Where do you place Ovechkin on your personal list of the greatest players of all time?

[Black Gold Extractor]

I was going for simplicity. "Top10 is the new top5" is an easy mnemonic rule.

"Top7 in O6 era is top10" (or "top5 in O6 era is the current top7" - which is it?) invites the questions "why top7 and not top8", and questions like that can never a 100% satisfactory answer, since it is all approximation and not at all exact science.

While your idea is a good one, your original choice to use the #1 scorer as your "anchor" was not the greatest. As for the top 7 is top 10 or top 5 is top 7, either of each seems to work alright. It seems that a rough 1.4x rule is in play (5 x 1.4 = 7, or 7 x 1.4 = 9.8).

I once did a similar kind of analysis looking at the margins by which #2 in goals/points led #10 in goals/points in 1944-1970 and 1997-2017 (which should be immune from outliers).

From the work that I did yesterday (the tables are hidden in the spoilers), on average, the 2nd-place goal-scorer from 1944-1970 led the 5th place goal-scorer by 21%. Likewise, on average, the 2nd-place goal-scorer from 1997-2017 led the 7th place goal-scorer by 21%. All you need is to compare Hull to the #5 scorer and Ovechkin to the #7 scorer.

Season	Ovechkin	#7	Ratio over #7	Adj. To 2016-17	Season	Hull	#5	Ratio over #5	Adj. To 2016-17
2007-08	65	42	1.55	56	1966-67	52	28	1.86	67
2014-15	53	37	1.43	52	1965-66	54	30	1.80	65
2013-14	51	36	1.42	51	1961-62	50	32	1.56	56
2015-16	50	36	1.39	50	1963-64	43	28	1.54	55
2012-13	32	23	1.39	50	1964-65	39	27	1.44	52
2008-09	56	40	1.40	50	1968-69	58	44	1.32	47
2009-10	50	40	1.25	45	1959-60	39	30	1.30	47
2005-06	52	47	1.11	40	1967-68	44	35	1.26	45
2006-07	46	43	1.07	39	1970-71	44	40	1.10	40
2011-12	38	37	1.03	37	1971-72	50	46	1.09	39
2016-17	33	36	0.92	33	1969-70	38	38	1.00	36
2010-11	32	36	0.89	32	1960-61	31	31	1.00	36
					1962-63	31	33	0.94	34
					1958-59	18	33	0.55	20
					1957-58	13	30	0.43	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hull has the advantage (although Ovechkin amazingly has one additional "adjusted" 50-goal season over Hull). Does it pass the smell test? It's safe to say that 46 goals would give you the Richard every season since the shortened 12-13 season (excluding Ovechkin himself, of course). Assuming that they don't have to face one another, Ovechkin would have 6 while Hull would have 7.

Of course, what about VsX? It appears that the modification of your method does a better job than pure VsX since, using my aforementioned 1.4x finding, it's probably more fair to compare Ovechkin to the typical #3 scorer in his era while sticking with the typical #2 scorer (i.e. VsX most of the time) for Hull. As such, using a VsX estimate using the above (noting that the #7 scorer last season had 90% of the goals of the #2 scorer, and normalizing the #2 scorer to 50):

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]7-year VsX[/TD]
[TD]7-year VsX estimate (O6 top 5 = modern top 7)[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Hull[/TD]
[TD]70.2[/TD]
[TD]69.5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ovechkin[/TD]
[TD]59.2[/TD]
[TD]63.2[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

 

[66871]

I'm certain I'll be in the minority here, but I simply do not buy the talent compression argument which seems to be accepted here as conventional wisdom. The current 30 team league is tighter than we ever saw in the O6 era. This is probably driven by a number of factors including the general improvement of training and development and a league which enforces parity through a salary cap (leaving good players surrounded by less stellar teammates than they would have been in earlier eras).

The Paradox of Skill suggests that a more talented league should rely more heavily on luck from game to game and, therefore, full season goal differentials should approach zero as skill increases. What we see in the O6 era, however, is a league where there was almost invariably a team shipping over one goal per game. That still happens today, but it is less frequent in raw numbers per year in this 30-team league than in the six-team league before expansion (and even immediately after, as the talent pool adjusted to rapid expansion).

Gordie Howe, for instance, played over 200 games against teams who were -1 GPG or worse. Crosby has played about 20 such games and I imagine Ovechkin has about the same as Sid.

Howe was a great player and tough as nails; but I question if he would have had any chance of going top 7 (or even top 10) that many years in a row in this league where you have teams going in and out of cap hell, a salary cap that limits management from surrounding a skilled player with compatible assets and enough teams that there's always going to be a handful of players peaking at around 25-26 and, some years, ephemerally capable of placing themselves at or near the top of the scoring race (see Jamie Benn).

So overall, I'm far from convinced by the talent compression argument.

 

[Zuluss]

While your idea is a good one, your original choice to use the #1 scorer as your "anchor" was not the greatest. As for the top 7 is top 10 or top 5 is top 7, either of each seems to work alright. It seems that a rough 1.4x rule is in play (5 x 1.4 = 7, or 7 x 1.4 = 9.8).


