Ovechkin vs Laine comparison.

[AirJordan]

All things considered, it's pretty close.

At 18, Laine had the international impact Ovi could only dream of at that age.

Truth, Ovi's rookie year looks otherworldly, but he sustained no concussion, got to play over 21 minutes a night, was almost 2 years older than Laine and, most importantly, he started during the year the PP opportunities were at their highest in, how many, 25 years by now?

In the end, at ES, the red hot rookie Ovi outscored the rookie Laine by a single point in 8 more games.

The second year, which was still very high scoring overall, Ovi scored 2 more goals than Laine in the same number of games, playing 5 more minutes a night on average. Yeah, unlike Laine, he added the same number of assists. But unlike Laine, he was -19. That's bad, any way we slice it.

Wake me up same time next year and I might agree with the Ovi boyz. At the moment, I'll have Laine and give him some time on ice so he can show whether or not he can dance with the starlets.

Problem is, laine can't dance... and as long as he does not improve his skating, and we talk about a whole different level, he will never partying with ovi and his boyz. but maybe you have some nice U20/U18 ES corsi +/- stats that show something else and why he is not a second liner and pp specialist. better, tell that Maurice!

 

[grieves]

this is ****ing egregious.

Putting it on "chemistry", then saying Ovi's line worked out for him? This is some of the most intellectually dishonest bull**** in this whole thread.

He dragged production out of players, that's why he outproduced the team by a mile. You could have put a young Ovechkin with Copp or Little and it wouldn't matter to him, he's going to find a way to put that puck in the net.

No need to get upset .

I did not watch Ovi then so if you say that he played on a line without chemistry and just single-handedly made that line work then I will take your word for it.

The reason for my perhaps erroneous assessment is that chemistry is something people very rarely calculate into the equation. It's just "this player is good" and "this player is bad" and chemistry just goes out of the window. It just doesn't work like that. I'm not so full of myself that I would accuse you of being dishonest but you can't just ignore the role of chemistry.

 

[grieves]

We have to disagree at least once. Little made all of his linemates worse last season, didn't he? He wasn't good even outside ELL. Better maybe, but not awesome.

The reason I said that was when Scheifele went down, the Little line was kinda the backbone of the team. They were on fire for a short while at least.

That said, that was a very small sample so it could be that the big picture shows something else. In other words, don't quote me on this .

 

[Plural]

No need to get upset .

I did not watch Ovi then so if you say that he played on a line without chemistry and just single-handedly made that line work then I will take your word for it.

The reason for my perhaps erroneous assessment is that chemistry is something people very rarely calculate into the equation. It's just "this player is good" and "this player is bad" and chemistry just goes out of the window. It just doesn't work like that. I'm not so full of myself that I would accuse you of being dishonest but you can't just ignore the role of chemistry.

The thing is, Ovechkin (and other great players) don't really see a big drop in their production based on chemistry. Of course sometimes lines click better but those level players produce no matter what. Of course Laine is still young and we'll have to wait and see how he develops. But if he wants to be talked in the same breath as guys like Ovechkin he needs to put up the numbers no matter who he's sided with.

 

[Keduzin]

All things considered, it's pretty close.

At 18, Laine had the international impact Ovi could only dream of at that age.

Truth, Ovi's rookie year looks otherworldly, but he sustained no concussion, got to play over 21 minutes a night, was almost 2 years older than Laine and, most importantly, he started during the year the PP opportunities were at their highest in, how many, 25 years by now?

In the end, at ES, the red hot rookie Ovi outscored the rookie Laine by a single point in 8 more games.

The second year, which was still very high scoring overall, Ovi scored 2 more goals than Laine in the same number of games, playing 5 more minutes a night on average. Yeah, unlike Laine, he added the same number of assists. But unlike Laine, he was -19. That's bad, any way we slice it.

Wake me up same time next year and I might agree with the Ovi boyz. At the moment, I'll have Laine and give him some time on ice so he can show whether or not he can dance with the starlets.

Who gave you the right to use words of wisdom in this thread ???

Seriously, very well written and definitly something that these Laine-bashers should read through and even try to comprehend

 

[grieves]

The thing is, Ovechkin (and other great players) don't really see a big drop in their production based on chemistry. Of course sometimes lines click better but those level players produce no matter what. Of course Laine is still young and we'll have to wait and see how he develops. But if he wants to be talked in the same breath as guys like Ovechkin he needs to put up the numbers no matter who he's sided with.

Yeah, I agree with that to some extent but there is really no reliable way to measure differences in chemistry so it's always going to be tough.

But yeah, it's usually quite much to expect this from teenagers anyway so we will see what Laine can come up with.

From a few posts above: "In the end, at ES, the red hot rookie Ovi outscored the rookie Laine by a single point in 8 more games. " So yeah I can totally get that Ovi would have scored even more with better linemates, but to offset this, he had so much PP time which is hugely beneficial to guys like Laine and Ovi.

It seems Laine is doing fine on even strenght in comparison though. Laine might have better linemates but the advantage is nowhere near the advantage Ovi got from PP opportunities, because the offensive chemistry was so poor in Laine's case.

 

[Narow]

If he scored the same numbers with less than half PP time, how is the impact smaller?

Goals are main impact, taking lots of shots isn't that much of an impact.

If Laine took 400 shots in a season, he would score an enormous amount of goals over OV with 400 shots.

They don't have to be very close in shot totals, for Laine to have the same amount of goals. Quality over quantity.

Ovi was a freight train that just ran people over while dangling and creating his lines offense basically alone...

Since goals are the value take a look at rookie ovi.



Just faster more effective compared to laine...laine really needs to improve his skating to get close....

On the pp they are pretty similar tho

 

[Plural]

Yeah, I agree with that to some extent but there is really no reliable way to measure differences in chemistry so it's always going to be tough.

But yeah, it's usually quite much to expect this from teenagers anyway so we will see what Laine can come up with.

From a few posts above: "In the end, at ES, the red hot rookie Ovi outscored the rookie Laine by a single point in 8 more games. " So yeah I can totally get that Ovi would have scored even more with better linemates, but to offset this, he had so much PP time which is hugely beneficial to guys like Laine and Ovi.

It seems Laine is doing fine on even strenght in comparison though. Laine might have better linemates but the advantage is nowhere near the advantage Ovi got from PP opportunities, because the offensive chemistry was so poor in Laine's case.

Here's the issue I have with this new mindset that's creeped in to HF player evaluation few years a go. There seems to be tendency to clip seasons in to small pieces (be it ES points, G/60, GFx, etc. etc.) and just compare those small parts to make judgements based on much bigger combination. Laine had great rookie season no doubt. One of the better one's where the player in question does not win the Calder. In recent years I think only Crosby was clearly better rookie who didn't win the Calder trophy. But scoring fluctuates, as we saw from Laine in his rookie and sophomore seasons. In his rookie season he was scoring on ES and his sophomore season he was beasting on the PP.

When I see things like the bolded it feels great, since I love Laine. But it doesn't really mean all that much. Since in the grand scheme of things, we're looking at a guy who finished 30th in scoring against a guy who finished 3rd. There's mountain and an ocean between those scoring finishes. It doesn't matter all that much Ovechkin only scored one more ES point, when he finished in the top-3 in overall scoring. Laine had 14 PP points in his rookie year. If he's given more PP time he might score few more points. But given his pace that season, I doubt he gets to 75 points.

Then again, last season Laine had 31 PP points but his ES scoring was lacking. Doesn't mean he was worse player last season. He just wasn't able to finish as much plays on ES as he was previous season.

I'm not saying we should not look at all the data we have, of course it's good to see as much info as possible. But in this thread I see so much convenient pick and choosing when it comes to what stats support and what not. In the end, overall production is what matters the most for offensive wingers. On goal department Laine is having even greater start to his career than Ovechkin (even if we compare their rookie and sophomore seasons head on). It's his overall offensive game that's still few notches below what it should be if he want's to get ranked among the big ones.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

I mean, it was extremely obvious that Laine wasn't the ES player that his rookie totals would indicate. He had a very high oish% and was a distant 3rd best player on his line. Similarly, it was also clear he'd be way better on the powerplay

At this point, Laine is a good scoring winger and elite PP presence. He needs to take huge strides before he's considered an all time great like Ovi. Not saying it's impossible, but it's very tough to see it happening

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Here's the issue I have with this new mindset that's creeped in to HF player evaluation few years a go. There seems to be tendency to clip seasons in to small pieces (be it ES points, G/60, GFx, etc. etc.) and just compare those small parts to make judgements based on much bigger combination. Laine had great rookie season no doubt. One of the better one's where the player in question does not win the Calder. In recent years I think only Crosby was clearly better rookie who didn't win the Calder trophy. But scoring fluctuates, as we saw from Laine in his rookie and sophomore seasons. In his rookie season he was scoring on ES and his sophomore season he was beasting on the PP.

When I see things like the bolded it feels great, since I love Laine. But it doesn't really mean all that much. Since in the grand scheme of things, we're looking at a guy who finished 30th in scoring against a guy who finished 3rd. There's mountain and an ocean between those scoring finishes. It doesn't matter all that much Ovechkin only scored one more ES point, when he finished in the top-3 in overall scoring. Laine had 14 PP points in his rookie year. If he's given more PP time he might score few more points. But given his pace that season, I doubt he gets to 75 points.

Then again, last season Laine had 31 PP points but his ES scoring was lacking. Doesn't mean he was worse player last season. He just wasn't able to finish as much plays on ES as he was previous season.

I'm not saying we should not look at all the data we have, of course it's good to see as much info as possible. But in this thread I see so much convenient pick and choosing when it comes to what stats support and what not. In the end, overall production is what matters the most for offensive wingers. On goal department Laine is having even greater start to his career than Ovechkin (even if we compare their rookie and sophomore seasons head on). It's his overall offensive game that's still few notches below what it should be if he want's to get ranked among the big ones.

It's not really fair to compare their rookie seasons since Ovechkin was 20 and Laine 18.

 

[Plural]

It's not really fair to compare their rookie seasons since Ovechkin was 20 and Laine 18.

Oh jesus f***ing christ.... I wasn't the one doing the comparison. I was just answering to it. Read the posts before replying since it's so insanely tiresome to keep talking about the age gap.

 

[Plural]

I mean, it was extremely obvious that Laine wasn't the ES player that his rookie totals would indicate. He had a very high oish% and was a distant 3rd best player on his line. Similarly, it was also clear he'd be way better on the powerplay

At this point, Laine is a good scoring winger and elite PP presence. He needs to take huge strides before he's considered an all time great like Ovi. Not saying it's impossible, but it's very tough to see it happening

Didn't Matthews also have very high oish% last season?

 

[grieves]

Here's the issue I have with this new mindset that's creeped in to HF player evaluation few years a go. There seems to be tendency to clip seasons in to small pieces (be it ES points, G/60, GFx, etc. etc.) and just compare those small parts to make judgements based on much bigger combination. Laine had great rookie season no doubt. One of the better one's where the player in question does not win the Calder. In recent years I think only Crosby was clearly better rookie who didn't win the Calder trophy. But scoring fluctuates, as we saw from Laine in his rookie and sophomore seasons. In his rookie season he was scoring on ES and his sophomore season he was beasting on the PP.

When I see things like the bolded it feels great, since I love Laine. But it doesn't really mean all that much. Since in the grand scheme of things, we're looking at a guy who finished 30th in scoring against a guy who finished 3rd. There's mountain and an ocean between those scoring finishes. It doesn't matter all that much Ovechkin only scored one more ES point, when he finished in the top-3 in overall scoring. Laine had 14 PP points in his rookie year. If he's given more PP time he might score few more points. But given his pace that season, I doubt he gets to 75 points.

Then again, last season Laine had 31 PP points but his ES scoring was lacking. Doesn't mean he was worse player last season. He just wasn't able to finish as much plays on ES as he was previous season.

I'm not saying we should not look at all the data we have, of course it's good to see as much info as possible. But in this thread I see so much convenient pick and choosing when it comes to what stats support and what not. In the end, overall production is what matters the most for offensive wingers. On goal department Laine is having even greater start to his career than Ovechkin (even if we compare their rookie and sophomore seasons head on). It's his overall offensive game that's still few notches below what it should be if he want's to get ranked among the big ones.

I think you are a bit all over the place here. First we shouldn't look at details, but then it's better to look at all of the information we have. Can't have both.

I agree with you in a sense that there are a lot of external factors and it is difficult to compare players. But we can still try to do that the best way we know how and see whether or not it pans out (especially when getting a bit hungry for hockey during the Summer ). I don't think we just look at raw numbers and go "yep well thats it, better not delve deeper". That is not going to get very good results I think.

I'm extremely interested to see whether or not Laine's rise to power has been accurately predicted years before it happens.

For sure there is convenient picking and choosing on both sides, that is quite human. That is why we have speech. We get to have ideas clash and we correct each other all the time and this process of collective thinking hopefully yields something resembling truth. Of course some people are going to entrench themselves in their deeply held opinion so deep that truth is no longer the end-game, but everyone gets to evaluate all the opinions and form their own. This process is also why you never mess with freedom of speech (looking at you, Canada). But I digress .

 

[AstrophysicalJet]

Who gave you the right to use words of wisdom in this thread ???

Seriously, very well written and definitly something that these Laine-bashers should read through and even try to comprehend

Dude, No one is bashing Laine.

I am a Jets fan, and I agree, Ovi was and is the better overall player.

This is not a bash on Laine, this is an opinion - A subjective opinion, but so is picking Laine.

I might change my mind, but as of right now, I just remember being more impressed with Ovi, than Laine.

Finnish players sure are getting pumped these days in every thread it seems.

Maybe take off the:

 

[AirJordan]

Who gave you the right to use words of wisdom in this thread ???

Seriously, very well written and definitly something that these Laine-bashers should read through and even try to comprehend

yeah, great post... lets talk about playing time over and over again... its not like laine played like trash 1/2 of the last season and rightfully saw not more than 2nd line minutes... and now we are even debating ovis +/- to support our agenda, right? what you don't can is to tell me in what exactly laine is better at at 20 than ovi was at 20... i mean, laine is now as old as ovi was back then in his first season. but yes, 'wake me up same time next year' if laine doing something likê this:

 

[Plural]

I think you are a bit all over the place here. First we shouldn't look at details, but then it's better to look at all of the information we have. Can't have both.

I never said that, you just choose to read it that way so you don't have to acknowledge my point. Which is that we should look at all the data available, but we shouldn't be making broad generalizations about small data fractions. Which I see done on this board regularly. Especially when it comes to Laine or Matthews.

I agree with you in a sense that there are a lot of external factors and it is difficult to compare players. But we can still try to do that the best way we know how and see whether or not it pans out (especially when getting a bit hungry for hockey during the Summer ). I don't think we just look at raw numbers and go "yep well thats it, better not delve deeper". That is not going to get very good results I think.

Agreed. But when it comes to these comparisons they usually only involve the pieces of information that only suit to the agenda of the poster. For example in the comparison of Laine and Ovechkin in teenage years. Some posters simply cite "44 NHL goals > 13 RSL goals". Which at face value is of course correct. But that's extremely one sided comparison that is clearly used to pimp up agenda.

There is so much more to the equation that's intentionally left out. If the question is only "which one had the better true (and that's another stupid agenda driven metric that's been invented solely due to Laine, as long as the draft has been around comparisons have been done based on draft+ years, not month of birth) 19 year old season" the answer would without a doubt be Laine by a mile.

The issue arises when posters use those two seasons as some kind of benchmarks for future development. Which doesn't make any sense. Firstly because Ovechkin played in a defensive winger role in third line during that season. His defensive game was even separately brought up in his scouting reports. His role in RSL was vastly different from his role in the upcoming season in NHL. Trying to draw parallels between his RSL stats and NHL rookie stats makes no sense. Two different kind of leagues with two different kind of responsibilities.

If someone truly feels that Ovechkin was a depth winger in RSL and during one summer took a superhuman jump to NHL superstar I question that persons rational capabilities.

I'm extremely interested to see whether or not Laine's rise to power has been accurately predicted years before it happens.

For sure there is convenient picking and choosing on both sides, that is quite human. That is why we have speech. We get to have ideas clash and we correct each other all the time and this process of collective thinking hopefully yields something resembling truth. Of course some people are going to entrench themselves in their deeply held opinion so deep that truth is no longer the end-game, but everyone gets to evaluate all the opinions and form their own. But I digress .

Fair enough. Discourse is good I guess. But the discussion is already so polarized that I doubt any new point of views are going to come out. Everyone who has something to say have already said their piece. It's just back and forth from here on until Laine sees his career progress.

Personally, I don't even care wether or not he becomes as good as Ovechkin. They are two different players and both are going to be great in their own way. I won't be disappointed if Laine doesn't turn in to consensus top-30 player all-time. I won't be disappointed if Laine doesn't turn in to top-5 goalscorer all-time. I'm just excited to see him play.

 

[grieves]

I never said that, you just choose to read it that way so you don't have to acknowledge my point. Which is that we should look at all the data available, but we shouldn't be making broad generalizations about small data fractions. Which I see done on this board regularly. Especially when it comes to Laine or Matthews.


Agreed. But when it comes to these comparisons they usually only involve the pieces of information that only suit to the agenda of the poster. For example in the comparison of Laine and Ovechkin in teenage years. Some posters simply cite "44 NHL goals > 13 RSL goals". Which at face value is of course correct. But that's extremely one sided comparison that is clearly used to pimp up agenda.

There is so much more to the equation that's intentionally left out. If the question is only "which one had the better true (and that's another stupid agenda driven metric that's been invented solely due to Laine, as long as the draft has been around comparisons have been done based on draft+ years, not month of birth) 19 year old season" the answer would without a doubt be Laine by a mile.

The issue arises when posters use those two seasons as some kind of benchmarks for future development. Which doesn't make any sense. Firstly because Ovechkin played in a defensive winger role in third line during that season. His defensive game was even separately brought up in his scouting reports. His role in RSL was vastly different from his role in the upcoming season in NHL. Trying to draw parallels between his RSL stats and NHL rookie stats makes no sense. Two different kind of leagues with two different kind of responsibilities.

If someone truly feels that Ovechkin was a depth winger in RSL and during one summer took a superhuman jump to NHL superstar I question that persons rational capabilities.



Fair enough. Discourse is good I guess. But the discussion is already so polarized that I doubt any new point of views are going to come out. Everyone who has something to say have already said their piece. It's just back and forth from here on until Laine sees his career progress.

Personally, I don't even care wether or not he becomes as good as Ovechkin. They are two different players and both are going to be great in their own way. I won't be disappointed if Laine doesn't turn in to consensus top-30 player all-time. I won't be disappointed if Laine doesn't turn in to top-5 goalscorer all-time. I'm just excited to see him play.

I find it best to focus on the arguments, not on what posters are doing. The discussion usually has less of a chance to get derailed. The world is full of different kinds of people in every kind of camp in existence.

I keep repeating that it is only the best guess we have, so that generalization is completely fine in my books. You are speaking with a very wide brush here. It may be the case that we shouldn't do broad generalizations on some issues but I think it is better to look at this from a case-by-case basis because there is so much going on in this game with different kinds of players that have different kinds of playstyles. In other words, I think this is too broad a generalization . Otherwise you can just pull out this card whenever you please with whatever situation.

For example, Ovi and Laine are PP monsters, therefore, they benefit more from more PP time. Matthews would benefit less from more PP time. Details are important.

You are again contradicting yourself. You say that it is not cool to compare RSL numbers straight to NHL numbers, but isn't that the most straightforward thing to do? Or are you saying that we should look deeper? It would help if you would straight-up make the argument you want to make so we can measure it. I'm sure you are not implying that 13 goals in RSL is equal to 44 (while having the best +/- ratio on the team) in the NHL?

I completely disagree that we should not use age-based benchmarks. That is absolutely the best way we can do it IMO.

Yeah, the discussion is polarized but that's half the fun .

 

[Plural]

@grieves

I simply don't have the energy to write everything two or three times. I already made the case you're asking me to make. You just didn't read the post or didn't understand it.

 

[Brock Radunske]

What's with the Ovi comparasions? I thought Laine was Lemieux with a better shot?

 

[Troubadour]

@Plural

Comparing Laine's and Ovi's even strength points seems very much appropriate and necessary when evaluating their rookie years, as the 2005/06 scoring was PP-inflated to a crazy extent.

On the other hand, the total point finish seems a strange argument when one of the guys played in fewer games and enjoyed significantly smaller ice time.

 

[Carlzner]

I find it best to focus on the arguments, not on what posters are doing. The discussion usually has less of a chance to get derailed. The world is full of different kinds of people in every kind of camp in existence.

I keep repeating that it is only the best guess we have, so that generalization is completely fine in my books. You are speaking with a very wide brush here. It may be the case that we shouldn't do broad generalizations on some issues but I think it is better to look at this from a case-by-case basis because there is so much going on in this game with different kinds of players that have different kinds of playstyles. In other words, I think this is too broad a generalization . Otherwise you can just pull out this card whenever you please with whatever situation.

For example, Ovi and Laine are PP monsters, therefore, they benefit more from more PP time. Matthews would benefit less from more PP time. Details are important.

You are again contradicting yourself. You say that it is not cool to compare RSL numbers straight to NHL numbers, but isn't that the most straightforward thing to do? Or are you saying that we should look deeper? It would help if you would straight-up make the argument you want to make so we can measure it. I'm sure you are not implying that 13 goals in RSL is equal to 44 (while having the best +/- ratio on the team) in the NHL?

I completely disagree that we should not use age-based benchmarks. That is absolutely the best way we can do it IMO.

Yeah, the discussion is polarized but that's half the fun .

Why do you refuse to watch a single video

 

[Auston Marlander]

Who gave you the right to use words of wisdom in this thread ???

Seriously, very well written and definitly something that these Laine-bashers should read through and even try to comprehend

No one is bashing Laine, we all agree he is s great goal scorer, but that's where it ends (so far). Ovi brings so much more than just goals, that is the point many are making.

 

[Troubadour]

Why do you refuse to watch a single video

No-one's is denying Ovi was more entertaining, right?

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Didn't Matthews also have very high oish% last season?

At 5v5 yeah. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. It was also still lower than Laine's as a rookie

 

[Troubadour]

No one is bashing Laine, we all agree he is s great goal scorer, but that's where it ends (so far). Ovi used to bring so much more than just goals, that is the point many are making.

Fixed it for ya.