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

[The Macho King]

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.

There are some ENG against I'm sure, but on the other end of that, you would expect his GF/60 to go up considering that situation (when it in fact hasn't).

 

[Sam Spade]

If THIS isn't considered "overachieving" what must people think of Crosby and Malkin's careers so far?

Not to mention EIGHT 50 goal seasons.

 

[MadLuke]

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.

Opps bad copy paste here for sure, goal for goes down a lot.

Should read
2.22 GF
1.976 GA
53% GF/GA

 

[MadLuke]

There are some ENG against I'm sure, but on the other end of that, you would expect his GF/60 to go up considering that situation (when it in fact hasn't).

You are right:

• Even Strength - Play where both teams have the same number of players (including goalies) on the ice. Includes 5v5, 4v4, 3v3, as well as when teams have pulled the goalie to turn 5v5 into 6v5, 4v4 into 5v4 or 3v3 into 4v3.

Will look at the empty skewing goals.

Empty nets between 2013 to 2015 seem to help is stat line quite a bit..
Ovechkin when playing with an empty net: 11 GF, 12 GA,
Against empty net: 7 GF, 2 GA
Total +4
At pure 5v5 during that time, -19

That could be a point in is favor, Ovechkin could be an elite empty player moment player to have.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

TOP FORWARDS OF THE 2010's - ES RATIO "ON/OFF"

Player	GP	ON ICE	OFF ICE	RATIO
Connor McDavid	287	1.19	0.78	1.53
Sidney Crosby	653	1.41	1.02	1.38
Patrice Bergeron	725	1.47	1.10	1.33
Jonathan Toews	727	1.35	1.04	1.30
Anze Kopitar	767	1.25	0.97	1.29
Joe Pavelski	755	1.28	1.00	1.27
Ryan Getzlaf	687	1.22	0.97	1.25
Joe Thornton	730	1.25	1.01	1.24
Jamie Benn	745	1.15	0.95	1.21
Claude Giroux	776	1.10	0.98	1.13
Steven Stamkos	667	1.17	1.05	1.11
Nicklas Backstrom	731	1.27	1.16	1.09
Patrick Kane	741	1.17	1.10	1.06
Alex Ovechkin	760	1.23	1.17	1.04
Evgeni Malkin	610	1.18	1.13	1.04

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I originally posted the table (with a lot of commentary) in this thread - A look back at Sidney Crosby's defense over the past decade

Of the top scorers over the 2010's, Ovechkin has (tied for) the worst 5-on-5 R-ON to R-OFF ratio (looking at the ratio of goals scored to goals against when he's on the ice, vs off the ice). The Capitals were better with him on the ice, but only by about 4%. To put that into perspective, the Oilers were about 53% better with McDavid on the ice, and the Pens were 38% better with Crosby on the ice.

Ovechkin was lethal on the powerplay, and that isn't reflected in the numbers above, but it does support the notion that post-peak Ovechkin is no longer a dominant even-strength performer.

 

[895]

How do you come to the conclusion that Ovechkin has lower hockey IQ than other greats?

Isn't the fact that he successfully adjusted his game once he lost his bull-like speed and agility to still be able to lead the league in goals every eason a testament to his great hockey IQ?

NHL history is filled with players who were once great, lost something, then were never impact players again. Ovechkin is a rare example of a player who overcame that.

 

[The Macho King]

TOP FORWARDS OF THE 2010's - ES RATIO "ON/OFF"

Player	GP	ON ICE	OFF ICE	RATIO
Connor McDavid	287	1.19	0.78	1.53
Sidney Crosby	653	1.41	1.02	1.38
Patrice Bergeron	725	1.47	1.10	1.33
Jonathan Toews	727	1.35	1.04	1.30
Anze Kopitar	767	1.25	0.97	1.29
Joe Pavelski	755	1.28	1.00	1.27
Ryan Getzlaf	687	1.22	0.97	1.25
Joe Thornton	730	1.25	1.01	1.24
Jamie Benn	745	1.15	0.95	1.21
Claude Giroux	776	1.10	0.98	1.13
Steven Stamkos	667	1.17	1.05	1.11
Nicklas Backstrom	731	1.27	1.16	1.09
Patrick Kane	741	1.17	1.10	1.06
Alex Ovechkin	760	1.23	1.17	1.04
Evgeni Malkin	610	1.18	1.13	1.04

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I originally posted the table (with a lot of commentary) in this thread - A look back at Sidney Crosby's defense over the past decade

Of the top scorers over the 2010's, Ovechkin has (tied for) the worst 5-on-5 R-ON to R-OFF ratio (looking at the ratio of goals scored to goals against when he's on the ice, vs off the ice). The Capitals were better with him on the ice, but only by about 4%. To put that into perspective, the Oilers were about 53% better with McDavid on the ice, and the Pens were 38% better with Crosby on the ice.

Ovechkin was lethal on the powerplay, and that isn't reflected in the numbers above, but it does support the notion that post-peak Ovechkin is no longer a dominant even-strength performer.

How much of the numbers are explained by the quality of team behind them? Caps have generally been good and deep throughout the 2010s, while the Oilers (for example) have not. That seems like quality of team has a large effect on this stat.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

Just to correct the bolded. Ovechkin was a finalist 5x for the Hart (and 3 wins to 2 for Hull).
If we expand this to top 10 hart finishes, Ovechkin has 9 of them, to Hull's 10.
Ovechkin also has 11 AST (7 1st AST, 4 2 AST) to Hull's 12 AST (10 1st AST and 2 2nd AST).

It's dangerous to compare "raw finishes" across eras imo however. There's a lot more competition in today's league, with so many star players. How many top wingers in the league last year could legitimately have had a chance at a first team all-star? I'm sure it's a lot more than in Hull's prime. Same for hart finalists.

If anything - I find Ovechkin's Hart placement and AST placement to be almost as impressive, if not more impressive, than Bobby Hull.

I think Bobby Hull's point finishes are more impressive than Ovi.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How much of the numbers are explained by the quality of team behind them? Caps have generally been good and deep throughout the 2010s, while the Oilers (for example) have not. That seems like quality of team has a large effect on this stat.

It's definitely part of it. But the player who was affected the most was almost certainly Malkin. His "R-OFF" contains a lot of Crosby, and that makes him look worse in comparison. (We saw the same thing, though obviously to a greater extent, with Messier playing behind Gretzky). I'm not sure that Ovechkin is at a disadvantage here. Were the Capitals second, third and fourth lines that much stronger than every other teams'?

Is McDavid given a boost since the rest of his team has been so poor? Maybe; but it's rare for a player on bad teams to look so good relative to their peers. (I'm thinking of Dionne, or Sakic on the expansion Nordiques).

 

[billybudd]

TOP FORWARDS OF THE 2010's - ES RATIO "ON/OFF"

Player	GP	ON ICE	OFF ICE	RATIO
Connor McDavid	287	1.19	0.78	1.53
Sidney Crosby	653	1.41	1.02	1.38
Patrice Bergeron	725	1.47	1.10	1.33
Jonathan Toews	727	1.35	1.04	1.30
Anze Kopitar	767	1.25	0.97	1.29
Joe Pavelski	755	1.28	1.00	1.27
Ryan Getzlaf	687	1.22	0.97	1.25
Joe Thornton	730	1.25	1.01	1.24
Jamie Benn	745	1.15	0.95	1.21
Claude Giroux	776	1.10	0.98	1.13
Steven Stamkos	667	1.17	1.05	1.11
Nicklas Backstrom	731	1.27	1.16	1.09
Patrick Kane	741	1.17	1.10	1.06
Alex Ovechkin	760	1.23	1.17	1.04
Evgeni Malkin	610	1.18	1.13	1.04

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I originally posted the table (with a lot of commentary) in this thread - A look back at Sidney Crosby's defense over the past decade

Of the top scorers over the 2010's, Ovechkin has (tied for) the worst 5-on-5 R-ON to R-OFF ratio (looking at the ratio of goals scored to goals against when he's on the ice, vs off the ice). The Capitals were better with him on the ice, but only by about 4%. To put that into perspective, the Oilers were about 53% better with McDavid on the ice, and the Pens were 38% better with Crosby on the ice.

Ovechkin was lethal on the powerplay, and that isn't reflected in the numbers above, but it does support the notion that post-peak Ovechkin is no longer a dominant even-strength performer.

That's a cool way of looking at things. My initial reaction is just to feel bad for Malkin, though. Off-ice, he's getting compared to Crosby at least 1/3 of the time

It doesn't seem fair that Geno's on/off stats factor in 87 and Claude Giroux is dealing with, like, Matt Read or Briere

 

[sr edler]

NHL history is filled with players who were once great, lost something, then were never impact players again. Ovechkin is a rare example of a player who overcame that.

Bure scored 60 goals/110 points as a 22 year old then crashed his knees, was largely irrelevant for a few years and then came back as a 28 year old at arguably the same previous impact height just with a remodeled/different game. I'm sure there are other examples too.

What's rare with Ovechkin is that no apparent injury or teammate related thing happened, just that Brian Campbell suspension. And his impact level dipped a clear bit.

 

[Zuluss]

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

This is incorrect. Goals>assists, and there ample examples of Hart voting to show that.

Exhibit 1: Compare Ovechkin in 15/16 and 16/17. Point totals are very close (71 and 69), yet OV-16 takes 14% of Hart voting and OV-17 gets a single vote. The reason? OV-16 wins the Rocket in a commanding fashion (50%+ lead over #10 in goals), OV-17 cannot even squeeze into top10 in goals.

Exhibit 2: Compare Ovechkin and Crosby in 14/15. Crosby has 3 points more in a smaller number of games. Ovechkin gets 56.5% of the Hart vote, Crosby gets 8.8% (that is, even less than what Ovechkin got in 15/16, when he had 13 points less than Crosby had in 14/15). The reason? Same as above.

History shows us that it doesn't take an all-time legend to lead the league in goals. ... Peter Bondra, Keith Tkachuk, Milan Hejduk, Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk ... led the NHL in goals.

There are goal-scoring title wins – and other goal-scoring wins. Some wins (like the ones you listed) come with a thin margin over the field and earn little attention in Hart/All-star voting. Others (Ovechkin’s) come with a wider margin and bring many more Hart/All-star votes.

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.

Off-peak OV is off-peak, I got that. But since you brought up "goals created" (I am not a big fan, but still), post-2010 OV led the league twice, was also 2nd and 4th, and added three more top10 finishes, not including this season (when he is 9th so far).

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.

Not so much more, I suppose. The reason why great goal-scorers score more is because they can score some goals other folks cannot. For example, great goal-scorers can be further away from the net and still score because their shot is that good. They can still rip off a dangerous shot even if they get an awkward pass. They can beat the goaltender clean even if he sees the puck. This is why they take so many shots - they shoot because they have a fair scoring opportunity and other players in the same position would not have that and would not shoot.
So, scoring more goals is not as easy as simply shooting more or passing less. It is more about starting scoring from where you were not able to before.
And anyway, in goal-scoring comparisons between Ovechkin and Gretzky/Lemieux it is the length of prime that matters. They have the peak over him, fine. But in his 10th-best season he was still winning Rockets – and both of them were out of top10 and there is no way they would have come back to the top by “prioritizing goals”.

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?

What is the reason MSL is well ahead of Iginla in VsX, but everyone views them as equals, probably with an edge to Iginla? Goals and longevity, and OV has both.

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.

See Exhibit 1. This is what OV does when he injures his wrist. Nobody is impressed. So he does not do that when healthy. Apparently, your assumption that OV would be a better player if he passed more is wrong. Hart voters disagree.

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.

Hart and All-star voters concidered that and disagreed - they keep voting him above "other elite players of today" who have more points.
You can of course disagree with the voters, but then apparently you have to give up on using Hart voting record as a criterion for anything. E.g., it stops mattering in your world that Crosby or Bobby Hull have more Hart nominations that OV.

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

No, I do not feel that Caps PP unit is that outstanding outside of OV. Would you pick Backstrom-Carlson over Hedman-Kucherov or Malkin-Letang for PP? OV made his PP unit top5 in the league and kept it as such since 12/13. You should not see that as a failure because they are not #1 every year. You should see it as a success because they are not #16.

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.

Imagine if Caps had one lucky bounce in game 3 OT in Pens-Caps series in 2009. Surely Caps would have gotten through Carolina and into SCF, and Ovechkin, who had 10g and 21p in the first two rounds would have had another huge signature run, with something like 17 goals and 35 points.
Imagination can take you a long way.

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?

Not sure if serious. Just check out Brett Hull’s Hart and All-star voting record to see why his upside in all-time rankings is limited.
Now, Ovechkin is quite another matter: as of today, he has 14 full seasons and in 13 of those he was top3 at his position (and 8 times he was 1st). He also has 8 seasons with at least 5% of Hart vote and one more in top10 in Hart voting. In that regard he is similar to someone like Bourque who was top4 in Norris voting for 17 years straight and then received two more nominations to top it off.
When people talk about Ovechkin breaking Gretzky’s career goals record, they certainly do not envision him playing to 45 as a 20-goal player. They basically say “What if he ages like Bourque or Howe? What if he keeps having years like the past two, when he had good support in Hart and All-star voting, narrowly winning a Rocket or probably narrowly missing, but still – what if he retires with 17 seasons of being top3 at his position and 12 seasons being top10 in Hart voting?” Now, that would move the needle.

 

[Big Phil]

I think his career is at LEAST as good as we expect it to be. Probably better. Honestly, who thought he'd be scoring goals at this pace at 34 years old?

Granted, he has had to adjust a bit. I think he is scoring the goals he is scoring more today because he is focusing on it more than ever before. This explains his really low assist totals over the last decade or so. He's gotten 50 goals and such, which is nice, but he might get 25-30 assists. So more than ever he is focusing on goals. I think that's alright, but it isn't 2008, 2009 or 2010 Ovechkin of course. For example, he has 34 goals and 16 assists this year. Washington is the best team in the NHL right now and he is -9. That isn't good. He's been on some very good teams most of his career, sometimes leading the NHL in points and yet he is a surprising +85 in his career. That's it. 2014 he was -35, that was the worst in the NHL. He went 5 straight seasons without hitting 30 assists. I get it, he's a goal scorer first and foremost, but he's just become more narrow than he ever has been offensively.

Still physical and such and has a good career of big hits and playing like a freight train, which surprises me even more that he is never hurt. So there's that for sure. I think most of us would consider Crosby's career to have been better though, so I don't know if that makes Ovechkin underrated or not, but I don't think it does.

Let's just think for a minute about the goals record. He is still a long ways away, over 200 right now and several good goal scoring seasons away from Gretzky's record, but the fact that it is a conversation is an amazing thing. No one else will come close to it. Crosby will hit 500 but won't threaten 800. Tavares might hit 600. McDavid doesn't score enough goals to threaten Gretzky's record. Patrick Marleau has 559 right now but he's on life support. Stamkos has 411, not even half of Gretzky's total. Good luck. And I can't think of any young player in the future or in the NHL right now who will even come close. So Ovechkin being in the mix is actually hard to believe.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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).

Setting aside the argument over whether goals or points are more valuable.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, we should expect more variation among goal leaders than point leaders. Since the 1930s, there have always been around 2.5 times as many points awarded than goals. For the same reason that random variations are much more likely to happen in 10 coin flips than in 25, they are much more likely to happen in goals than in points. Therefore, we should always expect non-legendary players to lead the league in goals more often than in points.

Which brings this to mind: there should be even less variation in shot finishes than in points. While we certainly can’t conflate shots with points on a qualitative basis (one measures shooting the puck in the net, the other measures shooting AND passing), it seems pretty safe to equate goal-scoring with puck-shooting (two branches of the same tree). In that respect, shot finishes should in theory be a better predictor of player quality than goal finishes, because shot finishes are 5-6 times less vulnerable to small-sample variation. This is, obviously, the same reason that we use shots rather than G-A-P as the basis for most modern metrics.

And sure enough, a look at annual shots leaders shows what appears to be a pretty accurate rundown of the top-tier goal scoring threats over time:

(starting in 59-60)
Ovechkin x11
Bobby Hull x7
Bure x4
Esposito x4
Dionne x4
Gretzky x4
Bourque x3
Howe x3
Brett Hull x3
Kariya x2
MacKinnon x2
Orr x2
Barber x1
Burns x1
Guerin x1
Jagr x1
Kovalchuk x1
Lemieux x1
Malkin x1
Murray x1
Shanahan x1
Sittler x1
Yzerman x1

If we had the data back to 1940, we’d almost certainly see Richard near the top of the list and Howe ranked higher, right?

To the extent that there’s randomness here, it’s usually either very easy to contextualize as team effects (Barber/70s Flyers and Shanahan/90s Blues) or correlated with the DPE when shots were being generated through an era-specific style (Geurin, Murray). There are few true outlier seasons represented here (Sittler, Burns) and presumably, there would be even less variation among the leaders if we expanded this to include top-3 or top-5 finishes.

Which is all to say... the reason we regularly see non-legends leading the league in goals isn’t because it’s easier or less important than scoring points. It’s a mathematical function of variation in small samples. Shot finishes measure approximately the same thing, but more accurately, and Ovechkin’s standing on that list should be enough to give even his detractors a moment of pause.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If THIS isn't considered "overachieving" what must people think of Crosby and Malkin's careers so far?

View attachment 311983
Not to mention EIGHT 50 goal seasons.

Considering Crosby has a better career, what?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

This is incorrect. Goals>assists, and there ample examples of Hart voting to show that.

Exhibit 1: Compare Ovechkin in 15/16 and 16/17. Point totals are very close (71 and 69), yet OV-16 takes 14% of Hart voting and OV-17 gets a single vote. The reason? OV-16 wins the Rocket in a commanding fashion (50%+ lead over #10 in goals), OV-17 cannot even squeeze into top10 in goals.

Exhibit 2: Compare Ovechkin and Crosby in 14/15. Crosby has 3 points more in a smaller number of games. Ovechkin gets 56.5% of the Hart vote, Crosby gets 8.8% (that is, even less than what Ovechkin got in 15/16, when he had 13 points less than Crosby had in 14/15). The reason? Same as above.



There are goal-scoring title wins – and other goal-scoring wins. Some wins (like the ones you listed) come with a thin margin over the field and earn little attention in Hart/All-star voting. Others (Ovechkin’s) come with a wider margin and bring many more Hart/All-star votes.



Off-peak OV is off-peak, I got that. But since you brought up "goals created" (I am not a big fan, but still), post-2010 OV led the league twice, was also 2nd and 4th, and added three more top10 finishes, not including this season (when he is 9th so far).



Not so much more, I suppose. The reason why great goal-scorers score more is because they can score some goals other folks cannot. For example, great goal-scorers can be further away from the net and still score because their shot is that good. They can still rip off a dangerous shot even if they get an awkward pass. They can beat the goaltender clean even if he sees the puck. This is why they take so many shots - they shoot because they have a fair scoring opportunity and other players in the same position would not have that and would not shoot.
So, scoring more goals is not as easy as simply shooting more or passing less. It is more about starting scoring from where you were not able to before.
And anyway, in goal-scoring comparisons between Ovechkin and Gretzky/Lemieux it is the length of prime that matters. They have the peak over him, fine. But in his 10th-best season he was still winning Rockets – and both of them were out of top10 and there is no way they would have come back to the top by “prioritizing goals”.



What is the reason MSL is well ahead of Iginla in VsX, but everyone views them as equals, probably with an edge to Iginla? Goals and longevity, and OV has both.



See Exhibit 1. This is what OV does when he injures his wrist. Nobody is impressed. So he does not do that when healthy. Apparently, your assumption that OV would be a better player if he passed more is wrong. Hart voters disagree.



Hart and All-star voters concidered that and disagreed - they keep voting him above "other elite players of today" who have more points.
You can of course disagree with the voters, but then apparently you have to give up on using Hart voting record as a criterion for anything. E.g., it stops mattering in your world that Crosby or Bobby Hull have more Hart nominations that OV.



No, I do not feel that Caps PP unit is that outstanding outside of OV. Would you pick Backstrom-Carlson over Hedman-Kucherov or Malkin-Letang for PP? OV made his PP unit top5 in the league and kept it as such since 12/13. You should not see that as a failure because they are not #1 every year. You should see it as a success because they are not #16.



Imagine if Caps had one lucky bounce in game 3 OT in Pens-Caps series in 2009. Surely Caps would have gotten through Carolina and into SCF, and Ovechkin, who had 10g and 21p in the first two rounds would have had another huge signature run, with something like 17 goals and 35 points.
Imagination can take you a long way.



Not sure if serious. Just check out Brett Hull’s Hart and All-star voting record to see why his upside in all-time rankings is limited.
Now, Ovechkin is quite another matter: as of today, he has 14 full seasons and in 13 of those he was top3 at his position (and 8 times he was 1st). He also has 8 seasons with at least 5% of Hart vote and one more in top10 in Hart voting. In that regard he is similar to someone like Bourque who was top4 in Norris voting for 17 years straight and then received two more nominations to top it off.
When people talk about Ovechkin breaking Gretzky’s career goals record, they certainly do not envision him playing to 45 as a 20-goal player. They basically say “What if he ages like Bourque or Howe? What if he keeps having years like the past two, when he had good support in Hart and All-star voting, narrowly winning a Rocket or probably narrowly missing, but still – what if he retires with 17 seasons of being top3 at his position and 12 seasons being top10 in Hart voting?” Now, that would move the needle.

Ovechkin is nowhere near Bourque in consistency. Ovechkin may have some of the worst consistency outside of scoring goals than most all time greats.

 

[Sam Spade]

Considering Crosby has a better career, what?

Crosby has had more team success 100%, he hasn't had a better individual career. If you think he has you really need to explain what you are looking at to determine this.

 

[K Fleur]

I might actually find goals vs assists debate interesting if the motives behind the goals crowd weren’t so wholly transparent.

Since they are wholly transparent, it just comes across as a last ditch effort.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby has had more team success 100%, he hasn't had a better individual career. If you think he has you really need to explain what you are looking at to determine this.

Much better playoffs stats. More top 10 scoring finishes. Better hart finishes. Etc. More 100 point seasons. Better reg season stats. Better international resume etc

 

[Sam Spade]

Much better playoffs stats. More top 10 scoring finishes. Better hart finishes. Etc. More 100 point seasons. Better reg season stats. Better international resume etc

So basically the "pace" argument. Things Crosby "almost" accomplished but did not quite pull off.

Anyway, seems like we are both satisfied with the players we root for and what they've accomplished. As their careers wrap up it will all sort itself out.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

So basically the "pace" argument. Things Crosby "almost" accomplished but did not quite pull off.

Anyway, seems like we are both satisfied with the players we root for and what they've accomplished. As their careers wrap up it will all sort itself out.

It’s already over. Crosby was the superior player in their 20’s. which matters far more.

 

[Sam Spade]

It’s already over. Crosby was the superior player in their 20’s. which matters far more.

Ok, now I know you are just playing around here. I'm sorry I engaged.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Ok, now I know you are just playing around here. I'm sorry I engaged.

Ovechkin has been scoring 50 while being a - player for over a decade. What’s new? Honestly

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Meanwhile Crosby is still a top 5 scorer while adapting and having an elite two way game. It’s really interesting how anyone can choose ovechkin.

 

[Big Phil]

Crosby has had more team success 100%, he hasn't had a better individual career. If you think he has you really need to explain what you are looking at to determine this.

He hasn't? I think most of us would say he has. The whole "what if" thing with Crosby hasn't really been a thing for a few years now. He had injuries in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2013 that possibly cost him a Hart/Art Ross. In the case of 2011 and 2013 it definitely cost him this. But he's been healthy for a number of years now. So this isn't a Lindros thing.

The two way play favours Crosby by a noticeable margin. Give Ovechkin the physical advantage of course.

They have almost the same amount of career points, but Crosby has a 1.29 PPG while Ovechkin is 1.11. The playoff advantage is Crosby. Interantionally it is Crosby. He's had more elite years, and is a better player now and has been better for a while now. First 5 or so years of their career you could say they were 1a) and 1b) and it alternated. Now though, it's been Crosby for a while.

I think it is obvious he's had the better career, which is no slight to Ovechkin.