Ovechkin milestone thread - 850 and Beyond!

[Fantomas]

Another thing to keep in mind about the clutch metrics is that Ovechkin has done this in a much lower-scoring era than Mario/Gretzky.

 

[Video Nasty]

Another thing to keep in mind about the clutch metrics is that Ovechkin has done this in a much lower-scoring era than Mario/Gretzky.

The greats will do what they do regardless of era. Yes, there’s less goals to go around during most of Ovechkin’s career, but we have many examples of how when we’re talking about legends, it doesn’t matter how low or high league wide scoring is, they generally get theirs.

Hence why you saw Mario drop:

85 goals and 199 points in 76 games (2.62 PPG) at age 23 when the scoring environment was 7.42 GPG in 1988-1989.

69 goals and 160 points in 60 games (2.67 PPG) at age 27 with the last 20 of those games coming after chemo treatments in a scoring environment of 7.26 GPG in 1992-1993.

69 goals and 161 points in 70 games (2.30 PPG) at age 30 when the scoring environment was 6.28 GPG in 1995-1996.

35 goals and 76 points in 43 games (1.77 PPG) at age 35 when the scoring environment was 5.52 PPG in 2000-2001

20 goals and 68 points in 40 games (41 team games-the half way point; 1.70 PPG at age 37 injuries and a horrible team sunk his second half. Scoring environment was 5.30 GPG in 2002-2003.

If it were as simple as Mario only put up more goals and points because league scoring was higher and thus Ovechkin is automatically better because scoring has been generally lower, then we wouldn’t have seen Mario score at similar rates, considering later years saw scoring a full 1, 1.5, even more than 2 goals lower than his seasons where he was younger, in his prime, and in some cases, actually pretty healthy by his standards.

It’s certainly not linear at any rate. Examples like this make it so I can never take adjusted stats seriously. We’ve seen the absolute best debunk this.

Another example is Bure potted 58 in 74 games and 59 in 82 games (and 13 in 11 games before these two seasons) in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, scoring environments of 5.26 and 5.52. He was 28 and 29 years old.

If we isolate these seasons and then someone tells us that in 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the scoring environments were 7.26 and 6.48 GPG, surely 21 and 22 year old Bure would score at a much higher rate considering he was younger and in prime goal scoring years with environments a full 1 and 2 goals lower.

Surely he should have had 70-80 goals when we go back and look?

No….he had 60 in 83 games and 60 in 76 games.
Hmm…

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, but in the case of these all-time greats, era or even age sometimes doesn’t seem to matter.

 

[Fantomas]

The greats will do what they do regardless of era. Yes, there’s less goals to go around during most of Ovechkin’s career, but we have many examples of how when we’re talking about legends, it doesn’t matter how low or high league wide scoring is, they generally get theirs.

This is nonsense. Differences in league-wide scoring rates matter when assessing both skaters and goalies. Would you conclude then that every goalie in the 1980s is trash?

 

[Video Nasty]

This is nonsense. Differences in league-wide scoring rates matter when assessing both skaters and goalies. Would you conclude then that every goalie in the 1980s is trash?

Yes, it matters, as mentioned in my post.

Interesting how era didn’t seem to matter for some of the all-time greats though.

 

[Fantomas]

Interesting how era didn’t seem to matter for some of the all-time greats though.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not particularly interested in debating your very uninformed arguments. If you think that 50 goals in a high-scoring context and 50 goals in a low scoring context are the same thing you should be on everyone's ignore list.

 

[Video Nasty]

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not particularly interested in debating your very uninformed arguments. If you think that 50 goals in a high-scoring context and 50 goals in a low scoring context are the same thing you should be on everyone's ignore list.

Yes, if that’s how you processed it, best to move along.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

The greats will do what they do regardless of era. Yes, there’s less goals to go around during most of Ovechkin’s career, but we have many examples of how when we’re talking about legends, it doesn’t matter how low or high league wide scoring is, they generally get theirs.

