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.
Good post.
But
are EN goals excluded? They really do affect plus/minus, and it's usually the offensive players that are significantly unfavoured by it. Eliminating them likely would give significanly lower GA number for Ovechkin.
(On the other hand... Seventieslord's work may indicate Ovi would still be at least at the bottom half of the team regarding GA..?)
Anyway, EN goals usually do significantly impact stats (imho usually in an "unwanted" way).
By the way, Ovechkin
has led the league 11 times in shots taken, also finishing 2, 3, 3 and 5 in his other four seasons in the NHL.
Obviously his style of play is much about shooting, and the combination of taking many shots and shooting well, results in many goals.
He is also good at positioning himself in order to shoot from a setup by e.g. Backstrom, as well as being good himself with moving with the puck (creating scoring chances for himself).
I would say that Ovie's
style of play, is pretty much designed for scoring many goals. Doesn't Washington's play when Ovie is on the ice focus much on him getting an open spot, and someone trying to set him up?
Of course it's probably wise to let such a gifted goal scorer focus on that.
Maybe he could even be considered a bit of a "role player"? (Just like Holmstrom was good at screaning, Draper and Maltby great at PK, Lehtinen great at taking defensive responsibility...)
Part of my point is that I think hockey is very much about roles.
As some have pointed out, scoring goals is his specialty. Perhaps he's more or less allowed to go "all in".
Had he adopted other roles, he may not have scored as many goals. Just like some here have suggested.
What if some of the other great goal scorers, that couldn't go "all in" the same way due to accepting other responsibilities too, were allowed to go "all in"?
What about teams/lines with two great scorers instead sharing the goals more between them?
Here is why it's so important to take an overall approach. If MadLuke's (and Seventieslord's) stats lasts when ES goals are eliminated, the stats might indeed portrait Ovie as not having the "net value" for his team that other stars have.
I also think that how many goals a player scores is a bit "uninteresting". Wouldn't points be much more interesting? Does it really matter who scores the goal, and who sets it up, as long as the team scores?
(I've heard people, perhaps Avs fans who wanted Peter Forsberg to shoot more, who thought Forsberg could be a 50 goal scorer if he would focus more on trying to score goals. But IF true, which it might
not be, would 50+50 pts necessarily be of more value than 30+70?)
Some impressions from watching Ovie play internationally...
The commentators (Swedish) usually commented upon him
not really contributing much to the overall play by the team. Most of the time Ovie actually seemed to hurt his team, often by not working very hard when his team was not in possession of the puck. A guy like Datsyuk was usually considered having a far higher overall "net value" for Russia. Then Ovie would score an important goal, which of course helped his team a lot. But as an overall "net value" player, he wasn't usually considered the best, or top-3, player on his team. (My hockey memory has gotten a bit bad these days, so correct me if I'm wrong.)
Regarding the subject line of the thread... I don't think people should be disappointed because he "only" has won 1 Stanley Cup, 1 Smythe, a few Harts and Pearsons, 8 Richards, 1 Art Ross, a Calder, lots of 1st ASTs... It could have been worse.
...Although... Maybe some people will for a long time forward wonder if he could have had even more team success if replacing 10 goals per season with better play when his team didn't have the puck.
Edit: A real life example... Playing floorball (similar to hockey), we were a group of players who used to divide players randomly into which team to play for. Fact is, every player played about as much with and against every other player. One player stood out in goalscoring. However, his team's lost all 5 games, and the guy had the poorest +/- of all guys. So in reality, scoring many goals does not necessarily indicate team success or that the player contributes a good "net value". ...Although fact also is that Ovie of course won Smythe, Harts, etc, which of course indicates that in his case, he likely shoudn't apply to that example.)
