Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[Zuluss]

No, swap Kane's 18 games against the Central for 18 against the Southeast. With a 28% higher scoring rate, he's going to gain about 5 points, or at least that's what we'd statistically expect. Ovechkin loses 5 going the other way.

Nah, it does not work this way. If Kane gets to play Southeast a lot, Ovechkin needs to play Northwest a lot, and Calgary and Colorado were as much of a feast as Tampa and Carolina that season. Western teams (less Chicago) had 2.69 GA in 2012/13, Eastern teams (less Caps) had 2.80 GA, a whopping 4% difference. So even if we take 4% from Ovechkin's numbers and give 4% to Kane, Ovechkin goes to 31 goals and 54 points, Kane to 24 goals and 57 points, MSL to 16 goals and 58 points, Toews to 24 goals and 50 points. Still no cigar, I am afraid. (And now we have the interesting question of "what would Ovechkin do on a high-octane offense, President-trophy and Cup-winning team?")

This was a 200 game stretch of Ovechkin being generally not up to snuff, with one good 20 game burst in the middle. It was only under the most unusual of circumstances that those 20 games managed to produce a Hart Trophy.

In the calendar year of 2013, Ovechkin had 62 goals and 97 points in 86 games. He was 4th in points (10% ahead of #10) and absolutely destroyed the goal-scoring field (#2 was Kane with 46 in 89, #10 was Corey Perry with 37, 68% difference). Transplant those leads in the last full season, 2018/19 - you would have a 69-goal, 106-point player. As I said, maybe Kucherov would have held on to his Hart, but Ovechkin would have been very close 2nd.
So it was not a 20-game burst, it was more of 60-game burst when Ovechkin was scoring goals at historically good levels; the talk whether he will get 50 goals in 50 consecutive games was going on for the whole first half of 2013/14, and I think he got to 49 in 50 at one point.

Trying to defend his 2014 season is a tough road to hoe. -35 on a 90-point team is unheard of. Shifting the blame to line mates doesn't pass the smell test considering his even strength GF/GA ratio is the worst of anyone on his team. The PP scoring bagged him another Rocket, but he was one of the worst first line players in the league at even strength.

If you have a ppg, 50-goal winger in the scoring environment, in which ppg for the full season is surely a top10 finish and potentially a top5 finish in points and no one is able to repeat a 40-goal season, and the said winger has a massive +/-, it is definitely the issue of how you deploy one of the best offensive tools in the league. You cannot expect a winger to be so much good defensively that he will single-handedly erase 35 goals differential, with his line playing the way it was playing; nor you want to turn one of the best offensive players in the league to spend too much effort on turning into a two-way forward.

Ovechkin's +/- in 2013/2014 was driven by a combination of several things: Caps were top5 in shorties against, even though they had the best PP in the league (this is how their PP is set up to this very day, btw). In 2013/14, they had 16 PPG more than the average team in the league, so the risk paid off, but Ovechkin's +/- suffered. Ovechkin was always deployed with the empty net behind him. Caps in 2013/14 were not too good at ES: they were 24th in the league in GF at 5v5 (Ovechkin had 20% of his team's 5v5 goals, compared to 19% in 2014/15 and 18% in 2009/2010).

In fact, in 2013/14 Ovechkin was 5th in the league in ESG and he added just 1 ESG in 2014/15 - what changed was his ES assists, which almost doubled. Ovechkin's line stopped trying to force a pass to Ovechkin at ES - and lo and behold, Ovechkin's on ice shooting % went from 6.8 to 9.3 in 2014/15, and his on-ice SV% also improved from 89.7 to 91.1 (in 2012/13, Ovechkin's on ice shooting % stood at 10.8 and on-ice SV% at 91.5).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Nah, it does not work this way. If Kane gets to play Southeast a lot, Ovechkin needs to play Northwest a lot, and Calgary and Colorado were as much of a feast as Tampa and Carolina that season. Western teams (less Chicago) had 2.69 GA in 2012/13, Eastern teams (less Caps) had 2.80 GA, a whopping 4% difference. So even if we take 4% from Ovechkin's numbers and give 4% to Kane, Ovechkin goes to 31 goals and 54 points, Kane to 24 goals and 57 points, MSL to 16 goals and 58 points, Toews to 24 goals and 50 points. Still no cigar, I am afraid. (And now we have the interesting question of "what would Ovechkin do on a high-octane offense, President-trophy and Cup-winning team?")



