Ovechkin milestone thread - 850 and Beyond!

[PaulD]

Missing time is not a virtue, especially if we are talking about a pure longevity/durability statistic such as career points.

At the moment, the difference between their career points is 0.5%, which can easily close as soon as one goes hot and the other goes cold, not to mention a few missed games. It has been this way for a few years now.

Sid got just as many points in less games. Just a statistical fact.

 

[norrisnick]

It doesn't work like that. It's possible that he had more wear and tear and was done today. Jagr said he probably wouldn't last as long as he did in the NHL without his KHL time. (Less physically demanding maybe?)

Selanne almost quit after his horrible year with Colorado but lock-out saved him. He could recover and become healthy again.

In hindsight maybe those days off were a good thing. Of course speculation from my part, but I doubt it's always a bad thing. Mentally too they can relax a bit.

Both of those guys got their "breaks" deep in their 30s.

Ovechkin lost a full season at 19 and 36 games at 27 due to labor disputes with the league. There is nothing that would lead one to believe that Ov's longevity was boosted by those events to the degree that those extra games wouldn't have improved his total output to date. The covid years are so weird, I wouldn't attempt to add or remove anything from them and leave them as is. But the labor disputes? Those hurt Ov.

 

[TJHKY]

 

[Video Nasty]

Both of those guys got their "breaks" deep in their 30s.

Ovechkin lost a full season at 19 and 36 games at 27 due to labor disputes with the league. There is nothing that would lead one to believe that Ov's longevity was boosted by those events to the degree that those extra games wouldn't have improved his total output to date. The covid years are so weird, I wouldn't attempt to add or remove anything from them and leave them as is. But the labor disputes? Those hurt Ov.

It’s all a wash as far as I’m concerned.

A surface level glance makes one think that yes, Ovechkin missed a certain amount of games due to circumstances outside of his control so why don’t we just pencil in a reasonable amount of goals and points for the games he “should” have played.

Not enough recognize that the league was firmly in the dead puck era where scoring declining year after year. 2003-2004 was the bottom, but only because it was a forced one. I believe there were only six players who played at least 70 games and averaged over a point per game. Our Art Ross winner was the only player who scored over 87 points (St.Louis had 94). The 3 players who shared the Rocket were the only ones who potted more than 38 goals (they had 41 apiece and they all played 80-81 games).

I’d argue that he entered a league that was far friendlier towards its scorers and helped set him up for success more in 2005-2006 than the lost 2004-2005 season.

Does anyone really believe that Ovechkin would come in and pot 52 goals/106 points in an alternate universe where the 2004-2005 season played out naturally with no rule changes, no hike in power plays, and scoring leveled off at 5 or so goals per game or god forbid, simply kept declining?

That alters everything going forward, in countless ways we’ll never know (other than, if scoring remains low without the injection boost from the 2004 lockout, that has a trickle down effect with every season going forward). Sure, maybe he pots 40 as a rookie in a lost 2004-2005 season, but I think he gives at least as many back through the next 10 years before the next steady increase in scoring that came (again, no one know where and when these events occur). Example: he possibly scores 40 as a rookie and instead of 52, he gets 45. Instead of 46, he gets 40. Instead of 65, he gets 55, and so on.

I think the reality we’re in played out very well for him, seeing that he’s within striking distance of Gretzky’s record. I don’t understand the need to lament “lost” goals.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

Ovi is Wayne Gretzky goals away from Wayne Gretzky. The fact that he’s under triple digits seems unbelievable to me.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

It’s all a wash as far as I’m concerned.

A surface level glance makes one think that yes, Ovechkin missed a certain amount of games due to circumstances outside of his control so why don’t we just pencil in a reasonable amount of goals and points for the games he “should” have played.

Not enough recognize that the league was firmly in the dead puck era where scoring declining year after year. 2003-2004 was the bottom, but only because it was a forced one. I believe there were only six players who played at least 70 games and averaged over a point per game. Our Art Ross winner was the only player who scored over 87 points (St.Louis had 94). The 3 players who shared the Rocket were the only ones who potted more than 38 goals (they had 41 apiece and they all played 80-81 games).

I’d argue that he entered a league that was far friendlier towards its scorers and helped set him up for success more in 2005-2006 than the lost 2004-2005 season.

Does anyone really believe that Ovechkin would come in and pot 52 goals/106 points in an alternate universe where the 2004-2005 season played out naturally with no rule changes, no hike in power plays, and scoring leveled off at 5 or so goals per game or god forbid, simply kept declining?