Hence why you saw Mario drop:

85 goals and 199 points in 76 games (2.62 PPG) at age 23 when the scoring environment was 7.42 GPG in 1988-1989.

69 goals and 160 points in 60 games (2.67 PPG) at age 27 with the last 20 of those games coming after chemo treatments in a scoring environment of 7.26 GPG in 1992-1993.

69 goals and 161 points in 70 games (2.30 PPG) at age 30 when the scoring environment was 6.28 GPG in 1995-1996.

35 goals and 76 points in 43 games (1.77 PPG) at age 35 when the scoring environment was 5.52 PPG in 2000-2001

20 goals and 68 points in 40 games (41 team games-the half way point; 1.70 PPG at age 37 injuries and a horrible team sunk his second half. Scoring environment was 5.30 GPG in 2002-2003.

If it were as simple as Mario only put up more goals and points because league scoring was higher and thus Ovechkin is automatically better because scoring has been generally lower, then we wouldn’t have seen Mario score at similar rates, considering later years saw scoring a full 1, 1.5, even more than 2 goals lower than his seasons where he was younger, in his prime, and in some cases, actually pretty healthy by his standards.

It’s certainly not linear at any rate. Examples like this make it so I can never take adjusted stats seriously. We’ve seen the absolute best debunk this.

Another example is Bure potted 58 in 74 games and 59 in 82 games (and 13 in 11 games before these two seasons) in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, scoring environments of 5.26 and 5.52. He was 28 and 29 years old.

If we isolate these seasons and then someone tells us that in 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the scoring environments were 7.26 and 6.48 GPG, surely 21 and 22 year old Bure would score at a much higher rate considering he was younger and in prime goal scoring years with environments a full 1 and 2 goals lower.

Surely he should have had 70-80 goals when we go back and look?

No….he had 60 in 83 games and 60 in 76 games.
Hmm…

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, but in the case of these all-time greats, era or even age sometimes doesn’t seem to matter.

Can’t believe you researched the stats and came to this conclusion. Bure scored 110 and 107 points in those 92 and 93 seasons vs 92 and 94 points in 2000 and 2001 seasons. That’s a 15 point bump that he got from the higher scoring environment. That’s not insignificant.

 

[hockeyfan666]

goalies back then might be trash and slow..... but the players must have been at the same level.

gretzky and mario were not fast at all.
put them in todays NHL and they would not score 200 points or whatever amount of points they scored.

the players fit in their era......... or what?

 

[TaLoN]

goalies back then might be trash and slow..... but the players must have been at the same level.

gretzky and mario were not fast at all.
put them in todays NHL and they would not score 200 points or whatever amount of points they scored.

the players fit in their era......... or what?

The greats will do what they do regardless of era. Yes, there’s less goals to go around during most of Ovechkin’s career, but we have many examples of how when we’re talking about legends, it doesn’t matter how low or high league wide scoring is, they generally get theirs.

Hence why you saw Mario drop:

85 goals and 199 points in 76 games (2.62 PPG) at age 23 when the scoring environment was 7.42 GPG in 1988-1989.

69 goals and 160 points in 60 games (2.67 PPG) at age 27 with the last 20 of those games coming after chemo treatments in a scoring environment of 7.26 GPG in 1992-1993.

69 goals and 161 points in 70 games (2.30 PPG) at age 30 when the scoring environment was 6.28 GPG in 1995-1996.

35 goals and 76 points in 43 games (1.77 PPG) at age 35 when the scoring environment was 5.52 PPG in 2000-2001

20 goals and 68 points in 40 games (41 team games-the half way point; 1.70 PPG at age 37 injuries and a horrible team sunk his second half. Scoring environment was 5.30 GPG in 2002-2003.

If it were as simple as Mario only put up more goals and points because league scoring was higher and thus Ovechkin is automatically better because scoring has been generally lower, then we wouldn’t have seen Mario score at similar rates, considering later years saw scoring a full 1, 1.5, even more than 2 goals lower than his seasons where he was younger, in his prime, and in some cases, actually pretty healthy by his standards.