In the calendar year of 2013, Ovechkin had 62 goals and 97 points in 86 games. He was 4th in points (10% ahead of #10) and absolutely destroyed the goal-scoring field (#2 was Kane with 46 in 89, #10 was Corey Perry with 37, 68% difference). Transplant those leads in the last full season, 2018/19 - you would have a 69-goal, 106-point player. As I said, maybe Kucherov would have held on to his Hart, but Ovechkin would have been very close 2nd.
So it was not a 20-game burst, it was more of 60-game burst when Ovechkin was scoring goals at historically good levels; the talk whether he will get 50 goals in 50 consecutive games was going on for the whole first half of 2013/14, and I think he got to 49 in 50 at one point.



If you have a ppg, 50-goal winger in the scoring environment, in which ppg for the full season is surely a top10 finish and potentially a top5 finish in points and no one is able to repeat a 40-goal season, and the said winger has a massive +/-, it is definitely the issue of how you deploy one of the best offensive tools in the league. You cannot expect a winger to be so much good defensively that he will single-handedly erase 35 goals differential, with his line playing the way it was playing; nor you want to turn one of the best offensive players in the league to spend too much effort on turning into a two-way forward.

Ovechkin's +/- in 2013/2014 was driven by a combination of several things: Caps were top5 in shorties against, even though they had the best PP in the league (this is how their PP is set up to this very day, btw). In 2013/14, they had 16 PPG more than the average team in the league, so the risk paid off, but Ovechkin's +/- suffered. Ovechkin was always deployed with the empty net behind him. Caps in 2013/14 were not too good at ES: they were 24th in the league in GF at 5v5 (Ovechkin had 20% of his team's 5v5 goals, compared to 19% in 2014/15 and 18% in 2009/2010).

In fact, in 2013/14 Ovechkin was 5th in the league in ESG and he added just 1 ESG in 2014/15 - what changed was his ES assists, which almost doubled. Ovechkin's line stopped trying to force a pass to Ovechkin at ES - and lo and behold, Ovechkin's on ice shooting % went from 6.8 to 9.3 in 2014/15, and his on-ice SV% also improved from 89.7 to 91.1 (in 2012/13, Ovechkin's on ice shooting % stood at 10.8 and on-ice SV% at 91.5).

Appreciate the talk, you raise some fair points. You're definitely giving Ovechkin more individual credit for goals and less blame for shoddy defensive play than I myself do, but I think we've both reached our conclusions at this point.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Still not as good as Guy Lafleur, who was a money player throughout his entire prime. At this point I doubt he ever passes him.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Still not as good as Guy Lafleur, who was a money player throughout his entire prime. At this point I doubt he ever passes him.

Lafleur won 3 scoring titles in a row AND 3 playoff scoring titles in a row. One Conn Smythe. 2 Harts, 3 Pearsons in a row. 1 retro Rocket

Over a PPG for 9 straight years, including 6 100-point seasons in a row before scoring exploded.

His playoff legacy is obviously MUCH better, but he was playing on a dynasty. RS PPG average are 1.3 vs 1.11 in favor of Lafleur. So that's a big advantage over a big sample size.

Ovechkin has longevity on him. Goal scoring too. More AS, more trophies (mostly because of goal scoring). Each have a CS.

I mean, it is kinda close (Lafleur ahead for now) and Ovechkin is not done. Another long and productive playoff run tips the scale for me. Maybe. I dunno. Tough to say.

 

[Trap Jesus]

This is nothing new, but is there an argument for this older, pure goal-scorer version of Ovechkin being the most one-dimensional player of all time? I'm not just talking a player is good offensively but bad defensively, or vice versa, but rather just being so good at one thing while providing next to nothing else.

I just went through his goals this year, looking to see how much he creates his own offense, and broke it down like this:

Creating his own opportunities (off the rush or beating a defender to get into scoring position): 10
Receiving the puck in scoring position and relying on shooting talent: 29
Tips/going into the fray in front of the net for a loose puck garbage goal: 3
Empty net goals: 6

He hits a lot when he's on the ice (47th in the league among players with 50+ games for hits/60) but he does no heavy lifting or puck retrieval, and when engaged in a puck battle gives it up very easily:

Just watching him, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a player that is so dominant in one facet while being such a non-factor in other areas of the game.

 

[Staniowski]

This is nothing new, but is there an argument for this older, pure goal-scorer version of Ovechkin being the most one-dimensional player of all time? I'm not just talking a player is good offensively but bad defensively, or vice versa, but rather just being so good at one thing while providing next to nothing else.

I just went through his goals this year, looking to see how much he creates his own offense, and broke it down like this:

Creating his own opportunities (off the rush or beating a defender to get into scoring position): 10
Receiving the puck in scoring position and relying on shooting talent: 29
Tips/going into the fray in front of the net for a loose puck garbage goal: 3
Empty net goals: 6

He hits a lot when he's on the ice (47th in the league among players with 50+ games for hits/60) but he does no heavy lifting or puck retrieval, and when engaged in a puck battle gives it up very easily:

Just watching him, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a player that is so dominant in one facet while being such a non-factor in other areas of the game.

Regarding the chart....

Are all forwards on the chart? Or are some off the grid?

Why are only a few players highlighted? Where's Crosby? Where's McDavid, etc.?

What does this say about Malkin?

 

[Trap Jesus]

Regarding the chart....

Are all forwards on the chart? Or are some off the grid?

Why are only a few players highlighted? Where's Crosby? Where's McDavid, etc.?

What does this say about Malkin?

All forwards with 500+ 5-on-5 minutes from this year, which is 336 forwards. It was from an article detailing Bergeron's defensive effectiveness, so some other defensive rep forwards were highlighted, along with some more surprising inclusions like Hughes and Malkin. Ovechkin wasn't commented on in the article, but you can see him stand out from the pack for the opposite reasons that Bergeron does. The data isn't publicly accessible (it's from a player tracking company associated with Sportsnet) but articles like this are created by some of their employees that relay portions of that data to the public.

Looking at what the players are doing individually, here is where the reputation and the eye test gets confirmed.

Every year that Sportlogiq data has been tracked, if you display these metrics out in this way, Bergeron will be in the exact same position. There is no player over the last five years — and probably more — who has so regularly been able to change an opponent’s possession into an offensive possession.

The 34-year-old perennial Selke favourite is the most aggressive defensive forward in the NHL, and he isn’t showing any signs of slowing down at the moment either. Playing against the opponent’s best every single night, Bergeron is the linchpin of the best line in the NHL over the past several seasons, and no one is particularly close to challenging him in that area.

The next group of elite defensive forwards are a bunch of known strong defensive players in Aleksander Barkov, Phillip Danault, and Mikko Koivu, alongside an extremely underrated defensive player in Evgeni Malkin.

The biggest surprise in that top group is Jack Hughes who has faced a lot of criticism this season for his lack of offensive results, but is putting up Selke-candidate levels of defensive involvement. It would be a very fair argument to say that part of what boosts Hughes’s numbers there is that the New Jersey Devils haven’t controlled the puck very often while he’s been on the ice this year — with his 46 per cent Corsi rating ranking him 306th of 336 forwards who have played 500 or more minutes at 5-vs-5 this season — but he still has to make the successful plays here.

While Hughes’s numbers may be inflated a little, there are very few players who have been so defensively involved over the last few seasons who didn’t go on to have strong defensive impacts, with a good example being Danault as a rookie.

Looking back further into the pack, down in below-league average territory we get an on-ice leader from the last graphic in Aston-Reese looking far less impressive when we take stock of what he’s done on an individual level.
That’s significant. While the events that happen during a player’s time on the ice matter, there are nine other skaters out there as well, and an individual can make strong defensive plays and still be undone by a teammate missing assignments, or playing against high-level competition.

Source: Why Bruins' Patrice Bergeron still holds title of best defensive forward - Sportsnet.ca

 

[Hobnobs]

Lafleur won 3 scoring titles in a row AND 3 playoff scoring titles in a row. One Conn Smythe. 2 Harts, 3 Pearsons in a row. 1 retro Rocket

Over a PPG for 9 straight years, including 6 100-point seasons in a row before scoring exploded.

His playoff legacy is obviously MUCH better, but he was playing on a dynasty. RS PPG average are 1.3 vs 1.11 in favor of Lafleur. So that's a big advantage over a big sample size.

Ovechkin has longevity on him. Goal scoring too. More AS, more trophies (mostly because of goal scoring). Each have a CS.

I mean, it is kinda close (Lafleur ahead for now) and Ovechkin is not done. Another long and productive playoff run tips the scale for me. Maybe. I dunno. Tough to say.

He wasn't only on a dynasty. He was on a dynasty during the most lopsided and worst era in NHL history. Playing in the same division as the dead wings, and expansion Penguins, Capitals and Kings...

 

[filinski77]

Lafleur won 3 scoring titles in a row AND 3 playoff scoring titles in a row. One Conn Smythe. 2 Harts, 3 Pearsons in a row. 1 retro Rocket

Over a PPG for 9 straight years, including 6 100-point seasons in a row before scoring exploded.

His playoff legacy is obviously MUCH better, but he was playing on a dynasty. RS PPG average are 1.3 vs 1.11 in favor of Lafleur. So that's a big advantage over a big sample size.

Ovechkin has longevity on him. Goal scoring too. More AS, more trophies (mostly because of goal scoring). Each have a CS.

I mean, it is kinda close (Lafleur ahead for now) and Ovechkin is not done. Another long and productive playoff run tips the scale for me. Maybe. I dunno. Tough to say.

I just don't see how Lafleur could be ahead of Ovechkin at this point.

	Ovechkin	Lafleur
Harts	3	2
Top-10 Hart	9	6
Pearsons	3	3
Ross	1	3
P/GP Leads	3	3
Top 10 Points	8	6
Rockets	9	1
Top 10 Goals	13	6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The only thing Lafleur has on Ovechkin was the fact that he won the extra 2 Ross's (They both had 3 points/gp leads, which reduces this margin to quite slim of an advantage for Lafleur). But other than this, Ovechkin's RS blows him out of the water, and it's not really that close in my opinion.

I don't know where you got the 1.3 point/gp for Lafleur, cause I'm seeing 1.2 (I apologize if it was just a typo on your part, not trying to bash that). It's also worth noting that Lafleur played in a significantly higher scoring era too (about 23% higher):

	RS P/GP	RS G/GP		PO P/GP	PO G/GP
Ovi - unadjusted	1.11	0.61		0.98	0.51
Ovi - adjusted	1.37	0.76		1.21	0.63
Lafleur	1.20	0.50		1.05	0.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The adjusted column just puts Ovi's average career stats to = the average scoring environment Lafleur played in. Realistically, even without adjusting Ovi's playoff numbers, he was just as productive in the playoffs as Lafleur was. The only difference is his teams didn't win as many cups.

 

[psycat]

This is nothing new, but is there an argument for this older, pure goal-scorer version of Ovechkin being the most one-dimensional player of all time? I'm not just talking a player is good offensively but bad defensively, or vice versa, but rather just being so good at one thing while providing next to nothing else.