That alters everything going forward, in countless ways we’ll never know (other than, if scoring remains low without the injection boost from the 2004 lockout, that has a trickle down effect with every season going forward). Sure, maybe he pots 40 as a rookie in a lost 2004-2005 season, but I think he gives at least as many back through the next 10 years before the next steady increase in scoring that came (again, no one know where and when these events occur). Example: he possibly scores 40 as a rookie and instead of 52, he gets 45. Instead of 46, he gets 40. Instead of 65, he gets 55, and so on.

I think the reality we’re in played out very well for him, seeing that he’s within striking distance of Gretzky’s record. I don’t understand the need to lament “lost” goals.

I do agree about the 04/05 lockout, too many what ifs there. That lockout set OV up to come into a higher scoring league, more PPs, etc. No idea how his totals would have looked in the DPE. However, 12/13, 19/20 and 20/21 are obvious and we don't need to speculate too much. 32 goals in 48 GP, on pace for 55. Even if he cooled off a bit he was easily going to hit 45-50. In 19/20 he had 48 goals in 68 GP, on pace for 58. Would have been 50-55 easily. 20/21 was a weird year with a new coach, no training camp, in and out of the lineup due to covid protocol, etc but he still had 24 goals in 45 GP, on pace for 44. Let's say he cooled off to get 35. That's an extra 26-36 goals, let's just say 30. Would put him at 825 right now, ~850 by the end of the season and 900 would be an absolute 100% lock.

 

[filinski77]

It’s all a wash as far as I’m concerned.

A surface level glance makes one think that yes, Ovechkin missed a certain amount of games due to circumstances outside of his control so why don’t we just pencil in a reasonable amount of goals and points for the games he “should” have played.

Not enough recognize that the league was firmly in the dead puck era where scoring declining year after year. 2003-2004 was the bottom, but only because it was a forced one. I believe there were only six players who played at least 70 games and averaged over a point per game. Our Art Ross winner was the only player who scored over 87 points (St.Louis had 94). The 3 players who shared the Rocket were the only ones who potted more than 38 goals (they had 41 apiece and they all played 80-81 games).

I’d argue that he entered a league that was far friendlier towards its scorers and helped set him up for success more in 2005-2006 than the lost 2004-2005 season.

Does anyone really believe that Ovechkin would come in and pot 52 goals/106 points in an alternate universe where the 2004-2005 season played out naturally with no rule changes, no hike in power plays, and scoring leveled off at 5 or so goals per game or god forbid, simply kept declining?

That alters everything going forward, in countless ways we’ll never know (other than, if scoring remains low without the injection boost from the 2004 lockout, that has a trickle down effect with every season going forward). Sure, maybe he pots 40 as a rookie in a lost 2004-2005 season, but I think he gives at least as many back through the next 10 years before the next steady increase in scoring that came (again, no one know where and when these events occur). Example: he possibly scores 40 as a rookie and instead of 52, he gets 45. Instead of 46, he gets 40. Instead of 65, he gets 55, and so on.

I think the reality we’re in played out very well for him, seeing that he’s within striking distance of Gretzky’s record. I don’t understand the need to lament “lost” goals.

To be fair, Ovechkin played in the 'real' DPE as far as terribly low scoring era's.

But I agree either way. No point worrying about what didn't happen, even if the stuff that didn't happen was because of non-hockey issues (ie. injuries). Given the era, Ovechkin's 795 is significantly more impressive than Gretzky's 894

1Year	10th points	30th points
1995	91	73
1996	107	82
1997	88	73
1998	79	65
1999	89	64
2000	79	68
2001	89	76
2002	77	67
2003	85	69
2004	79	65
AVG	86	70
2008	87	72
2009	88	73
2010	86	70
2011	77	66
2012	78	67
2013	84	70
2014	79	65
2015	73	64
2016	77	63
2017	75	64
AVG	80	67

 

[ViD]

Do you guys think if HFB existed in 80s would people also bash 99 for a lot of ENG?

 

[MasterofGrond]

Do you guys think if HFB existed in 80s would people also bash 99 for a lot of ENG?

people on HF would bash him for ENG, and lack of a physical game, and scoring too much on the PP, and 50 other things to boot.

the bad posts must flow

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Man f*** Bettman, all I gotta say.

 

[MasterofGrond]

Man f*** Bettman, all I gotta say.

f*** Jeremy Jacobs*

Bettman does the owners bidding and nothing else. Tail doesn't wag the dog.

 

[filinski77]

Do you guys think if HFB existed in 80s would people also bash 99 for a lot of ENG?

Probably not as much as they are with Ovi.

For ex/ Crosby/McDavid have almost DOUBLE the empty net points (22 vs. 12) in the last 3 seasons than Ovechkin does, but who's going around shitting on Crosby/McDavid for padding stats? Can't fault Ovi for being the one scoring the ENG instead of getting an EN assist (due to his shot being significantly better than the other options on the Caps.

 

[um]

f*** Jeremy Jacobs*

Bettman does the owners bidding and nothing else. Tail doesn't wag the dog.

he's one well paid tail.

 

[Video Nasty]

I do agree about the 04/05 lockout, too many what ifs there. That lockout set OV up to come into a higher scoring league, more PPs, etc. No idea how his totals would have looked in the DPE. However, 12/13, 19/20 and 20/21 are obvious and we don't need to speculate too much. 32 goals in 48 GP, on pace for 55. Even if he cooled off a bit he was easily going to hit 45-50. In 19/20 he had 48 goals in 68 GP, on pace for 58. Would have been 50-55 easily. 20/21 was a weird year with a new coach, no training camp, in and out of the lineup due to covid protocol, etc but he still had 24 goals in 45 GP, on pace for 44. Let's say he cooled off to get 35. That's an extra 26-36 goals, let's just say 30. Would put him at 825 right now, ~850 by the end of the season and 900 would be an absolute 100% lock.

Yeah, I was focusing merely on the 2004 lockout and how it might have changed everything going forward if it didn’t occur.

I have zero issue thinking about 2012-2013, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 in a vacuum and recognizing he probably has a minimum of 30 extra goals (plus another 50 goal campaign added to his resume. That is a shame, similar to McDavid being 3 points off in 2019-2020 preventing him from working on his 7th consecutive 100 point season, again, existing in a vacuum).

In the end, it’s impossible to calculate everything because anything different happening from how we currently know it creates that ripple effect which changes everything.

He’s in a terrific position to break Gretzky’s goal record sometime during his 20th season. That has to be one of the best timelines that could have possibly occurred.

 

[Big Phil]

I know people talk about Ovechkin missing time due to lockouts and lockdowns and such. That sucked, but a lot of things happen. Gretzky had his back issues after 1991. That affected some goals. Things even out all over the place...........................and we haven't even gotten to Lemieux yet.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I know people talk about Ovechkin missing time due to lockouts and lockdowns and such. That sucked, but a lot of things happen. Gretzky had his back issues after 1991. That affected some goals. Things even out all over the place...........................and we haven't even gotten to Lemieux yet.

Comparing injuries that affect only the player versus lockouts stopping play from the entire league is a very different situation.

 

[Big Phil]

Comparing injuries that affect only the player versus lockouts stopping play from the entire league is a very different situation.

But they both happened. It was what it was.

 

[WarriorofTime]

But they both happened. It was what it was.

One happens within the flow of play, one happens as a result of a bunch of guys in suits squabbling over money.

 

[Big Phil]

One happens within the flow of play, one happens as a result of a bunch of guys in suits squabbling over money.

And it did happen with Gretzky too, in 1995. That was a half season lost. They've all got their own reasons why they may have been able to score more. Scary to think that Gretzky got 894 and probably could have gotten more.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And it did happen with Gretzky too, in 1995. That was a half season lost. They've all got their own reasons why they may have been able to score more. Scary to think that Gretzky got 894 and probably could have gotten more.

Meh, Gretzky only missed 34 career games due to Lockout.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

And it did happen with Gretzky too, in 1995. That was a half season lost. They've all got their own reasons why they may have been able to score more. Scary to think that Gretzky got 894 and probably could have gotten more.

Gretzky scored 11 goals in 48 games that season, was on pace for 19. OV dealt with lockouts/lockdowns in seasons he was on pace for 50+. Not even close to the same situation.

 

[DenisSamson3]

Saw this statistic. Ovechkin is at 6180 shots currently and Ray Bourque is at 6209 total shots. so he is getting close to the all time shots milestone as well. Should keep an eye on it.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Every time I see this thread getting action while the caps are playing I’m assuming goal haha

 

[ProdigalNuck]

Didnt they miss 30 games in 91/92 as well?

And it did happen with Gretzky too, in 1995. That was a half season lost. They've all got their own reasons why they may have been able to score more. Scary to think that Gretzky got 894 and probably could have gotten more.

 

[ViD]

In before ENG mad fans