What were career expectations for Alex Ovechkin? Did he overachieve/disappoint?

[The Macho King]

If he passes Gretzky in goal scoring, I think he's a lock for top 5 all-time.

Why? The guys who are routinely ranked high around here aren't done so because of their career totals. It's because of their game-by-game impact. Ovechkin is a significantly less an *impactful* player than he was pre-2011. He's found a way to still make an impact and he should get credit for that, but it's not nearly the same level, as evidenced by his mediocre point totals despite high goal scoring.

 

[MadLuke]

There's no sensible reason to start with +/-, substract EN goals, substract SH goals, and then calculate ESGF-ESGA to arrive at a conclusion. In fact, the only way to gather that context is to look up the ESGA stat that you should have started with!

I am not sure ESGA or ESGF has much importance, the only thing that matter if a player is any good is how much is presence help a team outscore the opposition no ?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

overachieve, imo.

even if he was considered a borderline generational prospect, you honestly can't expect any prospect to do what he did. like if you were drafting even 18 year old gretzky, mario, lindros, or crosby and they equaled basically bobby hull's career achievements, you'd say you'd be happy with that.

three MVPs, a scoring title, a record eight goals titles and counting, a three year peak where he was easily the most dominant scorer (in goals, points, goals/game, points/game), leapfrogging sakic, robitaille, selanne, mario, yzerman, almost certainly messier, probably gartner, and possibly even espo before his 35th birthday even after losing a year and half to lockouts, captaining and smything a team to the cup, that's an impossibly high resume that you can't expect anyone to come through on. for anyone you'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

[TheGuiminator]

That's a bit more sensible at least. Yes in your example - as great as scoring 895 goals would be - being able to continue to rack up 50+ goals in his late 30s and having 5-6 more elite seasons so late in his career would be the "accomplishments" i spoke of. Those would be of significant worth to his resume, and a good reason for him to climb up rankings. Not sure enough to go all the way to #5 though.

I agree that a substantial record being broken is a huge deal. But the player Ovechkin is will have been determined long before that. What if he's 38 years old and finishes the season at 871 goals (with elite seasons into his late 30s as we just alluded to) and decides to retire? Vs - what if he plays that one more season, and scored 26 to finish at 897? To me where you rank him all-time doesn't change a whole lot with that one last season. It would have to be based mostly on everything else.



To be clear I wasn't saying Ovechkin might do all of those things. Because I agree. If Ovechkin tops 894 goals, wins 1 more hart, 1 more lindsay, 1 more smythe, 1 more ross and more rockets at ages 35+ - there might very well be an argument to bump him up majorly.

All I was trying to say is - those are some of the awards/accomplishments needed to raise him all-time significantly. So say you have him 12th all time now and he wins 1 more smythe? Maybe that's enough to move him to 9th. Wasn't insinuating he could amass all of those awards.

I've made similar claims with Crosby too. He'll never pierce the big 4 - but if he somehow wins 3 more smythes, who knows?

1. Then he's doesn't become top 5, it's that simple. I don't know why would he retire being so close to the goal record while putting up 5 elite seasons prior to that ? (hypothetically)

2. To me it changes alot, not only he breaks an all-time goal record, but add an extra 4-5 elite seasons under his belt (prior to his last season). Let's say he scores 26 in his last season, there's nothing to the ashamed of, it still good for a 39-40 years old man.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To be clear I wasn't saying Ovechkin might do all of those things. Because I agree. If Ovechkin tops 894 goals, wins 1 more hart, 1 more lindsay, 1 more smythe, 1 more ross and more rockets at ages 35+ - there might very well be an argument to bump him up majorly.

All I was trying to say is - those are some of the awards/accomplishments needed to raise him all-time significantly. So say you have him 12th all time now and he wins 1 more smythe? Maybe that's enough to move him to 9th. Wasn't insinuating he could amass all of those awards.

I've made similar claims with Crosby too. He'll never pierce the big 4 - but if he somehow wins 3 more smythes, who knows?

Yeah, just to clarify my response -- if he does what you described in the last paragraph (keep scoring consistently into his 40s until he beats Gretzky's goal record) that alone would be enough for me to consider it a Big 5 going forward.

The context of beating that record cannot be overstated. It's a comparison of the consensus GOAT playing in absolutely ideal circumstances on a stacked, firewagon-hockey team in the highest-scoring era of all time, against Ovechkin playing in an ordinary-scoring era on a team that is good for its era but nowhere near anyone's all-time lists. For Ovechkin to prevail statistically in that situation would be... man, that would be breathtaking. Unimaginable.

I'm a huge Mario Lemieux fan, to my mind he is in a tiny category of athletes (Muhammad Ali and Barry Sanders come to mind) who could just leave you completely stunned at their giftedness. But when it comes down to it, we're talking about a scenario where Ovechkin scores close to 30% more goals than Mario during a career where scoring was over 30% lower. At that point I'm pretty sure the one additional Cup/Smythe and "on pace for" arguments would stop being convincing for me.

 

[The Macho King]

That's wild to me that people would change rankings based on an arbitrary number of goals.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I am not sure ESGA or ESGF has much importance, the only thing that matter if a player is any good is how much is presence help a team outscore the opposition no ?

In the same sense that Ws are the best measure of a goalie, sure. I do think there's a valid reason to go a step further and look at how a player gets those results, the scope of his individual contribution.

If you're suggesting that an ES goal is no more valuable than a PP goal, I think that's an interesting argument to be had. Not sure quite where I stand on it.

 

[MadLuke]

If you're suggesting that an ES goal is no more valuable than a PP goal, I think that's an interesting argument to be had. Not sure quite where I stand on it.

When talking elite player I would always value goal on how much they scored the average first liner would have not, so ES goal will tend to have more value than PP one in that regard.

In the same sense that Ws are the best measure of a goalie, sure

Not in the same sense, in the sense that goal prevented over replacement is the best measure of a goaltender that their net goal contribution, for a player their net goal contribution is what matter, would it be it is reducing Gretzky to 2 points in a best of seven playoff or scoring 4 more goal than a replacement. How can be interesting, but what matter is how much net goal you gained by icing them, making a good +/- metric if it would exist the best possible way to look at player.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's wild to me that people would change rankings based on an arbitrary number of goals.

It's not so much the number itself, as the context of what it means to hit that number in the present day.

Ovechkin's already at a point where he's starting to hit unique marks for durability (e.g. oldest modern player to lead the league in goals) and what we're talking about here is him completely demolishing any previous standard. At that point he would basically be a combination of Bobby Hull's prime and Gordie Howe's longevity*, which is about as close to ideal as a career can possibly get. If he can pull that off, hats off to the guy... I don't see how in the world we could spend 8 years watching that happen and not elevate him to the top tier.

* except we didn't clarify whether he would go torch the KHL just for the hell of it until he's 50.

 

[tarheelhockey]

When talking elite player I would always value goal on how much they scored the average first liner would have not, so ES goal will tend to have more value than PP one in that regard.



Not in the same sense, in the sense that goal prevented over replacement is the best measure of a goaltender that their net goal contribution, for a player their net goal contribution is what matter, would it be it is reducing Gretzky to 2 points in a best of seven playoff or scoring 4 more goal than a replacement. How can be interesting, but what matter is how much net goal you gained by icing them, making a good +/- metric if it would exist the best possible way to look at player.

I get it, but +/- doesn't measure a player's contribution over replacement. It measures who was on the ice when a goal was scored, which is a completely different metric.

(and then it muddles that up with SHG and ENG)

As you say, if there were such thing as a perfect way to measure +/-, it would be the best possible way to evaluate players. I actually attempted this for 3 years on the Canes board, reviewing every single ESG in every single game and assigning + and - based on players being directly involved in the scoring sequence. Obviously it was a subjective approach, but 90% of the time it's surprisingly easy to agree on which players were responsible for the scoring of a goal offensively and defensively (or, occasionally, to agree that the goalie definitely should have had it).

One of the BIG patterns that emerged: wingers have far less defensive influence than we thought. Jeff Skinner had a terrible defensive reputation during that time period. He was probably the worst defensive winger on the Canes. He had only a fraction as much personal influence on their GA as the centers and defensemen, so little that you really didn't even care about it compared to how often he was involved in scoring goals for his team. That's part of the reason I'm suspicious of any suggestion that a winger is personally driving a trend in ESGA... they just don't impact the play THAT much on THAT regular of a basis.

Unfortunately those threads were deleted during the transition to Mandatory, so 3 years of data is lost.

 

[JackSlater]

That's wild to me that people would change rankings based on an arbitrary number of goals.

Yes I find that line of thinking ridiculous. How Ovechkin's goal scoring totals compare to Gretzky's should have zero bearing on how Ovechkin compares to any other player. If Ovechkin finishes with 880 goals rather than 895 is he any worse in a meaningful way? Of course not. If Gretzky had scored 50 more goals than he did, would that make Ovechkin a worse player? If the 2013 lockout never happened Ovechkin would almost certainly have more goals than he does right now... so the 2013 lockout made Ovechkin a worse player? Ovechkin getting close to Gretzky's goal totals already indicates that he was a more accomplished goal scorer. Which of them had more goals, unless there is some giant gap, is pretty much just trivia.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I always imagine these weird picket fences as going down like this just one time...

Ovechkin scores 894 in the last game of his career and whoever upthread was going on about it starts a thread "Ovechkin now 3rd best player of all time" and then the NHL issues a stat correction the next day that says that puck actually went off of Nicklas Backstrom's skate blade, Ovechkin sits at 893. I guess he's back down to the 21st best player now...ah well...

At least that will give credence to that charming fellow who believes him to be an elite passer/playmaker...

 

[rmartin65]

Can... can my answer be both?

Ovechkin has had a phenomenal career. He has won just about everything there is to win, and he is in the conversation for best goal scorer of all time.

However

I won't lie- he didn't live up to what he did his first few years. That is ok- very, very few people live up to their absolute peak- but I do wish he could have stayed THAT player for a few more years.

A rich man's Brett Hull is nothing to sneeze at, though.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Overachieve IMO. We all thought he'd be a great goalscorer, rich man's Brett Hull seems fitting. But he's done a lot more than that.

Still, this thread just reinforces that Gretzky was the greatest all time, including goalscoring...

The big knack on Ovechkin is his international career which is truly bad for a player of his stature. Someone said in a thread during the top 100 voting on here that he was the worst of any player who played internationally and I agree...

 

[The Macho King]

Overachieve IMO. We all thought he'd be a great goalscorer, rich man's Brett Hull seems fitting. But he's done a lot more than that.

Still, this thread just reinforces that Gretzky was the greatest all time, including goalscoring...

The big knack on Ovechkin is his international career which is truly bad for a player of his stature. Someone said in a thread during the top 100 voting on here that he was the worst of any player who played internationally and I agree...

I think I said that - I was comparing his international resume against everyone else on the list (not total - I'm sure you can find some shitty estonians), but of players at that level who seems to pride himself on his nationality, his international resume is a disaster.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

Didn't a lot of Russian high picks bust bad around then? Obviously the closest comparable (Kovy) was clearly going to be fine by 2004, and scouting was worse everywhere, not just Russia, but I wonder if all the Volchkovs, Chistovs, Firstovs were floating around in the air a little bit. Maybe not even with GMs but with fans and pundits.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I think I said that - I was comparing his international resume against everyone else on the list (not total - I'm sure you can find some ****ty estonians), but of players at that level who seems to pride himself on his nationality, his international resume is a disaster.

Yes, I think it was you (if you had the bearded man with a hat or something as an avatar before?). But either way, I've seen most of his showings in the WHC. Never was any good IMO. Kovalchuk had better showings multiple times and Malkin of course was absolutely dominant in 2012.

 

[The Macho King]

Didn't a lot of Russian high picks bust bad around then? Obviously the closest comparable (Kovy) was clearly going to be fine by 2004, and scouting was worse everywhere, not just Russia, but I wonder if all the Volchkovs, Chistovs, Firstovs were floating around in the air a little bit. Maybe not even with GMs but with fans and pundits.

Tampa drafted one at 3rd overall in like 2001? Scored like 37 points in 160 games.

 

[scott clam]

Disagree strongly on the bolded. To me - you need accomplishments to move up all time, not just longevity, or milestones.

Do you consider Ovechkin #5 all time today? I assume the answer is no (it is for me). For him to be #5, he needs to add accomplishments. Smythes/Harts/Ross/Lindsay at this stage of his career would be the most valuable. Maybe more rockets. Maybe top 2-3 scoring finishes, etc. Maybe smythe-worthy playoff runs, without a smythe. "Accomplishments" as I said. If he adds enough of those - he'll be seen as #5 of all time (he won't do that, but that's what it would take).

Coming back to what you said. It's very plausible that we see Ovechkin top 894 goals without adding any of those accomplishments. He doesn't even need a single rocket more. He could only score 45 goals this year, and then go on to score 5 less in successive years and taper off by scoring 20-25 goals a year till ages 41-42. He still beats Gretzky's record - a fantastic milestones certainly worthy of celebration - but all in all it would do very little to move the needle for his ranking all-time.

In order for Ovechkin to be top 5 all-time he would need another truly dominant season like from '08-'10, which just isn't going to happen. Probably another Smythe-worthy playoff run too. The latter is at least still a possibility.

Nonetheless, Crosby's legacy as best player of his generation is pretty well secure. Even if it is close.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah, just to clarify my response -- if he does what you described in the last paragraph (keep scoring consistently into his 40s until he beats Gretzky's goal record) that alone would be enough for me to consider it a Big 5 going forward.

Total madness. Compiling his way to a Big 5 status huh? I've heard it all.

Luxurious compiling to be sure; but compiling all the same.

Thank god for the eye-test, which protects us from such arguments. Ovechkin hasn't been visually impressive for 10 years. His hockey intelligence is arguably the worst inside the Top 50 of hockey history (who is worse?). He's an OK playoff performer but nothing more. He is not good defensively. He is not a Big 5 player.

He is certainly a phenomenal sniper and arguably the best ever in that department. He had great peak years. He seems like a nice guy. He is physical and durable. He has a lot going for him. No need to overrate him.

 

[billybudd]

This is like scratching your head over why Jameis Winston has a better QB rating than Dan Marino. Nobody takes plus minus seriously in 2020.

Plus/minus is not without its uses. It's reputation as a purely worthless stat came out of the same newbie hubris that once had analytics pioneers confidently (and stupidly) insisting that "shot quality doesn't exist."

It's just that a mere modest plus rating over a decade and a half of work isn't much of a knock against a guy who blasts 20-25 into the net on special teams every single year. "He's only a plus 80" is no compelling criticism of someone who has scored 250 times (and counting) on the powerplay, leading the entire NHL on 7 occasions.

The dude is likely to score 800 goals before it's all over. Maybe more. He's helping his team win. A lot.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Total madness. Compiling his way to a Big 5 status huh? I've heard it all.

Luxurious compiling to be sure; but compiling all the same.

Thank god for the eye-test, which protects us from such arguments. Ovechkin hasn't been visually impressive for 10 years. His hockey intelligence is arguably the worst inside the Top 50 of hockey history (who is worse?). He's an OK playoff performer but nothing more. He is not good defensively. He is not a Big 5 player.

He is certainly a phenomenal sniper and arguably the best ever in that department. He had great peak years. He seems like a nice guy. He is physical and durable. He has a lot going for him. No need to overrate him.

He hasn’t looked impressive in a decade... while leading the league in goals nearly every ****ing year!?

This guy needs to retire and we need to go through another generation of Markus Naslund and Jarome Iginla to re-calibrate expectations. THAT’S what will “protect us from such arguments” as scoring 40+ goals being “compiling”.

 

[BenchBrawl]

He hasn’t looked impressive in a decade... while leading the league in goals nearly every ****ing year!?

This guy needs to retire and we need to go through another generation of Markus Naslund and Jarome Iginla to re-calibrate expectations. THAT’S what will “protect us from such arguments” as scoring 40+ goals being “compiling”.

If we're going into the abyss of delirium let me join you: If the Caps had a James Neal-like sniper instead of Ovechkin from 2011 to 2020 (assume 30-35 goals a season), my guess is the team results would be more or less the same. The sniper scoring 10 less goals is maybe not as good, but he does the job. The difference is not crucial for the functionality of a team.

 

[The Panther]

Ovechkin hasn't been visually impressive for 10 years. His hockey intelligence is arguably the worst inside the Top 50 of hockey history (who is worse?). He's an OK playoff performer but nothing more.

Whoa.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The point is that leading the league in goals is very nice, but ultimately it's not as valuable as you make it out to be.

When he retires and we're back with the Iginlas and Kovalchuks exchanging Rockets, we'll conclude what we already know: that Ovechkin was one of the greatest snipers ever. It doesn't make him a cornerstone player from 2011-2020 just because he's winning scoring titles with stat lines of 50-30.