It’s certainly not linear at any rate. Examples like this make it so I can never take adjusted stats seriously. We’ve seen the absolute best debunk this.

Another example is Bure potted 58 in 74 games and 59 in 82 games (and 13 in 11 games before these two seasons) in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, scoring environments of 5.26 and 5.52. He was 28 and 29 years old.

If we isolate these seasons and then someone tells us that in 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the scoring environments were 7.26 and 6.48 GPG, surely 21 and 22 year old Bure would score at a much higher rate considering he was younger and in prime goal scoring years with environments a full 1 and 2 goals lower.

Surely he should have had 70-80 goals when we go back and look?

No….he had 60 in 83 games and 60 in 76 games.
Hmm…

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, but in the case of these all-time greats, era or even age sometimes doesn’t seem to matter.

Because the greats would be great in any era. Gretzky would still be the GOAT had he played today instead.

 

[User9992]

Because the greats would be great in any era. Gretzky would still be the GOAT had he played today instead.

Gretzky wouldn't have that many Points & wouldn't be #1 both in Assists & Goals.

I guess he would still be 'All-Time Assists Leader' if he played in 21'st century... but he wouldn't be an 'All-Time Goals Leader'. He would lose that title to Ovi or Matthews.

goalies back then might be trash and slow..... but the players must have been at the same level.

gretzky and mario were not fast at all.
put them in todays NHL and they would not score 200 points or whatever amount of points they scored.

the players fit in their era......... or what?

Average skill level of the league grew... especially average skill of Defensemen & Goalies.

 

[Video Nasty]

Can’t believe you researched the stats and came to this conclusion. Bure scored 110 and 107 points in those 92 and 93 seasons vs 92 and 94 points in 2000 and 2001 seasons. That’s a 15 point bump that he got from the higher scoring environment. That’s not insignificant.

I’m assuming that I didn’t make my point clear, so I’m going to break it down and that’ll be my final piece here.

1. I originally responded to fantomas fawning as usual that of course Ovechkin did this in a lower scoring era than Gretzky and Lemieux (to diminish their accomplishments)

2. I brought up my examples where Lemieux clearly demonstrated that regardless of age, health, scoring environment, goaltending equipment dimensions, and any other change, that he could score and produce at similar levels

3. Bure scored 58-60 goals in seasons with monstrously low and high scoring. What I was trying to say there is that:

People will look at what a player scores in a current lower scoring era and automatically assume that they’ll pot however many extra goals they feel like extrapolating if they look back on a prior season that had higher scoring (like anything in the 80s-early 90s).

I just tried to give some examples of the exact same player showing that it’s not this cut and dry exercise to say that because a player score 65 in a 5.5 GPG scoring environment that he would threaten 92 goals like most assume. Bure at 28 and 29 should not have been able to score 58 and 59 goals, the same rate, in a scoring environment that was 1-2 goals lower than the scoring environment where he was younger, in prime goal years, etc.

4. This is all about the greatest goal scorers ever and how they got theirs regardless. I of course understand that more goals equals more points equals more to go around equals more 100 point scorers.

I take responsibility for not being clear in my original post (even though fantomas being a douche makes me want to feed him to an ATM), but I don’t think I can be clearer with this post, so hope it comes across.

 

[hockeyfan666]

Can’t believe you researched the stats and came to this conclusion. Bure scored 110 and 107 points in those 92 and 93 seasons vs 92 and 94 points in 2000 and 2001 seasons. That’s a 15 point bump that he got from the higher scoring environment. That’s not insignificant.

couldn't it just be he was that much older?

 

[hockeyfan666]

Because the greats would be great in any era. Gretzky would still be the GOAT had he played today instead.

Gretzky would have scored more points in a season than Crosby or McDavid if he had been playing today??
-
That is ridiculous, he has half the speed of those two, and if he took just half the hits these two receive he would be injured 70% of the season or in a wheelchair for most of it.

He was skinny and muscleless, and even then no one touched him!

He would be knocked out cold if he received a huge hit of todays standards.

And again, Crosby and Mcdavid would score a lot more points than him.

 

[Fantomas]

I notice that some people are a bit confused about adjusted stats, which means this needs to be clarified.

We're not talking about "what ifs" here. We don't know what Gretzky would do in a different era. He played when he played and produced well in his own time.

However - and read carefully - the value of a goal in his time was less than the value of a goal in a lower-scoring era. This is a very basic point.

Think of it this way. When a player averages a goal-per-game in a scoring environment where teams average 6 goals per game, he is producing less than a player producing a goal-per-game in a scoring environment where teams average 4 goals per game. The former player is significantly more valuable even though his raw stats are identical to the latter player.

In the same way, 50 goals scored in Ovechkin's time is worth more (provides more value) than 50 goals scored in, let's say, the mid-80s. This is pretty straight forward. And this is clear too when you look at player stats in the 1980s. There were literally dozens of 50-goal seasons in that decade, compared to a mere handful in Ovechkin's time.

I've also said before that I think very highly of Lemieux as a goal scorer and that I often consider him to be the best goal scorer of all time (I go back and forth between him and Ovechkin). So I'm not putting him down. But strictly on numbers, Ovechkin is the best scorer ever. Easily.

These are not hypotheticals, but regardless one can say with confidence that Gretzky was fortunate to play in a post-expansion run-and-gun era of the NHL. A time unlike no other in league's history. He doesn't score 92 goals if he's born 10 years earlier or even 10 years later. Ovechkin will still break his record nevertheless. He's almost there.

 

[filinski77]

I notice that some people are a bit confused about adjusted stats, which means this needs to be clarified.

We're not talking about "what ifs" here. We don't know what Gretzky would do in a different era. He played when he played and produced well in his own time.

However - and read carefully - the value of a goal in his time was less than the value of a goal in a lower-scoring era. This is a very basic point.

Think of it this way. When a player averages a goal-per-game in a scoring environment where teams average 6 goals per game, he is producing less than a player producing a goal-per-game in a scoring environment where teams average 4 goals per game. The former player is significantly more valuable even though his raw stats are identical to the latter player.

In the same way, 50 goals scored in Ovechkin's time is worth more (provides more value) than 50 goals scored in, let's say, the mid-80s. This is pretty straight forward. And this is clear too when you look at player stats in the 1980s. There were literally dozens of 50-goal seasons in that decade, compared to a mere handful in Ovechkin's time.

I've also said before that I think very highly of Lemieux as a goal scorer and that I often consider him to be the best goal scorer of all time (I go back and forth between him and Ovechkin). So I'm not putting him down. But strictly on numbers, Ovechkin is the best scorer ever. Easily.

These are not hypotheticals, but regardless one can say with confidence that Gretzky was fortunate to play in a post-expansion run-and-gun era of the NHL. A time unlike no other in league's history. He doesn't score 92 goals if he's born 10 years earlier or even 10 years later. Ovechkin will still break his record nevertheless. He's almost there.

Yup. Nobody is claiming Gretzky wouldn't be the GOAT if he played in the cap-era. He'd still have gotten all his Harts and Rosses - but he would have much more likely had finished his career with 650 goals and 2,200 points for example.

Given the objectively lower scoring, 894 goals in the 2000's is much more impressive than 894 goals in the 80's.

 

[Ugene Magic]

I'm gonna say you can take Mario's numbers at full face value. The skill level and just so much more, you'd be a fool to take Ovechkin over Lemieux.

Strictly by the numbers, both 80's and dead puck era 90's/2000 Mario's holds water.

I don't know if it's millennials needing something to have that's greater than the past or equal, or what, Mario was one of a kind. Le mieux ----> The best.

 

[Patrik Barkov]

How upset are you going to be when history remembers Alex Ovechkin as the greatest goal scorer of all time?

As it should. It will however have a pretty tough time washing away his activities outside of the rink.

 

[Rengorlex]

The greats will do what they do regardless of era. Yes, there’s less goals to go around during most of Ovechkin’s career, but we have many examples of how when we’re talking about legends, it doesn’t matter how low or high league wide scoring is, they generally get theirs.

Hence why you saw Mario drop:

85 goals and 199 points in 76 games (2.62 PPG) at age 23 when the scoring environment was 7.42 GPG in 1988-1989.

69 goals and 160 points in 60 games (2.67 PPG) at age 27 with the last 20 of those games coming after chemo treatments in a scoring environment of 7.26 GPG in 1992-1993.

69 goals and 161 points in 70 games (2.30 PPG) at age 30 when the scoring environment was 6.28 GPG in 1995-1996.

35 goals and 76 points in 43 games (1.77 PPG) at age 35 when the scoring environment was 5.52 PPG in 2000-2001

20 goals and 68 points in 40 games (41 team games-the half way point; 1.70 PPG at age 37 injuries and a horrible team sunk his second half. Scoring environment was 5.30 GPG in 2002-2003.

If it were as simple as Mario only put up more goals and points because league scoring was higher and thus Ovechkin is automatically better because scoring has been generally lower, then we wouldn’t have seen Mario score at similar rates, considering later years saw scoring a full 1, 1.5, even more than 2 goals lower than his seasons where he was younger, in his prime, and in some cases, actually pretty healthy by his standards.

It’s certainly not linear at any rate. Examples like this make it so I can never take adjusted stats seriously. We’ve seen the absolute best debunk this.

Another example is Bure potted 58 in 74 games and 59 in 82 games (and 13 in 11 games before these two seasons) in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, scoring environments of 5.26 and 5.52. He was 28 and 29 years old.

If we isolate these seasons and then someone tells us that in 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the scoring environments were 7.26 and 6.48 GPG, surely 21 and 22 year old Bure would score at a much higher rate considering he was younger and in prime goal scoring years with environments a full 1 and 2 goals lower.

Surely he should have had 70-80 goals when we go back and look?

No….he had 60 in 83 games and 60 in 76 games.
Hmm…

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, but in the case of these all-time greats, era or even age sometimes doesn’t seem to matter.

You can't take isolated outlier examples like that to prove an era-wide point. If you're doing your best to find a small sample of data that fits your preconceived notion, chances are you will find it as well. Re: the Bure example, on top of his time on ice being in the 28 minute range when he scored 60 goals in the 2000s, he also scored substantially less points as has been pointed out here before. There are reasons why his Florida years aren't considered as impressive despite era-adjusted numbers.

 

[nothingbeatshockey]

The goalies today are better than they were in the 80s.
The defenseman are better than they were in the 80s.
The forwards are better than they were in the 80s. the centers are better than they were in the 80s.
The coaches, trainers, video assistants, travel conditions, nutrition, fitness, etc are better than they were in the 80s.

Comparing different eras is useless. Entertaining? Yes, Hypothetical? Absolutely.

 

[User9992]

I wonder is there any chance Ovi can age like Selanne or Jagr?

 

[Zuluss]

A brief preview at the start of the new season:

The big milestones we are all waiting for this season are the career goal #800 (just 20 goals away, should come somewhere around Christmas), goal #801 (ties Gordie Howe for #2 all-time) and goal #802 (passes Howe).

However, there are more milestones on tap: for example, right now Ovechkin and Howe are tied for #2 all-time in career GWG (121 each). The first game-winner Ovechkin scores this season will give him the sole possession of #2 all-time (#1 is Jagr with 135 GWG).

Gretzky split his career goals across several teams; Howe scored almost all of his goals playing for Detroit, but 15 of his goals were for Hartford (playing as a 50-year-old in late 1970s). So just 7 more goals will make Ovechkin #1 in the NHL history in goals scored for one franchise.

In terms of points, Ovechkin is #20 all-time at the moment; just 16 more points will make him #17 (moving past Gilmour, Oates, Trottier). Also achievable in the second half of the season is #15 all-time in points (Ovechkin has 1410 career points, the current #15, Mikita, has 1467, Selanne is #16 with 1457).

If anyone cares about Ovechkin's career assists, this season will likely see him climb the leaderboard from #82 at the moment to #68 all-time - all it takes is 20 assists, and Ovechkin will move past Forsberg, MSL, D. Sedin, Hull Jr and even Orr. The distance between #68 (Hull Jr) and #67 (Iginla) is 25 assists, so I will probably leave it there.

If the Caps PP clicks, by the end of the season Ovechkin can become the first player in the NHL history to score 300 career PPG. He is already #1 ever at 285 career PPG, so just another 15 PPG to go.

30 goals this season will make Ovechkin #1 all-time in terms of 30-goal seasons (he will be tied with Gartner at 17).
40 goals this season will move him into sole possession of #1 all-time in terms of 40-goals seasons (he is currently tied with Gretzky at 12).
And of course, the 10th 50-goal season will be the most ever.

 

[andrjusha]

He is aging very well, here is the proof

Could Alex Ovechkin once again stand athwart age, hissing ‘nyet’ in defiance of Time Itself?

The Washington Capitals will open the 2022-23 season on Wednesday, October 12. Before then, it's critical that you prepare yourself for all…

russianmachineneverbreaks.com

 

[BallardEra]

Ovechkin scored #500 against the Sens and #600 against the Jets.

I wonder if #800 comes against the Sens on December 22 or the Jets on December 23rd?

 

[andrjusha]

A brief preview at the start of the new season:

The big milestones we are all waiting for this season are the career goal #800 (just 20 goals away, should come somewhere around Christmas), goal #801 (ties Gordie Howe for #2 all-time) and goal #802 (passes Howe).

However, there are more milestones on tap: for example, right now Ovechkin and Howe are tied for #2 all-time in career GWG (121 each). The first game-winner Ovechkin scores this season will give him the sole possession of #2 all-time (#1 is Jagr with 135 GWG).

Gretzky split his career goals across several teams; Howe scored almost all of his goals playing for Detroit, but 15 of his goals were for Hartford (playing as a 50-year-old in late 1970s). So just 7 more goals will make Ovechkin #1 in the NHL history in goals scored for one franchise.

In terms of points, Ovechkin is #20 all-time at the moment; just 16 more points will make him #17 (moving past Gilmour, Oates, Trottier). Also achievable in the second half of the season is #15 all-time in points (Ovechkin has 1410 career points, the current #15, Mikita, has 1467, Selanne is #16 with 1457).

If anyone cares about Ovechkin's career assists, this season will likely see him climb the leaderboard from #82 at the moment to #68 all-time - all it takes is 20 assists, and Ovechkin will move past Forsberg, MSL, D. Sedin, Hull Jr and even Orr. The distance between #68 (Hull Jr) and #67 (Iginla) is 25 assists, so I will probably leave it there.

If the Caps PP clicks, by the end of the season Ovechkin can become the first player in the NHL history to score 300 career PPG. He is already #1 ever at 285 career PPG, so just another 15 PPG to go.

30 goals this season will make Ovechkin #1 all-time in terms of 30-goal seasons (he will be tied with Gartner at 17).
40 goals this season will move him into sole possession of #1 all-time in terms of 40-goals seasons (he is currently tied with Gretzky at 12).
And of course, the 10th 50-goal season will be the most ever.

Good summary.
Just a note that Sid the Kid is breathing behind his neck in points, and likely overtakes if healthy.
So it is probably "+1" in those points rankings.

 

[Zuluss]

Good summary.
Just a note that Sid the Kid is breathing behind his neck in points, and likely overtakes if healthy.
So it is probably "-1" in those points rankings.

They'll probably keep leapfrogging each other in career points based on who has been heathier recently. At this point, it is a durability race.