2 before reaching full capacity 8-10 sec in. The biggest difference for shots against is of course the first seconds after a FO, and that isn't relevant as far as I can judge since you get the match up you want from the time the puck is dropped after a FO. But there is also a dramatic increase in shots against after an on the fly shift during the first 8-10 seconds. In addition we can see how S/60 levels off the longer into the shift you get. There is also of course a drastic decrease in shots the last seconds of a shift that does not end with a FO.
So what we can see is that there is a Golden Age of a shift for an offensive player. It starts about 5 seconds in and peaks at about 40-50 seconds.
So when do you want to play against a top player to get top CF%?
1. Early on a shift.
2. Late on a shift.
3. Absolutely not the first 5 seconds of a shift after a FO in your own end.
So lets apply this to the actual shift chart above: It is obvious that Pionk faces a larger portion of Seguin, Benn and Radulov's Golden Age of a shift, ie there most productive time of a shift, and that other players on our team instead faces a much larger portion of the most ineffective time of Seguin, Benn and Radulov's shift.
In addition:
1. The above is -- of course -- true. I support it with data, but that is of course unnecessary because anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is the case. Its extremely logical. Is anyone really surprised? Didn't think so.
2. Why is so many "experts" on this topic completely unaware of the above? Well they can answer for themselves (OK we know that they are world champions of putting their heads in the sand and that we won get a reply, but still...), but one HUGE reason that is very obvious when you read articles, follow ppl on twitter and what not is that NOBODY IS LOOKING. Everyone active with metrics in public channels is looking to confirm how reliable the numbers are, nobody -- that at least haven't come up with a solution for a flaw -- is looking for them.
3. This is just one of many many many flaws in the numbers. Another very big factor that I am 110% sure of that I can prove is the existence of real Poison Pill-shifts. You get 15-20 CAs against during a game. It is very common during a game that there are a number of shifts that are very predictable that they will mean a lot of CAs against during that single shift. The most obvious example is of course when you are up by a goal with 50 seconds left and a FO in your own end. The stats those last 50 seconds in that situation is extreme. But there are other shifts too that most certainly breaks the pattern. You want to bet that the D the coach trusts the most get the by far biggest burden of those shifts too? We are probably talking 90% of that ice time. If you ever coached, how easy isn't it to recognize the feeling of "this is going to be a tough shift against?" And you basically never spend a ton of time in the attacking zone those shifts... And there are many factors like that.
Last edited:
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Thanks!
BTW, when a goalie is pulled it’s still seen as even strength 5 on 5 hockey, it would make more sense if it was labeled as 6 on 6.
But anyway — no it would still count as 5 on 5 even if a team pulled its goalie. At least as long as nothing has changed the last years.
BTW II, lol realize the picture I posted wasn’t very smartphone friendly. Thought it looked good on the PC...
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
Thanks!
BTW, when a goalie is pulled it’s still seen as even strength 5 on 5 hockey, it would make more sense if it was labeled as 6 on 6.
But anyway — no it would still count as 5 on 5 even if a team pulled its goalie. At least as long as nothing has changed the last years.
BTW II, lol realize the picture I posted wasn’t very smartphone friendly. Thought it looked good on the PC...
6-on-5
FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
@ ola's post, didn't want to make this thread unreadable.
I mean, you can make the same argument that Pionk largely was on the ice for the "depression era" of those shifts as well, and since we're concerned with rates and not raw totals, it would equal out in the end. While the data is certainly interesting, I do not think it holds up well for any sort of meaningful sample size. It would be viable if Quinn only played Pionk against top competition during the "golden era" of their shifts. Also, you would have to account for the "golden era" of our best forwards shifts, and Pionk does have a relatively large CF.QOT.
Obviously, QOC, QOT, zone starts, etc significantly impact a players CF% and XGF% during a single given shift. However,as sample size increases, there is less variability. Would I expect a negative impact on Pionk's advanced stats given his usage? Yes. However, if he was playing well, I would certainly not expect analytics that make my eyes burn. The idea that you should be dominated when you're playing against relatively good competition, especially when you play with relatively good teammates, is just incorrect.
I mean, you can make the same argument that Pionk largely was on the ice for the "depression era" of those shifts as well, and since we're concerned with rates and not raw totals, it would equal out in the end. While the data is certainly interesting, I do not think it holds up well for any sort of meaningful sample size. It would be viable if Quinn only played Pionk against top competition during the "golden era" of their shifts. Also, you would have to account for the "golden era" of our best forwards shifts, and Pionk does have a relatively large CF.QOT.
Obviously, QOC, QOT, zone starts, etc significantly impact a players CF% and XGF% during a single given shift. However,as sample size increases, there is less variability. Would I expect a negative impact on Pionk's advanced stats given his usage? Yes. However, if he was playing well, I would certainly not expect analytics that make my eyes burn. The idea that you should be dominated when you're playing against relatively good competition, especially when you play with relatively good teammates, is just incorrect.
Jaromir Jagr
Registered User
Nice interview with Pionk in the post today. Seems like a really good kid. Incredibly hardworking. There's a lot of things I like in his game and a lot that I don't like, but I'm rooting for him.
Also, Tony D is much better than him, I don't really see how anyone could think otherwise. The only real difference is that Quinn, for whatever reason, is obsessed with Pionk and less so with Tony D.
Also, Tony D is much better than him, I don't really see how anyone could think otherwise. The only real difference is that Quinn, for whatever reason, is obsessed with Pionk and less so with Tony D.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 11Staked: $20,983.00Event closes - 6 days from now- Updated: