Ovechkin Milestone Thread - Countdown to 894

[kugelbahn]

Extremely impressive! I know people don't like Hockeyreferences adjusted stats, but even if they're not perfect, I think they're still much more useful than pure raw stats.

Ovechkin is currently #1 all-time in adjusted goals, and #10 all-time in adjusted points. Unless he has a career ending injury, he will finish #1 all-time in adjusted goals, and #5 all-time in adjusted points.

Remarkable.

I do not like it, hockey-reference adjustment for season length is too clumsy.
For 12-13 lockout OV played 48 games, had 56 points and got 107 adjusted points
Same season Crosby played 36 games, had 56 points and got 106 adjusted points.
Pendulum swings too far in other direction with hockey reference adjusted stats IMO, especially if they total it.

Simple league scoring rate adjustment does not overshoot it.
For example this season teams scored 257/82 goals on average
08-09 it was 234/82 goals on average
It is 10% more, 65 goals then is 71 goals now, easy first approximation adjustment.

 

[filinski77]

You know adjusted stats are wonky when Ovechkin, who hasn’t ranked top 10 in scoring over the past 8 seasons of his career, is a top 5 scorer a mere 6 times and a top 10 scorer 9 times through 18 seasons and is unlikely to add to those over the remaining 3 seasons of his career will be #5 all-time in adjusted points.

"The past 8 seasons of his career" -> you mean the generally less productive half of a players career, where Ovechkin was in his 30's the whole time? Who cares.

For what it's worth (vital context), Ovechkin is 6th all-time for the most top-20 point finishes, and I believe 9th all-time for the most top-15 point finishes. So the miniscule difference between top-10, top-15, and top-20 is your answer here. Ovechkin is not only the best goal scorer of all time, but still one of the best (and most consistent) point producers of all time.

 

[filinski77]

I do not like it, hockey-reference adjustment for season length is too clumsy.
For 12-13 lockout OV played 48 games, had 56 points and got 107 adjusted points
Same season Crosby played 36 games, had 56 points and got 106 adjusted points.
Pendulum swings too far in other direction with hockey reference adjusted stats IMO, especially if they total it.

Simple league scoring rate adjustment does not overshoot it.
For example this season teams scored 257/82 goals on average
08-09 it was 234/82 goals on average
It is 10% more, 65 goals then is 71 goals now, easy first approximation adjustment.

Fair - but it also equalizes opportunity. Howe couldn't help that he played in a 70-game season, so HR's thing normalizes the season length. Ovechkin/Crosby couldn't control that there was a lockout that forced the season to be short (nothing on a personal problem-level, like injuries), so it normalizes it too.

Like I said - it's not perfect, but I think it's tremendously more useful than normal raw stats.

 

[kugelbahn]

Fair - but it also equalizes opportunity. Howe couldn't help that he played in a 70-game season, so HR's thing normalizes the season length. Ovechkin/Crosby couldn't control that there was a lockout that forced the season to be short (nothing on a personal problem-level, like injuries), so it normalizes it too.

Like I said - it's not perfect, but I think it's tremendously more useful than normal raw stats.

There is a good analogy with cars: age vs mileage.
Howe car drove fewer miles per year, but because of lower wear and tear he had more years.
Crosby car was in repairs early, which is not optimal, but on other hand it saved many parts from grind and prolonged him being on top IMO.
Miles(games) is more important data point than age, but both cause wear and tear, entropy always wins in the end of course.
More miles - more risk of accidents as well.
I would rather know exact miles and adjust for road conditions

Too bad these adjustment stats are hard to find, I would like to quote some reputable sites adjusted stats and not have hockey-reference as the only choice.
(I have subscription with them so I like them as main source of data)

 

[kugelbahn]

"The past 8 seasons of his career" -> you mean the generally less productive half of a players career, where Ovechkin was in his 30's the whole time? Who cares.

For what it's worth (vital context), Ovechkin is 6th all-time for the most top-20 point finishes, and I believe 9th all-time for the most top-15 point finishes. So the miniscule difference between top-10, top-15, and top-20 is your answer here. Ovechkin is not only the best goal scorer of all time, but still one of the best (and most consistent) point producers of all time.

Exactly, do not like adjusted stats - top finishes relative to peers accounts for same. Era has to be accounted for, ignoring it is like comparing millionaires now and 50 yrs ago,
its not the same :sigh

 

[Fish on The Sand]

You know adjusted stats are wonky when Ovechkin, who hasn’t ranked top 10 in scoring over the past 8 seasons of his career, is a top 5 scorer a mere 6 times and a top 10 scorer 9 times through 18 seasons and is unlikely to add to those over the remaining 3 seasons of his career will be #5 all-time in adjusted points.

"top 5 scorer a mere 6 times" lol

Sometimes people should read their post out loud before submitting it.

 

[Video Nasty]

"top 5 scorer a mere 6 times" lol

Sometimes people should read their post out loud before submitting it.

I recognize that seems like a lot to someone following the offensively challenged Montreal franchise.

 

[Regal]

I recognize that seems like a lot to someone following the offensively challenged Montreal franchise.

It IS a good amount when your longevity and health are top notch. I mean, Ron Francis is currently 5th in total points and he was top 5 three times. Messier is 3rd and he was top 5 four times. Sakic is 9th and was top 5 six times. Dionne is 6th and was top 5 seven times. Yzerman is 7th and was top 5 three times. A whole bunch of the top 10 all time scorers were top 5 in points the same or fewer times than Ovechkin, because they had long primes and played a ton of games.

There’s 15 players who have more than 6 top 5 finishes, but he’s tied for the 6th most times in the top 20 in points. Those finishes add up over time. The difference between 5th and 20th in scoring in a given year might be 10-15 points, but that’s easily made up for with longevity. I mean the guy is currently 16th in total points, and will probably crack the top 10 by the time his career is over. It’s not ridiculous that a player who might finish 9th or 10th in league scoring ends up 5th in adjusted points considering those above him generally played in higher scoring eras.

I’ve seen you make a lot of sweepingly negative statements about adjusted points that seem based on very specific incidents where you just don’t think the numbers match the names of the players. But you seem to dismiss the numbers without delving into the actual reasoning behind why they might be the case. There’s certainly problems with adjusted stats, but they’re still generally more accurate than regular totals. Breaking down by peers and how PPs affect the scoring makes things more accurate

 

[Calderon]

I do not like it, hockey-reference adjustment for season length is too clumsy.
For 12-13 lockout OV played 48 games, had 56 points and got 107 adjusted points
Same season Crosby played 36 games, had 56 points and got 106 adjusted points.
Pendulum swings too far in other direction with hockey reference adjusted stats IMO, especially if they total it.

Simple league scoring rate adjustment does not overshoot it.
For example this season teams scored 257/82 goals on average
08-09 it was 234/82 goals on average
It is 10% more, 65 goals then is 71 goals now, easy first approximation adjustment.

How can the bolded be justified? How are goals and assists weighed against each other, what about games played?

Check the stats for Jaromir Jagr and Michael Ryder for 2012-13:
.......Jagr 45 gp, 16+19=35 actual points but 31+35=66 adj pts.
....Ryder 46 gp, 16+19=35 actual points but 31+36=67 adj pts.

I don't see how H-R's ADJ points aren't an anecdotal stat at best.

 

[filinski77]

How can the bolded be justified? How are goals and assists weighed against each other, what about games played?

Check the stats for Jaromir Jagr and Michael Ryder for 2012-13:
.......Jagr 45 gp, 16+19=35 actual points but 31+35=66 adj pts.
....Ryder 46 gp, 16+19=35 actual points but 31+36=67 adj pts
I don't see how H-R's ADJ points aren't an anecdotal stat at best.

A large component of the adjustment is to adjust the schedule to 82 games. But it looks at the NHL's # of games, not the individual players # of games (and then of course adds in scoring levels to the adjustment).

So in your example, Jagr missed one additional game that Ryder didn't miss. HR's adjustment would assume that Jagr would miss ~2 games more than Ryder would have based on an 82-game season. Because of that, Ryder would be adjusted to having played an additional game in this 'adjusted' 82-gp season, resulting in the additional point you see there.

Big idea = not giving a player extra games/points etc. for games they missed due to injury (personal issue), and rather adjusts the opportunity to 82 games. The one big downfall here would be let's say in 12/13, at game 56, a player has a season ending injury: I think HR would still assume that the player would have played the games 57-82 for the adjustment, even though if the season was actually 82, that player would have not played the full season anyways.

But still - when we compare the fact that guys from the 80's/90's played in an era that was 30%+ higher scoring on average than the 2000/2010's, that 30% difference is still so much more significant than the small downfalls of HR's adjusted stats.

 

[Hippasus]

I'm not sure about the specific numbers, but I recall that one of the major flaws with adjusted stats is that the depth players started to produce more around the 80s. In terms of adjusted stats, this affected average goals per game and depreciates the productivity of top-line players from that era (and possibly other eras too). I think the implication is that this makes comparison amongst peers more favorable than adjusting based on league-wide goals-per-game average year-by-year.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Ovechkin is currently #1 all-time in adjusted goals, and #10 all-time in adjusted points. Unless he has a career ending injury, he will finish #1 all-time in adjusted goals, and #5 all-time in adjusted points.

In the History forum, we use a somewhat different method (VsX) for adjusted goals/points. Ovechkin is currently 2nd all-time in goals (behind Howe).

He's "only" 15th all-time in points, but three of the players ahead of him are up by less than 15 points. I'd expect him to finish 5th or maybe even 4th all-time in VsX adjusted points.

Different methods, but similar results (top 2 in career adjusted goals and top 5 in career adjusted points).

 

[kugelbahn]

In the History forum, we use a somewhat different method (VsX) for adjusted goals/points. Ovechkin is currently 2nd all-time in goals (behind Howe).

He's "only" 15th all-time in points, but three of the players ahead of him are up by less than 15 points. I'd expect him to finish 5th or maybe even 4th all-time in VsX adjusted points.

Different methods, but similar results (top 2 in career adjusted goals and top 5 in career adjusted points).

Nice, could you share a link, pls.
Just curious, does HoH take VsX into account while ranking?
I mean will OV end up closer to #5 in HoH ranking to follow projected adjustment stats ascent? (And those are not even accounting goals vs assists weight)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Nice, could you share a link, pls.
Just curious, does HoH take VsX into account while ranking?
I mean will OV end up closer to #5 in HoH ranking to follow projected adjustment stats ascent? (And those are not even accounting goals vs assists weight)

Sorry for the delayed response. Here's the link.

Yes, I'd say people on the History forum take it into account when doing player ratings. But it's one of many things that gets considered. I also post tables showing how a player does over their best 7 and 10 years, and I think those (generally speaking) are given more weight. (For example, players like Ron Francis, Johnny Bucyk, and Mark Recchi rank ahead of Mario Lemieux in adjusted career points - we can recognize those players had long, healthy careers, but there's still no way they were better than #66, just as one example).

 

[TJHKY]

 

[CupsOverCash]

Would be really cool to see him catch Wayne. Hope he keeps playing. He will if he does.

 

[crobro]

Once Ovechkin breaks Gretzkys goals record it will cement his place as the #5 all time after Gretzky,Howe,Orr,Lemieux.

 

[TJHKY]

 

[blundluntman]

Once Ovechkin breaks Gretzkys goals record it will cement his place as the #5 all time after Gretzky,Howe,Orr,Lemieux.

As a goal scorer? Orr doesn't belong on that list but sure. I'd say Ovi was already top 5 a goal while ago though.

 

[Hippasus]

As a goal scorer? Orr doesn't belong on that list but sure. I'd say Ovi was already top 5 a goal while ago though.

As a player in general. Not that I agree, but that's what he meant.

 

[blundluntman]

As a player in general. Not that I agree, but that's what he meant.

Yeah I know, I just refused to take that seriously

 

[hamzarocks]

Once Ovechkin breaks Gretzkys goals record it will cement his place as the #5 all time after Gretzky,Howe,Orr,Lemieux.

Hes like 10-12th all time as a player and the GOAT goal scorer

Mcdavid has already passed both Ovechkin and Crosby (have him 8th) all time and sits alone at 5 spot

 

[TJHKY]

 

[ViD]

He’s fat, old, affected by fathers time, yet you know you still can’t bet against him, 40 goals next season is a realistic expectation

 

[kugelbahn]

Old and fat, but likes to score too much, he will not stop