I just went through his goals this year, looking to see how much he creates his own offense, and broke it down like this:

Creating his own opportunities (off the rush or beating a defender to get into scoring position): 10
Receiving the puck in scoring position and relying on shooting talent: 29
Tips/going into the fray in front of the net for a loose puck garbage goal: 3
Empty net goals: 6

He hits a lot when he's on the ice (47th in the league among players with 50+ games for hits/60) but he does no heavy lifting or puck retrieval, and when engaged in a puck battle gives it up very easily:

Just watching him, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a player that is so dominant in one facet while being such a non-factor in other areas of the game.

Maybe mid 30s Gretzky?

 

[Vilica]

The numbers for Lafleur and Ovechkin get a bit starker when you use team goal scoring instead of league goal scoring.

For Lafleur, I have him scoring 1241 points in 942 games from 71/72 to 83/84, his full Montreal seasons, that's 1.31 PPG.
For Ovechkin, I have him scoring 1211 points in 1084 games from 05/06 to 18/19, not including this year, that's 1.11 PPG

Those Montreal teams over that time period scored 4379 goals in 1034 games, or 4.235 per game [highest of any t100 forward that I know*].
Those Washington teams over that time period scored 3367 goals in 1114 games, or 3.022 per game.

So Lafleur's teams averaged ~40% more goals for over his career, and yet his PPG is only about ~18% better than Ovechkin's.

[* beyond Lafleur at 4.235, I have Bossy at 4.154, Gretzky at 4.110, Esposito at 3.841, Lemieux at 3.724 on the high-scoring end, while Crosby at 3.087, Jagr at 3.144, and Thornton at 2.793 are some contemporaries.]

 

[wetcoast]

This is nothing new, but is there an argument for this older, pure goal-scorer version of Ovechkin being the most one-dimensional player of all time? I'm not just talking a player is good offensively but bad defensively, or vice versa, but rather just being so good at one thing while providing next to nothing else.

I just went through his goals this year, looking to see how much he creates his own offense, and broke it down like this:

Creating his own opportunities (off the rush or beating a defender to get into scoring position): 10
Receiving the puck in scoring position and relying on shooting talent: 29
Tips/going into the fray in front of the net for a loose puck garbage goal: 3
Empty net goals: 6

He hits a lot when he's on the ice (47th in the league among players with 50+ games for hits/60) but he does no heavy lifting or puck retrieval, and when engaged in a puck battle gives it up very easily:

Just watching him, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a player that is so dominant in one facet while being such a non-factor in other areas of the game.

While I agree with this it's also outside of his peak and the guy is freaking 34 years old, what was Lafleur doing at age 34 or 33,32,31........ in the freaking 80's?

 

[psycat]

Nope still view him as arguably, but probably, the greatest goalscorer of all time and most important player of the last twenty or so years.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I just don't see how Lafleur could be ahead of Ovechkin at this point.

	Ovechkin	Lafleur
Harts	3	2
Top-10 Hart	9	6
Pearsons	3	3
Ross	1	3
P/GP Leads	3	3
Top 10 Points	8	6
Rockets	9	1
Top 10 Goals	13	6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The only thing Lafleur has on Ovechkin was the fact that he won the extra 2 Ross's (They both had 3 points/gp leads, which reduces this margin to quite slim of an advantage for Lafleur). But other than this, Ovechkin's RS blows him out of the water, and it's not really that close in my opinion.

I don't know where you got the 1.3 point/gp for Lafleur, cause I'm seeing 1.2 (I apologize if it was just a typo on your part, not trying to bash that). It's also worth noting that Lafleur played in a significantly higher scoring era too (about 23% higher):

	RS P/GP	RS G/GP		PO P/GP	PO G/GP
Ovi - unadjusted	1.11	0.61		0.98	0.51
Ovi - adjusted	1.37	0.76		1.21	0.63
Lafleur	1.20	0.50		1.05	0.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The adjusted column just puts Ovi's average career stats to = the average scoring environment Lafleur played in. Realistically, even without adjusting Ovi's playoff numbers, he was just as productive in the playoffs as Lafleur was. The only difference is his teams didn't win as many cups.

1.29 (1.3) is his run with the Habs. I divided the wrong line. My mistake indeed.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Don't forget: Jagr had THREE lockouts (two -- in his prime) and played three prime years in the KHL. So you can safely add 5 top end finishes to his projected resume.

I'm not saying what Howe did was not unique and awesome. It is both unique and awesome. But not completely unrealistic to repeat or at least come close to repeating.

I don't know exactly what you mean by top end finishes, but:

1995 - Won the Ross
2005- This would likely have been a very high finish, given his play in KHL & at World Championships.
2009-2011 & 2013: No longer a threat for the top 10

It hurt his total stats significantly, but really 2005 was the only season lockouts or playing in KHL hurt his peak/prime.

So I just checked - Jagr actually only has 8 top 5 point finishes.

Crosby is actually the better comparable. He has 9 top 5 point finishes....and that's without 2011, 2012 or 2008. Now it's fine if you want to be devil's advocate and say "no guarantee he wins the ross with no injuries in those years (not 2008)" - but I don't think anyone would dispute he certainly would finish top 5 scoring minimum. The only season where he misses the mark is his rookie year (6th, 1 point off 5th), and 2018 (10th). And then - this past season....where for the first time his pace is really low, but of course injuries and now pandemic played a role. He's also only 32, so could have a few of those left in him.

The lockouts don't really hurt Jagr here...by 2013 he wasn't going to be top 5 in points. in 1995 he already was (tied for first). Which leaves 2004....considering how good he was the following year, of course he had the talent to do top 5 here. But the lockout actually probably helped him get rejuvenated. Still - at most, you'd be looking at 9.

Yes, your points about top 5 finishes are correct. It should be noted about 2004-05 though, that Jagr played in Czech league, KHL, and at World Championships, and played extremely well in each. He may have been rejuvenated by the trade and no NHL season, but it wasn't like he took the year off.

OTOH, don't really agree with your points about Crosby. You yourself admit Jagr could have had 9 top 5 finishes if not for 2004-05 lockout, and he also had a 6th place finish in '97 (that happened to be due to significant injury). Lockouts are outside the player's control, while injuries are at least substantially inherent to a player's constitution and ability to avoid injury.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't know exactly what you mean by top end finishes, but:

1995 - Won the Ross
2005- This would likely have been a very high finish, given his play in KHL & at World Championships.
2009-2011 & 2013: No longer a threat for the top 10

It hurt his total stats significantly, but really 2005 was the only season lockouts or playing in KHL hurt his peak/prime.



Yes, your points about top 5 finishes are correct. It should be noted about 2004-05 though, that Jagr played in Czech league, KHL, and at World Championships, and played extremely well in each. He may have been rejuvenated by the trade and no NHL season, but it wasn't like he took the year off.

OTOH, don't really agree with your points about Crosby. You yourself admit Jagr could have had 9 top 5 finishes if not for 2004-05 lockout, and he also had a 6th place finish in '97 (that happened to be due to significant injury). Lockouts are outside the player's control, while injuries are at least substantially inherent to a player's constitution and ability to avoid injury.

Agreed with you up until the last part.

Injuries, more often then not, are due to bad luck more than the constitution or any players mental make up.

Like it was Crosby's fault to get hit by an errand slapshot or something?

 

[sr edler]

Nope still view him as arguably, but probably, the greatest goalscorer of all time and most important player of the last twenty or so years.

What values do you put in the words "most important"? Like most influential?

I would argue H. Zetterberg was probably more influential than Ovechkin, as a blueprint two-way guy coming out on the other side of the lockout with Bergeron, Toews, Kopitar, Barkov type of players following the steps.

What players today are modelled after Ovechkin? Only one I can think of really is Patrik Laine and Laine hasn't been all that successful with his strict goal scoring game after his first few seasons.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Agreed with you up until the last part.

Injuries, more often then not, are due to bad luck more than the constitution of any players mental make up.

Like it was Crosby's fault to get hit by an errand slapshot or something?

In general, injuries are definitely more avoidable and more related to physical attributes of a player than missing time due to a lockout is.

 

[wetcoast]

In general, injuries are definitely more avoidable and more related to physical attributes of a player than missing time due to a lockout is.

Sure...I guess but what does that even mean when comparing lost time between players?

I'm not sure if you are implying this but the notion that avoiding injuries is a skill or proves some kind of mental makeup makeup advantage from a player that gets injured to one that doesn't is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Sure...I guess but what does that even mean when comparing lost time between players?

I'm not sure if you are implying this but the notion that avoiding injuries is a skill or proves some kind of mental makeup makeup advantage from a player that gets injured to one that doesn't is kind of ridiculous.

I think it could be either physical or mental or both. I'm not saying luck can't be involved, but that doesn't mean it necessarily is. I think some players are bigger and stronger than others and can withstand more contact. I also think some players put themselves in more situations prone to injury (initiating contact, being in front of the net, etc.) that may tend to lead to more injuries. Some players decide to play through injuries and risk injuries worsening, while others may take some time off to more fully heal.

I haven't followed the whole conversation, so I may be missing some relevant context to the comments to which I responded, but missing time from a lockout is not the same as missing time from injuries.

 

[Hobnobs]

What values do you put in the words "most important"? Like most influential?

I would argue H. Zetterberg was probably more influential than Ovechkin, as a blueprint two-way guy coming out on the other side of the lockout with Bergeron, Toews, Kopitar, Barkov type of players following the steps.

What players today are modelled after Ovechkin? Only one I can think of really is Patrik Laine and Laine hasn't been all that successful with his strict goal scoring game after his first few seasons.

This is a weird statement. How are we supposed to know how influential Ovechkin has been when a) most kids who likely influenced arent in the NHL and b) being extremely hard to model yourself after.

Also strict goalscoring game? Are we now saying that averaging .5 assists per game over a career is bad for a sniper? Man, I wish I knew how little influence Bobby and Brett Hull, Selänne, Shanahan and ofc Maurice Richard had on the game...

 

[Zuluss]

As much as I am for ranking players on their peaks and not as much on their 10th-best season, I am pretty confident that Ovechkin and Lafleur are pretty far apart now (which makes me wonder how on earth they got ranked right next to each other in the top100 player project).

Let's look at their peaks and consider % leads over #10 in points and #10 in goals ranking the seasons by the former margin:

Lafleur, 6 best % leads over #10 in points
52-51-42-33-26-25
Ovechkin, 6 best % leads over #10 in points
29-27-25-14-14-11

On the one hand, the difference is glaring - but on the other hand, so is the difference between anyone's peak from the 70ies and 80ies vs. peaks of post-lockout (and DPE) players. Let me make a small table showcasing the best 2-3 % leads over #10 in points for these two groups of players

Expansion era	best % leads	DPE and modern	best % leads
Lafleur	52-51-42	Jagr	43-39-36
Trottier	47-41	Malkin	40-28-22
Bossy	39-38	Crosby	32-27-26
Dionne	46-43-36	Ovechkin	29-27-25
Yzerman	58-25	McDavid	33-21-21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

One way to view this table is that Lafleur's points production peak was not all that far from peaks of his contemporaries, just like Ovechkin's was not. Another way to say the same thing is that peak leads from 70ies and 80ies need to be walked back to be comparable to peak leads of modern players: judging from raw leads, it seems that peak Bossy was as good at putting up points as peak Jagr and much better than peak Crosby and peak Trottier was better than peak Malkin, but such claims do not pass the smell test.

