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

[BenchBrawl]

.

 

[alko]

There was a little possibility, Caps would draft Malking insted Ovie.

From Book: Red Rising: The Washington Capitals Story

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Peak, prime, durability is amazing. Going down as the greatest goal scorer is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[bobholly39]

There was a little possibility, Caps would draft Malking insted Ovie.

From Book: Red Rising: The Washington Capitals Story
View attachment 311849

Cool snippet, thanks for posting.

That's actually refreshing to see too - that his charisma and being more outgoing was something they looked at, more than just strictly on-ice play. It certainly worked out great, as he's been one of the funnest ambassadors for the sport, maybe in history.

In terms of caliber of player - it's not like Malkin is super far behind Ovi - but after playing his whole career in the shadow of Sidney Crosby (a bit on ice, but certainly in terms of spotlight) - it's hard to envision how Malkin's career may have turned out if he wasn't playing with Crosby. Maybe it's much better - but maybe he struggles a bit too with all the extra attention.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I agree with everything you say for goal-scoring. In fact - he doesn't even need to reach 894 goals, even reaching 700+, let alone 802 (Howe's number) will cement him as the greatest goal-scorer ever. For all the reasons you say. Scoring environment in today's league vs the 80s, consistency year over year, etc. But that's not enough to be a top 5 ( let alone top 4!) player of all time.

I'd say if Ovechkin reaches exactly 894 goals. The equivalent # for Gretzky/Lemieux would have been ~1100, if not a bit more. Somewhere in between 1100-1200 in their era.

So yes - it's incredibly impressive what he's done, and continues to do. But you can't ignore all other facets of hockey, and all other accomplishments that today still make a lot of other players better options at #5 than he is. Whether it's Beliveau, Hull, Roy, Hasek, Crosby, Bourque or whoever else you have there.

Your opinion would be less controversial if you told me you already consider Ovechkin #6 or #7 all time - and that 894 goals would bump him to #5. But if you consider him closer to #12-15 - i simply don't understand how this can be so important to you.

Remember Lemieux was seen as the best player in the world, by a pretty huge gap in every season he played (minus Gretzky first few years). Forget Crosby/McDavid/Ovechkin - Lemieux was seen as far superior to his peers than they ever were. In every season. When's the last time Ovechkin was seen as the best player in the world, let alone by a big gap? 10 years ago? Doesn't and won't ever touch Lemieux.

 

[Troubadour]

His career surpassed my expectations. I expected a bit longer and more spectacular peak. Spring 2008 and that stretch before the Olympics made him look like a 70-goal-a-year type of scorer. On the other hand, I thought he would slow down way sooner and more drastically, as I was sure injuries and loss of speed would catch up with him. As exciting as he was during his rookie year, I thought there was no way he would have a long career (not to mention long and productive).

I remember the 04WCH commentators mentioning he was likely gonna go as #1 on the upcoming draft. He scored a couple of minutes later, against Belarus I think.

It was only after the draft and after his rookie season rumors began circulating the other Russian dude (Malkin) could be even better. Ovechkin himself was hyping Malkin up a fair bit, claiming Geno was better than him and Crosby.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

So the argument is:

- He’s not “visually impressive”
- He’s not smart enough
- A worse player could probably do his job and somehow nothing would change

And we’re saying this about a speculative future where a player who had a higher-impact prime than Bobby Hull also goes on to have higher-impact longevity than Gordie Howe.

This sounds an awful lot like an “I just don’t like him” type of situation.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So the argument is:

- He’s not “visually impressive”
- He’s not smart enough
- A worse player could probably do his job and somehow nothing would change

And we’re saying this about a speculative future where a player who had a higher-impact prime than Bobby Hull also goes on to have higher-impact longevity than Gordie Howe.

This sounds an awful lot like an “I just don’t like him” type of situation.

This is not really the essence of my argument. Yeah, I've literally said those things, but please try to understand what I mean instead of just lawyering your way to a defense.

The essence of my message is that you decided that "hey, if some guy scores more goals than everyone else for many years, then he is Big 5", and I find that both arbitrary and artificial (and a wrong way to judge hockey players, since hockey is a very complicated/fluid/dynamic game). The eye-test and the "visual" aspect is relevant to my last point in parenthesis.

If Brett Hull scores more goals every year of his career than Joe Sakic, does that make Brett Hull better than Joe Sakic? Yes this is a caricatural example.

Ovechkin is proving one thing only: that he is an outlier in goalscoring. It says little about the impact he has on his team as the game is ongoing, it says little about how he achieves those goals, it says little about how the pie of credit should be distributed, it says little about how much his goalscoring helped his team win championships. And yeah, he won a championship, this was important and he deserves credit for scoring 15 goals in the playoffs. But this doesn't all of a sudden makes him a cornerstone type player, it doesn't make him the motor.

We can imagine a super pylon, who never moves anywhere on the ice except to avoid offside, but who happens ot have the greatest shot in history. This pylon might score more goals than everyone else, but as soon as the other team has the puck, they are on a powerplay. It's not clear how valuable this pylon is. Maybe he is incredibly valuable. Maybe he is detrimental. Maybe the truth is in-between. I'm not saying Ovechkin is a pylon, but he's more of a pylon than players I would define as cornerstone types, at least since 2011.

 

[bobholly39]

This is not really the essence of my argument. Yeah, I've literally said those things, but try to understand what I mean instead of just lawyering your way to a defense.

The essence of my message is that you decided that "hey, if some guy scores more goals than everyone else for many years, then he is Big 5", and I find that both arbitrary and artificial (and a wrong way to judge hockey players, since hockey is a very complicated/fluid/dynamic game). The eye-test and the "visual" aspect is relevant to my last point in parenthesis.

If Brett Hull scores more goals every year of his career than Joe Sakic, does that make Brett Hull better than Joe Sakic? Yes this is a caricatural example, please do not lawyer your way into nitpicking it.

I mean....it depends? Maybe?

Hull scored 741 goals to Sakic's 625 goals. Considering Hull played in more advantageous years (started 1 year earlier in the 80s, but was also 23 years old to Sakic's 19 in his first year, so got to benefit from higher scoring era more). Not exactly a huge difference all things considered. Brett Hull had great longevity as a goal-scorer, but Ovechkin trumps him by a lot. Brett Hull only once finished top 5 in goal-scoring in a season outside of his 3 "rockets". Ovechkin did that 13 times (including this season), so 13 to 4.

I'm a huge fan of Brett Hull, and I remember arguing for him pretty strongly in the top 60 winger project and last year's top 100 players. But comparing him to Ovechkin is doing Ovechkin a major disservice. Even for overall point finishes, Ovechkin has 8 top 10 finishes to Brett Hull's 3.

I guess i probably "lawyered" your example a bit, but it was a bad example.

 

[BenchBrawl]

.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is not really the essence of my argument. Yeah, I've literally said those things, but please try to understand what I mean instead of just lawyering your way to a defense.

The essence of my message is that you decided that "hey, if some guy scores more goals than everyone else for many years, then he is Big 5", and I find that both arbitrary and artificial (and a wrong way to judge hockey players, since hockey is a very complicated/fluid/dynamic game). The eye-test and the "visual" aspect is relevant to my last point in parenthesis.

If Brett Hull scores more goals every year of his career than Joe Sakic, does that make Brett Hull better than Joe Sakic? Yes this is a caricatural example.

Ovechkin is proving one thing only: that he is an outlier in goalscoring. It says little about the impact he has on his team as the game is ongoing, it says little about how he achieves those goals, it says little about how the pie of credit should be distributed, it says little about how much his goalscoring helped his team win championships. And yeah, he won a championship, this was important and he deserves credit for scoring 15 goals in the playoffs. But this doesn't all of a sudden makes him a cornerstone type player, it doesn't make him the motor.

We can imagine a super pylon, who never moves anywhere on the ice except to avoid offside, but who happens ot have the greatest shot in history. This pylon might score more goals than everyone else, but as soon as the other team has the puck, they are on a powerplay. It's not clear how valuable this pylon is. Maybe he is incredibly valuable. Maybe he is detrimental. Maybe the truth is in-between. I'm not saying Ovechkin is a pylon, but he's more of a pylon than players I would define as cornerstone types, at least since 2011.

To the extent that Ovechkin is open for criticism, this is just such a weird angle to choose.

I genuinely don’t feel that he needs to prove to anybody that he’s a “motor” for the Caps or that he does things other than just stand there and score goals a la Brett Hull. Or that he doesn’t contribute enough in the playoffs, or that goal-scoring just isn’t that important and it’s replaceable by inferior players.

These are arguments that were put to bed a LONG time ago.

 

[sr edler]

Calling Ovi a rich man's Bobby Hull is insane. I'm not a draft guy, so I have no idea how Ovi was perceived as a prospect, but I'm sure he overachieved expectations a tiny bit at least, depending slightly on what those expectations were of course.

I guess scouts could see he would translate to the NHL game, where he could do his bodily thing. He didn't translate as well to the big rink game, and he had one of the most suspect peak demises I've ever seen, before he remodeled himself as a second incarnation of Brett Hull.

All in all post peak Ovi (2010–2020) was never an all-time great type of player as he was out-performed on the wing consistently by guys like Patrick Kane, Jamie Benn, et cetera. His Conn Smythe was also a name recognition gift.

 

[Richard]

This was pre internet for me but the radio stations in Pittsburgh in 2003 were talking about "the Russian Mario Lemieux" as hope for the team that season.

People were pissed when Ted Leonis out tanked us and won Ovechkin.

The ball that won Crosby would have been forfeited had the Pens got Ovechkin though and, all things considered, Ill take Crosby+Malkin over Ovechkin.

He hit the expectations

 

[bobholly39]

This was pre internet for me but the radio stations in Pittsburgh in 2003 were talking about "the Russian Mario Lemieux" as hope for the team that season.

People were pissed when Ted Leonis out tanked us and won Ovechkin.

The ball that won Crosby would have been forfeited had the Pens got Ovechkin though and, all things considered, Ill take Crosby+Malkin over Ovechkin.

He hit the expectations

Would it have? Why? I thought everyone was eligible in 2005 after the lockout. Was there some rule back then about limiting back to back #1OA? I don't remember that

 

[Richard]

Would it have? Why? I thought everyone was eligible in 2005 after the lockout. Was there some rule back then about limiting back to back #1OA? I don't remember that

I believe the ball was #14 which was the third ball and was given to the pens because they hadn't had any first overall picks the previous five seasons (FLeury was a trade).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Calling Ovi a rich man's Bobby Hull is insane.

It's really not, unless you think Ovechkin is going to stop playing tomorrow. He's already basically neck-and-neck with the meaningful portion of Hull's career. If he continues this pace for even a modest period of time, the gap is going to emerge.

Goal rankings
Hull: 1(x7), 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Ovie: 1(x8), 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

Assist rankings:
Hull: 5, 5, 6, 6, 6
Ovie: 6, 6, 10

Career adjusted goals
Hull: 639
Ovie: 797

Career adjusted assists
Hull: 586
Ovie: 624

Career adjusted GAP per game, adjusted
Hull: .62 - .57 - 1.18
Ovie: .70 - .55 - 1.25

Stanley Cup: 1 each

Awards:
Hull: Hart (x2), Hart finalist (x6), 1AS (x10), 2AS (x4), Byng (x1)
Ovie: Hart (x3), Hart finalist (x2), 1AS (x8), 2 AS (x1), Calder (x1), Smythe (x1)

Best single season (in terms of margin over #2)
Hull 1966: 69% lead in goals (Mahovlich), 24% lead in points (Rosseau/Mikita)
Ovie 2008: 25% lead in goals (Kovalchuk), 6% lead in points (Malkin)

3-season peak run
Hull 1965-67: 2 Harts and a 3rd place, 1 Ross, 3 1AS, 46% over #2 in goals (Ullman), 5% behind #2 in points (Mikita)
Ovie 2008-10: 2 Harts and a 2nd place, 1 Ross, 3 1AS, 26% over #2 in goals (Kovalchuk), 12% over #2 in points (Malkin)

A big part of Hull's defense is usually "yeah but he left for the WHA, you have to consider what he could have done after age 33". In this case we are comparing him to a player where that argument goes the other way. Ovechkin is currently in his age-34 season -- and missed 1.5 prime seasons due to labor stoppages. Take away labor troubles on both sides, and the needle actually ticks toward Ovechkin here.

The one part of this that goes so heavily in Hull's favor that a comparison seems "insane" is his peak season. No doubt, Hull put up margins in 1966 (and to a lesser but still notable extent, 1962) that Ovechkin is unlikely to match. I would argue that such a statistical mark is effectively impossible in today's NHL, due to scoring rates ironically now being too high to realistically produce that kind of outcome. But regardless of that point -- if you put an absolute emphasis on a player's peak, to the exclusion of anything else, yes it is "insane" to compare these players.

Otherwise, they are very closely comparable through a near-identical amount of time spent in the league. Much like Lemieux/Gretzky, or Bourque/Lidstrom, this is where the "missed time" element starts to kick in. If Ovechkin continues to stack up these all-time relevant seasons, what begins as a neck-and-neck race starts to open up. We're not talking about him scoring 15 goals as a has-been here, we're talking about him continuing to produce All-Star level seasons and contend for goal scoring titles, something Hull did not do from this age forward.

All in all post peak Ovi (2010–2020) was never an all-time great type of player as he was out-performed on the wing consistently by guys like Patrick Kane, Jamie Benn, et cetera. His Conn Smythe was also a name recognition gift.

I don't even know how to address this. Of course a guy who led the league in scoring 6 years out of 7 was an "all-time great type of player". And no, he was not out-performed consistently by Kane and certainly not by Jamie Benn. Holy moly.

 

[The Macho King]

I mean - the 8 times a Hart finalist kind of tells you all you need to know about the difference between the two. Ovi's only serious Hart consideration post 2010 came in the lockout shortened season and one additional top 3 finish. As to their All-Stars - I mean, LW is a historically shallow position and neither had really great competition there consistently (I'm low on Mahovlich), but even then Hull was at the top basically his whole career, while Ovi has largely been surpassed by guys like Taylor Hall and Brad Marchand in recent years (also it's a joke that he got first team over Marchand last year).

Hull was Hull for his entire career. Ovi was Bobby until 2010, and then turned into Brett. If Ovi was more Bobby later on, then I'd put him up there. As it stands, as shitty a human being as he was, Bobby Hull just had that extra impact on the game that Ovi hasn't had in a decade.

 

[seventieslord]

I love Ovi to death. You could probably call me easy to please, because it's rare that I hate, or even dislike a player. Particularly a great one. And no doubt about it, he's been great. And he's been great for the game, too. He's going to go down in history as no worse than a top-20 player, perhaps even top-10. My problems with Ovi are really only with the way certain people have a tendency to overrate him and his contributions. I don't hate any player, but I do hate seeing players drastically overrated or underrated, and if there are people thinking that breaking the all-time career regular season goals record suddenly makes a player better than Mario Lemieux and the big-4 becomes a big-5, then we have a problem.

First of all, the idea that we should judge a player based on the number of goals they score, and not the number of total points, is flawed. When you're looking at the most elite producers in history, there's little reason to believe that goals are worth more than assists, and no reason to believe that a goals total or ranking says more than a points total or ranking. History shows us that it doesn't take an all-time legend to lead the league in goals. Since WW2, Gaye Stewart, Bronco Horvath, Reggie Leach, Steve Shutt, Danny Gare, Blaine Stoughton, Charlie Simmer, Alexander Mogilny, Peter Bondra, Keith Tkachuk, Milan Hejduk, Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jonathan Cheechoo, Vincent Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos and Corey Perry have led the NHL in goals. Is a single one of them even arguably a top-200 player of all-time? In that same time, the only points leaders you could say the same about, are Roy Conacher, Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin and Jamie Benn. (too early to say for Kucherov).

As it applies to Ovechkin, as great as he has been at being the last person to touch the puck before it goes in the net, he hasn't been an outstanding point producer, outside of his amazing 07-08 through 09-10 peak. Whatever way you want to look at it, his VsX, adjusted points, "goals created", point rankings, haven't been as impressive outside of those three seasons where he was probably the top player in the world. The last four seasons in which he led the league in goals (16, 18, 19 and potentially this season) have seen him post points rankings of 15th, 11th, 15th and 16th. I don't want to sound like I am downplaying this too much, for a few reasons. One, those are still very impressive points rankings in today's league. Two, it's remarkably consistent. For example, despite never being in the top-10 in points over a single 82-game stretch the past 6 seasons, he is in fact 10th in points scored over that time. That's because a random Gaudreau, Scheifele or Tavares may beat him once or twice, but over the long run he wins the race. It's very similar in principle to Crosby leading the NHL in points from 14-15 through 18-19 despite never winning a scoring title over that time. Lastly, considering his age, it's even more impressive. This season isn't complete, but using his age 31-33 seasons and comparing it to other players in history, he has the 14th most combined points at those ages (and 12th most adjusted). So there's no way around it, even if you do the right thing and consider a player's total offensive impact and not just goals scored, he has a very impressive regular season resume and is still adding to it. But just appreciate it for what it is - don't elevate him unnecessarily because more of his points are goals.

The next point revolves around statistics vs. ability. Career totals aside, Ovechkin may already be the most statistically impressive goal scorer of all-time. That's because in this section in particular, we don't pay too much attention to compiled career totals and we look at season-by-season dominance, particularly at a player's peak. And Ovechkin already has a case in that regard - after all, he's led the NHL in goals more times than anyone else ever has. There's no problem, therefore, with suggesting that he is the most statistically impressive goal scorer of all-time, but there is a major problem with suggesting he is the best of all-time. Just to cherrypick the two most obvious examples of all-time, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. Both were able to lead the NHL in goals a combined eight times, seven of which instances they also led the NHL in assists. Is Ovechkin a "better" goal scorer than them by leading the NHL in goals more times than them (and potentially eventually having more career regular season goals than them)? Or is he just the best goal scorer of this era and one who focused so heavily on shooting compared to other contemporary elite players and those of the past? Can you even imagine how many goals Gretzky or Lemieux would have scored in their peak seasons, if they made personally scoring goals priority number one, with any assists they pick up along the way purely incidental? It would be insane. Now absolutely we can all agree they would be lesser, more one-dimensional, more predictable players if they played that way, with much lower assist totals and lower point totals. But that's kinda the point. They could score more goals but they didn't, because being a multi-faceted offensive machine that drove offense in all ways for their team was a much better use of their skills. Regardless of where Ovechkin ends up in the career goals list, or how many more times he leads the NHL playing the way he does, he will never be as good at scoring goals as those two, and arguably a few more players.

But let's assume that he actually is/was the greatest goal scorer of all-time, not only statistically but in true ability. Does that in and of itself mean that he, or any other player who fulfills that status, is guaranteed a spot in the top-5 players of all-time? No, of course not. The goal of hockey is to win games and Stanley Cups. You win games not only by scoring goals, but by creating offense many ways, and by playing in a way that helps to prevent your opponent from doing so. Ovi has only been great at one of those things for his entire career; the other two have been hit-and-miss. He's only been top-10 in assists three times in his career (when he was a much better all-around offensive force), and the way he plays today, if he scores 203 more goals he is likely to get about 140 more assists at the same time, taking him to just over 1600 points in about 1550 games. He'd be 11th all-time in points by virtue of being 1st in goals and about 58th in assists. He would not be, in anyone's mind, anywhere near any list of the best playmakers of all-time and would be, based on 10-year VsX, the 10th (or 11th, depending on McDavid) best prime offensive performer in history, and would probably be the worst defensive performer of anyone in that top-11, so what reason would he have to be ranked any higher than 11th all-time among forwards, never mind a handful of defensemen and goalies?

Some people have scoffed in this thread, at the idea that Ovi is not that visually impressive. I'm surprised at this, really. There was a time when he was not only the best player in the league, but also the most visually impressive. When Crosby hit his real (injury-destroyed) peak, it was still fair to say at that time, "Crosby's better, but Ovechkin is more dazzling and exciting". But rather quickly since then, it's changed. He's not exciting to watch. he's not even the most exciting player on his own team. It's impossible to perfectly encapsulate the way a player plays in a single sentence, but it's true that his game is much more basic and simple than ever before. Absolutely he still has times where he puts on a bit of a show - any declining player will always show occasional flashes of what they used to be - but if we are speaking as generally as possible, Ovi is dangerous as a shooter, particularly with a one-timer, and particularly from one specific location. Go back and watch highlights from the first 5 seasons of his career and it's obvious lots has changed. He was a very fast skater, a dazzling stickhandler, could take the puck end-to-end, scored from everywhere and in a number of ways, and even if you knew exactly what he was going to do, it was no use trying to stop it. That's not the Ovechkin we see today. It shows up statistically, too. Although he has adjusted his game to play within his limitations and still find ways to score the most goals in the NHL, it has come at a cost. In his first 6 seasons, he had 0.66 assists per game (slightly more assists than goals) and was a combined +88 despite two seasons on a non-playoff team. In the 9 seasons since, he has 0.39 assists per game and is a combined -3, on a team that has been +259 over that time, whose absolute worst season has seen them post 90 points and who in fact is the NHL's 2nd best regular season team over that span. What hasn't changed is the amount of glory he receives for those goals. but hockey is a fluid game and goals aren't scored in a vaccuum. If Ovi made a point of passing more, and playing passable defense, he would be a better player than he is now, but would be receiving far less glory and attention because he'd have fewer goals.

And when I say it's come at a cost, I don't just mean based on a simple look at assists and plus/minus. Using naturalstattrick.com I broke his career up into four three-season segments and looked at all Washington forwards with at least 800 ES minutes over that time. Here's where Ovi ranked on the team in GAA/60 in those periods:
08-10: 9th/16
11-13: 10th/13
14-16: 15th/16
17-19: 14th/14 (as far behind 2nd last, as 2nd last is behind team average)
FWIW: he's also dead last this season, though not by as huge a margin as 17-19

Don't you think that if he cleaned up his defensive game and surrendered a number of goals closer to average, that it may benefit his team's results? It wouldn't benefit his goal totals, though.

Next, I want to talk about the work that goes into the production of one NHL goal. It's typically a lot. It was said earlier in this thread that someone took a look at all the goals their team scored and had scored against them, and assigned blame and credit based on how the play happened. I think that is a great idea, but if you think like that, then you clearly understand that goals for and against aren't created by just one person. It is baffling, then, that someone would watch how Ovi has scored so many of his goals the past 5 seasons and continue to deify him for his goal-scoring ability. Again, let me stress that it's impossible to perfectly encapsulate how a team and player play in one simple sentence, but so many of his goals involve four other players retrieving the puck, getting the puck down the ice, creating a play in the offensive zone, and putting a pass on Ovi's stick. He only does the last part because it's the only part of the whole process he's particularly good at anymore. Unlike his first 5 seasons, when he could do it all. Just like it's possible to get a cheap 2nd assist (or even primary assist) that you didn't do anything special to earn, it's possible to score a goal after all the other players on your team do most of the work. I think an honest accounting of every point Ovi scores, compared to other elite players of today, would demonstrate a pattern - that they have a lot more to do with the last ten seconds before the goal is scored, than he typically does nowadays. But in the absence of such accounting, it's far too easy to just give him the usual credit you'd give him for a goal scored in 2008 - which is very, very wrong, in my opinion.

Now as far as style of play is concerned, it still works and Washington is still good, right? While I am not suggesting Ovi's style of play hurts or hinders his team, the truth is probably somewhat in-between. His value as a goal-scorer is pretty obvious, but it's also pretty obvious that the team allows more goals when he's on the ice than when he's not - and by no small margin, either. I've heard it said that his value on the PP is not just as a scorer, but as a deterrent. Teams that focus on and worry too much about him will get burned by other members of Washington's powerplay. And the personnel is there to make that happen. So no matter what you do, you get burned. But if this is the case, shouldn't Washington, a generally excellent team with the greatest goal scorer of all-time both scoring goals and being a nuclear deterrent, surrounded by 4 other very good players, have an outstanding, otherworldly powerplay? But they don't. Over the past 4 seasons including the current one, they're operating at a rate of 21.8%, tied for 5th in the NHL, (and literally as close to 13th as they are to 4th): NHL.com Stats It seems like teams are ok letting Ovi do what he will, while focusing on containing the other players, and while they're obviously surrendering some goals, they're also not getting torched, either.

Black Gold Extractor's excellent thread from last year, located here: Shot accuracy vs volume - distinguishing goal-scorers quantitatively seems to suggest that although Washington doesn't generate any more shots than usual, they funnel more of them through a single player - Ovechkin. That's probably wise, because he's a better goal scorer than the rest of them, but the way they play (which allows him to play the way he plays) results in inflated goal totals for him (perhaps 12 per season) and fewer for them personally. The calculation showed that the net effect is that it makes the team four goals better over a full season - which is good, so more power to them. But look at where all the glory and recognition goes for that.

Speaking of Ovi's style of play, my personal opinion is that he really hasn't done anything to change or improve it in the past 5 years. They lost to Pittsburgh in 2016, again in 2017, and to Carolina in 2019, with Ovi playing the same way, and if you watch those series, it seemed like it would never work - as in, result in a stanley cup - until it did work. In 2018, everything came together and suddenly it was possible to have a player hover in one place in the offensive zone unloading bombs and win the stanley cup that way. But it almost wasn't. Imagine if one little, tiny thing had happened differently. Imagine if Columbus had won game 3 in overtime. Washington's not coming back and winning that series, one can safely assume. And the fact that he was out there in the last regular season game, playing like his life depended on scoring that 50th goal, only to bow out meekly in round one to the Columbus Freaking Blue Jackets, would have never been forgotten - not by his teammates and management, not by historians like us and certainly not by the Washington fans. It would have been an awful, awful stink on a resume that to this day would still not include a single trip to the conference finals. On that note, in some respects it's fair to expect that stink to come off of a player once they've won once - they're a winner, a champion and nothing can take that away from them. As a Leafs fan I can certainly admit I'd rather have one cup in the last 15 years even if it was surrounded by many crushing failures. But on the other hand, there have been so many blown opportunities over the years that a single cup and a single smythe-worthy run don't, to an objective observer, erase all the bad memories and disappointments. How much of that can be on him for the goals-centric style he plays, it's impossible to conclude with any certainty, but he's been the best player and face of a franchise that has consistently fallen flat on their face relative to expectations that their regular seasons have set.

I've seen it said in this thread that Ovi could potentially be a top-5 player if he somehow manages to become the all-time leading goal scorer. I'll try to stay away from repeating the rebuttals that have already been posted to that, but what I want to know is, what if Brett Hull had aged a little more gracefully in his mid-late 30s and Dave Andreychuked around for a couple post-lockout seasons and ended up with 895 goals? Would he then be a potential top-5 player? Why/why not? He has the peak. He has the prime. He has excellent playoff scoring numbers. He played a similar style of post-prime game. At his peak he was much more of a catalyst, like Ovechkin. Do you feel that he would have to be an automatic top-5 player? Why is he so far away from that status when the only thing he didn't do to achieve it was score more goals as a 33-40 year old? You could do the same mental exercise with Mike Gartner, if you like. Or even Phil Esposito. By the way, is Ron Francis anywhere close to the 5th best player of all-time? He has the 5th-most points after all.

So while I love Ovi and I love being along for the ride as players like him chase milestones and records, I think many of us need to pump the brakes here. To recap, points tell a better story than goals. Points and goals aren't scored in a vaccuum; everything you do on the ice has a ripple effect, defensively, for example. Stats and ability are not to be conflated. Goal scoring and goal creation are not to be conflated. Overall playoff record is very suspicious and casts aspersions on whether it's been wise to play the way he has for a decade now, and career totals should not be held up as a trump card at all.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

I mean - the 8 times a Hart finalist kind of tells you all you need to know about the difference between the two. Ovi's only serious Hart consideration post 2010 came in the lockout shortened season and one additional top 3 finish. As to their All-Stars - I mean, LW is a historically shallow position and neither had really great competition there consistently (I'm low on Mahovlich), but even then Hull was at the top basically his whole career, while Ovi has largely been surpassed by guys like Taylor Hall and Brad Marchand in recent years (also it's a joke that he got first team over Marchand last year).

Hull was Hull for his entire career. Ovi was Bobby until 2010, and then turned into Brett. If Ovi was more Bobby later on, then I'd put him up there. As it stands, as ****ty a human being as he was, Bobby Hull just had that extra impact on the game that Ovi hasn't had in a decade.

Bobby Hull was not great from start to finish. He wasn't even a top 20 player in his first two seasons in the league and those 2 seasons are arguably worse than any season Ovechkin has had.

He also had weak seasons in 1963 and 1970 by his normal standards. Those seasons don't seem any better than what Ovechkin has been doing the last few seasons. Hull was around 15th in scoring and finished 4th and 6th in goals respectively. Even considering that he was not close in the scoring race, he still got 1st and 2nd AS team selections in those seasons... yet Ovechkin is the one facing weak competition at his position.

While Bobby still likely has a better case over Ovechkin at the moment, it is much closer than most people here like to admit.

 

[MadLuke]

Not sure about of course, a player is has great that he help a team outscore the opposition.

Is scoring a lot of goal make you of course great ? Great scorer for sure, but great in a all time sense hockey player is still a question.

Why the Capitals get often outscored with Oveckin on the ice while being one of the best team on the league when he is on the bench ?

We can take 3 goal scoring title season in a row sample to show how extreme it can get.

2013 short season to the 2014-2015 season included, all even strenght situations, 207 games played for Ovechkin.

The Capitals during that time frame

GF by 60 minutes: 2.38
GA by 60 minutes: 2.267
GF/GA: 51.21%

When Ovechkin was on the ice:
GF by 60 minutes: 2.73
GA by 60 minutes: 2.91
GF/GA: 48.40% (that bottom of the league, Islanders 48.37% of that era)

Without Ovechkin:
GF by 60 minutes: 2.22
GA by 60 minutes: 1.976
GF/GA: 53% (Montreal-Penguins level of that era)

Would it be impossible to win the Rocket Richard and not be that good of an addition to a team ? Even be a negative one, that you create more goal against than you create for (if you create that also stay a question) even if you score the most goal in the league ?

Is there any other case of players, use with the most Offensive faceoff start on their teams and not trying to shut down the opposition best lines, normal PDO, large sample of games playing that at an all time great level have their teams having such a worst GF/GA when they are on the ice than when they are not on the ice ?

I imagine that can occur, specially over more short window when you are Mark Messier and that Gretzky is one the ice more than 50% of the time that you are not, Sakic/Forsberg, the Lidstrom facing the best line, but in Ovechkin case ?

And that seem to stay true for 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, etc....

At least at even strenght, it is far from obvious, now he is an powerplay scoring machine and that need to be taken into account.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I love Ovi to death. You could probably call me easy to please, because it's rare that I hate, or even dislike a player. Particularly a great one. And no doubt about it, he's been great. And he's been great for the game, too. He's going to go down in history as no worse than a top-20 player, perhaps even top-10. My problems with Ovi are really only with the way certain people have a tendency to overrate him and his contributions. I don't hate any player, but I do hate seeing players drastically overrated or underrated, and if there are people thinking that breaking the all-time career regular season goals record suddenly makes a player better than Mario Lemieux and the big-4 becomes a big-5, then we have a problem.

First of all, the idea that we should judge a player based on the number of goals they score, and not the number of total points, is flawed. When you're looking at the most elite producers in history, there's little reason to believe that goals are worth more than assists, and no reason to believe that a goals total or ranking says more than a points total or ranking. History shows us that it doesn't take an all-time legend to lead the league in goals. Since WW2, Gaye Stewart, Bronco Horvath, Reggie Leach, Steve Shutt, Danny Gare, Blaine Stoughton, Charlie Simmer, Alexander Mogilny, Peter Bondra, Keith Tkachuk, Milan Hejduk, Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jonathan Cheechoo, Vincent Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos and Corey Perry have led the NHL in goals. Is a single one of them even arguably a top-200 player of all-time? In that same time, the only points leaders you could say the same about, are Roy Conacher, Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin and Jamie Benn. (too early to say for Kucherov).

As it applies to Ovechkin, as great as he has been at being the last person to touch the puck before it goes in the net, he hasn't been an outstanding point producer, outside of his amazing 07-08 through 09-10 peak. Whatever way you want to look at it, his VsX, adjusted points, "goals created", point rankings, haven't been as impressive outside of those three seasons where he was probably the top player in the world. The last four seasons in which he led the league in goals (16, 18, 19 and potentially this season) have seen him post points rankings of 15th, 11th, 15th and 16th. I don't want to sound like I am downplaying this too much, for a few reasons. One, those are still very impressive points rankings in today's league. Two, it's remarkably consistent. For example, despite never being in the top-10 in points over a single 82-game stretch the past 6 seasons, he is in fact 10th in points scored over that time. That's because a random Gaudreau, Scheifele or Tavares may beat him once or twice, but over the long run he wins the race. It's very similar in principle to Crosby leading the NHL in points from 14-15 through 18-19 despite never winning a scoring title over that time. Lastly, considering his age, it's even more impressive. This season isn't complete, but using his age 31-33 seasons and comparing it to other players in history, he has the 14th most combined points at those ages (and 12th most adjusted). So there's no way around it, even if you do the right thing and consider a player's total offensive impact and not just goals scored, he has a very impressive regular season resume and is still adding to it. But just appreciate it for what it is - don't elevate him unnecessarily because more of his points are goals.

The next point revolves around statistics vs. ability. Career totals aside, Ovechkin may already be the most statistically impressive goal scorer of all-time. That's because in this section in particular, we don't pay too much attention to compiled career totals and we look at season-by-season dominance, particularly at a player's peak. And Ovechkin already has a case in that regard - after all, he's led the NHL in goals more times than anyone else ever has. There's no problem, therefore, with suggesting that he is the most statistically impressive goal scorer of all-time, but there is a major problem with suggesting he is the best of all-time. Just to cherrypick the two most obvious examples of all-time, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. Both were able to lead the NHL in goals a combined eight times, seven of which instances they also led the NHL in assists. Is Ovechkin a "better" goal scorer than them by leading the NHL in goals more times than them (and potentially eventually having more career regular season goals than them)? Or is he just the best goal scorer of this era and one who focused so heavily on shooting compared to other contemporary elite players and those of the past? Can you even imagine how many goals Gretzky or Lemieux would have scored in their peak seasons, if they made personally scoring goals priority number one, with any assists they pick up along the way purely incidental? It would be insane. Now absolutely we can all agree they would be lesser, more one-dimensional, more predictable players if they played that way, with much lower assist totals and lower point totals. But that's kinda the point. They could score more goals but they didn't, because being a multi-faceted offensive machine that drove offense in all ways for their team was a much better use of their skills. Regardless of where Ovechkin ends up in the career goals list, or how many more times he leads the NHL playing the way he does, he will never be as good at scoring goals as those two, and arguably a few more players.

Some people have scoffed in this thread, at the idea that Ovi is not that visually impressive. I'm surprised at this, really. There was a time when he was not only the best player in the league, but also the most visually impressive. When Crosby hit his real (injury-destroyed) peak, it was still fair to say at that time, "Crosby's better, but Ovechkin is more dazzling and exciting". But rather quickly since then, it's changed. He's not exciting to watch. he's not even the most exciting player on his own team. It's impossible to perfectly encapsulate the way a player plays in a single sentence, but it's true that his game is much more basic and simple than ever before. Absolutely he still has times where he puts on a bit of a show - any declining player will always show occasional flashes of what they used to be - but if we are speaking as generally as possible, Ovi is dangerous as a shooter, particularly with a one-timer, and particularly from one specific location. Go back and watch highlights from the first 5 seasons of his career and it's obvious lots has changed. He was a very fast skater, a dazzling stickhandler, could take the puck end-to-end, scored from everywhere and in a number of ways, and even if you knew exactly what he was going to do, it was no use trying to stop it. That's not the Ovechkin we see today. It shows up statistically, too. Although he has adjusted his game to play within his limitations and still find ways to score the most goals in the NHL, it has come at a cost. In his first 6 seasons, he had 0.66 assists per game (slightly more assists than goals) and was a combined +88 despite two seasons on a non-playoff team. In the 9 seasons since, he has 0.39 assists per game and is a combined -3, on a team whose absolute worst season has seen them post 90 points. What hasn't changed is the amount of glory he receives for those goals. but hockey is a fluid game and goals aren't scored in a vaccuum. If Ovi made a point of passing more, and playing passable defense, he would be a better player than he is now, but would be receiving far less glory and attention because he'd have fewer goals.

And when I say it's come at a cost, I don't just mean based on a simple look at assists and plus/minus. Using naturalstattrick.com I broke his career up into four three-season segments and looked at all Washington forwards with at least 800 ES minutes over that time. Here's where Ovi ranked on the team in GAA/60 in those periods:
08-10: 9th/16
11-13: 10th/13
14-16: 15th/16
17-19: 14th/14 (as far behind 2nd last, as 2nd last is behind team average)
FWIW: he's also dead last this season, though not by as huge a margin as 17-19

Don't you think that if he cleaned up his defensive game and surrendered a number of goals closer to average, that it may benefit his team's results? It wouldn't benefit his goal totals, though.

Next, I want to talk about the work that goes into the production of one NHL goal. It's typically a lot. It was said earlier in this thread that someone took a look at all the goals their team scored and had scored against them, and assigned blame and credit based on how the play happened. I think that is a great idea, but if you think like that, then you clearly understand that goals for and against aren't created by just one person. It is baffling, then, that someone would watch how Ovi has scored so many of his goals the past 5 seasons and continue to deify him for his goal-scoring ability. Again, let me stress that it's impossible to perfectly encapsulate how a team and player play in one simple sentence, but so many of his goals involve four other players retrieving the puck, getting the puck down the ice, creating a play in the offensive zone, and putting a pass on Ovi's stick. He only does the last part because it's the only part of the whole process he's particularly good at anymore. Unlike his first 5 seasons, when he could do it all. Just like it's possible to get a cheap 2nd assist (or even primary assist) that you didn't do anything special to earn, it's possible to score a goal after all the other players on your team do most of the work. I think an honest accounting of every point Ovi scores, compared to other elite players of today, would demonstrate a pattern - that they have a lot more to do with the last ten seconds before the goal is scored, than he typically does nowadays. But in the absence of such accounting, it's far too easy to just give him the usual credit you'd give him for a goal scored in 2008 - which is very, very wrong, in my opinion.

Now as far as style of play is concerned, it still works and Washington is still good, right? While I am not suggesting Ovi's style of play hurts or hinders his team, the truth is probably somewhat in-between. His value as a goal-scorer is pretty obvious, but it's also pretty obvious that the team allows more goals when he's on the ice than when he's not - and by no small margin, either. I've heard it said that his value on the PP is not just as a scorer, but as a deterrent. Teams that focus on and worry too much about him will get burned by other members of Washington's powerplay. And the personnel is there to make that happen. So no matter what you do, you get burned. But if this is the case, shouldn't Washington, a generally excellent team with the greatest goal scorer of all-time both scoring goals and being a nuclear deterrent, surrounded by 4 other very good players, have an outstanding, otherworldly powerplay? But they don't. Over the past 4 seasons including the current one, they're operating at a rate of 21.8%, tied for 5th in the NHL, (and literally as close to 13th as they are to 4th): NHL.com Stats It seems like teams are ok letting Ovi do what he will, while focusing on containing the other players, and while they're obviously surrendering some goals, they're also not getting torched, either.

Black Gold Extractor's excellent thread from last year, located here: Shot accuracy vs volume - distinguishing goal-scorers quantitatively seems to suggest that although Washington doesn't generate any more shots than usual, they funnel more of them through a single player - Ovechkin. That's probably wise, because he's a better goal scorer than the rest of them, but the way they play (which allows him to play the way he plays) results in inflated goal totals for him (perhaps 12 per season) and fewer for them personally. The calculation showed that the net effect is that it makes the team four goals better over a full season - which is good, so more power to them. But look at where all the glory and recognition goes for that.

Speaking of Ovi's style of play, my personal opinion is that he really hasn't done anything to change or improve it in the past 5 years. They lost to Pittsburgh in 2016, again in 2017, and to Carolina in 2019, with Ovi playing the same way, and if you watch those series, it seemed like it would never work - as in, result in a stanley cup - until it did work. In 2018, everything came together and suddenly it was possible to have a player hover in one place in the offensive zone unloading bombs and win the stanley cup that way. But it almost wasn't. Imagine if one little, tiny thing had happened differently. Imagine if Columbus had won game 3 in overtime. Washington's not coming back and winning that series, one can safely assume. And the fact that he was out there in the last regular season game, playing like his life depended on scoring that 50th goal, would have never been forgotten - not by his teammates, not by historians like us and certainly not by the Washington fans. It would have been an awful, awful stink on a resume that to this day would still not include a single trip to the conference finals. On that note, in some respects it's fair to expect that stink to come off of a player once they've won once - they're a winner, a champion and nothing can take that away from them. But on the other hand, there have been so many blown opportunities over the years that a single cup and a single smythe-worthy run don't erase all the bad memories and disappointments. How much of that can be on him for the goals-centric style he plays, it's impossible to say with any certainty, but he's been the best player and face of a franchise that has consistently fallen flat on their face relative to expectations that their regular seasons set.

I've seen it said in this thread that Ovi could potentially be a top-5 player if he somehow manages to become the all-time leading goal scorer. I'll try to stay away from repeating the rebuttals that have already been posted to that, but what I want to know is, what if Brett Hull had aged a little more gracefully in his mid-late 30s and Dave Andreychuked around for a couple post-lockout seasons and ended up with 895 goals? Would he then be a potential top-5 player? Why/why not? He has the peak. He has the prime. He has excellent playoff scoring numbers. He played a similar style of post-prime game. At his peak he was much more of a catalyst, like Ovechkin. Do you feel that he would have to be an automatic top-5 player? Why is he so far away from that status when the only thing he didn't do to achieve it was score more goals as a 33-40 year old? You could do the same mental exercise with Mike Gartner, if you like. Or even Phil Esposito. By the way, is Ron Francis anywhere close to the 5th best player of all-time? He has the 5th-most points after all.

So while I love Ovi and I love being along for the ride as players like him chase milestones and records, I think many of us need to pump the brakes here. To recap, points tell a better story than goals. Points and goals aren't scored in a vaccuum; everything you do on the ice has a ripple effect, defensively, for example. Stats and ability are not to be conflated. Goal scoring and goal creation are not to be conflated. Overall playoff record is very suspicious and casts aspersions on whether it's been wise to play the way he has for a decade now, and career totals should not be held up as a trump card at all.

I've read every single word. Amazing post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bobby Hull was a Hart finalist 8 times by the age of 33, then bolted for the WHA for more money, where he was awarded the WHA MVP trophy in 2 of its first 3 years of existence (Gordie Howe won in the other year).

Ovechkin = Hart finalist 4 times.

Bobby Hull 1965-66 = 97 points to 2nd place's 78. 54 goals to 2nd place's 32.

Crosby is the player who will have a case vs Bobby Hull. Not Ovechkin. (Unless Ovechkin does something that literally no player in history does and somehow gets back to his form of 10 years ago).

____

All this is semi-OT. To answer the OP - I'd say Ovechkin exceeded expectations based on his peak from 2007-2010 and his insane durability/longevity.

 

[seventieslord]

Not sure about of course, a player is has great that he help a team outscore the opposition.

Is scoring a lot of goal does not make you of course great ?

Why the Capitals get often outscored with Oveckin on the ice while being one of the best team on the league when he is on the bench ?

We can take 3 goal scoring title season in a row sample to show how extreme it can.

2013 short season to the 2014-2015 season included, all even strenght situations, 207 games played for Ovechkin.

The Capitals during that time frame

GF by 60 minutes: 2.38
GA by 60 minutes: 2.267
GF/GA: 51.21%

When Ovechkin was on the ice:
GF by 60 minutes: 2.73
GA by 60 minutes: 2.91
GF/GA: 48.40% (that bottom of the league, Islanders 48.37% of that era)

Without Ovechkin:
GF by 60 minutes: 2.73
GA by 60 minutes: 2.22
GF/GA: 55% (that would make them a top 5 team in the league, nears the 56.6% of that era Blackhawks)

Would it be impossible to win the Rocket Richard and not be a good addition to a team ? That you create more goal against that you create (if you create that also stay a if you do) even if you score the most goal in the league ?

Is there any other case of players, use with the most Offensive faceoff start on their teams and not trying to shut down the opposition best lines, normal PDO, large sample of games playing at an all time great level that have their teams having such a worst GF/GA when they are on the ice than when they are not on the ice ?

I imagine that can occur, specially over more short window when you are Mark Messier and that Gretzky is one the ice more than 50% of the time that you are not, Sakic/Forsberg, the Lidstrom facing the best line, but in Ovechkin case ?

And that seem to stay true for 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, etc....

At least at even strenght, it is far from obvious, now he is an powerplay scoring machine and that need to be taken into account.

Those numbers are crazy. I wasn't looking at goals for, only against, but you can see they don't score any more with Ovi on the ice than they do without, but he just scores so many of them himself. Of course, defense is another story. They clearly surrender a lot more with him on the ice than without, and it's been that way for a long time now.

 

[The Macho King]

Those numbers are crazy. I wasn't looking at goals for, only against, but you can see they don't score any more with Ovi on the ice than they do without, but he just scores so many of them himself. Of course, defense is another story. They clearly surrender a lot more with him on the ice than without, and it's been that way for a long time now.

That's especially notable because you would think a player like Ovi is put in offensive situations (offensive zone starts, after icings, chances to get line mismatches).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very interesting post by @MadLuke .

One possible caveat is that teams tend to give up more goals when they are behind in games, as they take more chances defensively. And Ovechkin would get more ice time when trailing than when leading. I'm sure there's a way to adjust for this.

Even so those even strength numbers don't look so good.