So I crunched some numbers and took the average % lead in points between #2 in points and #10 in points in 1970-1996 and in 1997-2019 (the breakpoint being the start of DPE). I chose to use #2 over #10 lead to eliminate the effect of Gretzky and Lemieux and to make sure this comparison does not compare directly the people named above against each other.

It turns out that #2 lead #10 in points by 35% in 1970-1996 and by only 21% in 1997-2019. The modern leads are indeed uniformly smaller and old-time leads of 50%+ are no longer possible in the modern game. So we do need to walk back the leads from the expansion era, by exactly 21%/35%=0.6 multiple (the difference between leads of #2 over #5 is similar and implies even more walking back: 20% vs 11% imply the multiple of 0.54).

So let's multiply Lafleur leads by 0.6 to make them modern leads:

Lafleur, 6 best % leads over #10 in points (adjusted)
31-31-25-20-16-15
Ovechkin, 6 best % leads over #10 in points
29-27-25-14-14-11

Now, this is rather close, especially given the fact that, say 31% vs. 27% difference in leads over #10 in points amounts to 3-4 points (in Ovechkin's peak years, #10 in points sat at 87, 88, 86 points). Edge Lafleur though, so let's look at goals.

I did similar analysis comparing leads of #2 in goals over #10 and #5 in goals in 1970-1996 and in 1997-2019. The difference is not as big: modern leads are 85-90% of expansion era leads. So I decided to make no adjustment and take the leads in goals over #10 the way they are

Lafleur, 6 best % leads over #10 in goals from the same respective seasons
50-56-30-6-30-33
Ovechkin, 6 best % leads over #10 in goals from the same respective seasons
63-43-44-52-30-61

So 1st-best and 3rd-best season go slightly Ovechkin's way, Lafleur has a clear advantage in the 2nd-best season, 5th-best season is a wash, 4th-best and 6th-best season are also Ovechkin: 6% vs. 52% difference in leads over #10 in goals is 18-goal differential if #10 in goals is at 40 goals (as last season, for example), which is enough to cover a 5-point difference going the other way (20% vs. 14% lead in points).

Overall, comparing the best six seasons, absolute peak is slightly in Ovechkin's favor, three-year peak is a wash, 5/6-year peak is Ovechkin.

What do we have outside of the best 6 years? In Lafleur's case, nothing: not a single top20 finish in points or goals or assists.
In Ovechkin's case, outside of the years cited (207-2010, 2005/06, 2012/13, 2014/15), we have another HOF-worthy career: 5 Rockets, 2x 1st All-star team, 3x 2nd All-star team (and 2x 3rd in All-star team voting), Hart finishes 6th, 7th, 9th, 2 top10 finishes in points (and 6 more top20 finishes in points).
And I know about Lafleur's playoff heroics, but it is only 70 games. You can't trump everything in the previous paragraph in 70 games.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

What an absolutely mind numbing thread.

OV has now cemented his legacy as the most consistent goal scoring threat in NHL history.

Once he gets to 2nd in goals, more consensus will believe he is the greatest goal scorer in history (many of us currently believe this).

If he breaks gretzky's it will be undisputed.

 

[psycat]

What values do you put in the words "most important"? Like most influential?

I would argue H. Zetterberg was probably more influential than Ovechkin, as a blueprint two-way guy coming out on the other side of the lockout with Bergeron, Toews, Kopitar, Barkov type of players following the steps.

What players today are modelled after Ovechkin? Only one I can think of really is Patrik Laine and Laine hasn't been all that successful with his strict goal scoring game after his first few seasons.

Most historically important, simply most memorable career/player. Just like with Hasek, Gretzky etc what he does simply can't be copied.

 

[Didalee Hed]

Messier was bad as an overall player in Vancouver. Put up some decent point totals for his age but his overall game, and especially his famous intensity, was left behind in a locked coffin in Manhattan.

Yeah but he could still stick his skate up in the rafters and lob lazy wristers in from the perimeter on the rush.