From the work that I did yesterday (the tables are hidden in the spoilers), on average, the 2nd-place goal-scorer from 1944-1970 led the 5th place goal-scorer by 21%. Likewise, on average, the 2nd-place goal-scorer from 1997-2017 led the 7th place goal-scorer by 21%. All you need is to compare Hull to the #5 scorer and Ovechkin to the #7 scorer.

Hull has the advantage (although Ovechkin amazingly has one additional "adjusted" 50-goal season over Hull). Does it pass the smell test? It's safe to say that 46 goals would give you the Richard every season since the shortened 12-13 season (excluding Ovechkin himself, of course). Assuming that they don't have to face one another, Ovechkin would have 6 while Hull would have 7.

Well, apparently different adjustments give different results, it is not exact science.

I guess we can agree on two things:
- We need to adjust the leads over the field from O6 era, even if they are the leads over 2nd place (what VsX is based on).
- Bobby Hull's two-year goal-scoring peak is clearly higher than Ovechkin's

As for goal-scoring longevity, different adjustment methods yield different results. Some give Ovechkin an edge, some find no difference, some give Hull an edge.

One thing I have started wondering about lately is whether Hart voting shares need a similar adjustment (going the other way). Continuing the Hull vs. Ovechkin comparison, Ovechkin won his three Harts with 98%, 95%, 61% vote share. Hull won his two Harts with 81% and 57% vote share (data from Hockey Outsider's thread http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/hart-trophy-99-0-complete-historical-data.1916647/). Were Ovechkin's Hart wins stronger or not? Also, if we sum the Hart voting shares (good idea or not?), Ovechkin beats Hull 397 to 294, despite Hull having two nominations more and one more year with a sizeable (>5%) vote share.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well, apparently different adjustments give different results, it is not exact science.

I guess we can agree on two things:
- We need to adjust the leads over the field from O6 era, even if they are the leads over 2nd place (what VsX is based on).
- Bobby Hull's two-year goal-scoring peak is clearly higher than Ovechkin's

As for goal-scoring longevity, different adjustment methods yield different results. Some give Ovechkin an edge, some find no difference, some give Hull an edge.

One thing I have started wondering about lately is whether Hart voting shares need a similar adjustment (going the other way). Continuing the Hull vs. Ovechkin comparison, Ovechkin won his three Harts with 98%, 95%, 61% vote share. Hull won his two Harts with 81% and 57% vote share (data from Hockey Outsider's thread http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/hart-trophy-99-0-complete-historical-data.1916647/). Were Ovechkin's Hart wins stronger or not? Also, if we sum the Hart voting shares (good idea or not?), Ovechkin beats Hull 397 to 294, despite Hull having two nominations more and one more year with a sizeable (>5%) vote share.

Perhaps you should study more?

Ovechkin's time you only have end of season voting for honours and awards that require voting.

Hull's time you had midseason and end of season voting for the honours and awards.

Different circumstances and criteria.Much harder to sweep all the first place votes in two segments instead of one.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/award-all-star-voting-1912-present.1912553/page-3

 

[BallardEra]

Top 10 now?

 

[Dallas Winston]

Top 20

 

[norrisnick]

Top 10 now?

I'd say he's got as strong an argument as anyone for being the 4th greatest forward behind Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux. Ovechkin, Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Crosby, Jagr, Morenz are all in play here. McDavid should be moving into that group and potentially moving up ahead of it over the next few years if his career trajectory holds.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There's definitely an argument for Ovechkin in the top ten. But the "issue" with Ovechkin is, compared to many of the other players near the top of the all-time list, is he has very pronounced strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, Jean Beliveau is somewhere in the 5-8 range on almost everyone's list, because no matter what criteria you use, he ranks highly across the board.

If you accentuate Ovechkin's positives (goal-scoring peak, longevity as a top goal-scorer, consecutive three-year peak, physicality, durability) - not only does he belong in the top ten, you can make an argument for 5th place. If you focus on the negatives (playmaking [relative to the other players in the top 20], playoff performance [relative to the other players in the top 20], and the drop-off in style & level of performance after his mid 20's), that hurts.

If he reaches 895 goals (which, incredibly, is now looking likely) - it will undoubtedly help him in the eyes of casual fans. But (at least on HOH) career totals - adjusted or otherwise - have never been very important. (Ron Francis is 5th in scoring and HOH ranked him 120th two years ago; Mark Recchi is 13th in scoring and not even in the top 200).

The point I'm trying to make is Ovechkin has very clear strengths and weaknesses (compared to other top 20 players). If someone values his strengths and downplays his weaknesses, he could end up very high on the list - possibly even as high as 5th place. I can't find room for him in my top ten, but I can't fault someone who does, as long as they're being consistent in what they value.

 

[seventieslord]

(recchi is comfortably in the top 200)

 

[jigglysquishy]

I have Ovechkin at 12 and can see an argument for him top 10.

The thing that will hurt him is simply a lack of space. There's only 6 available slots in the top 10 and soon to be only 5 with McDavid.

I have Harvey, Bourque, and Hasek in my top 10. So he's battling it out for only two available spots. Unless you only want something like 8 forwards in the top 10, it's just a hard proposition.

I get why people could have him top 10 though. It's just a logjam of players over 130 years of hockey history.

As for the 5 spot, as more time goes on it becomes increasingly hard for me to rationalize anyone besides Beliveau there. He just has every aspect of a resume you could want there. No weaknesses. Peak season. Prime seasons. Defensive ability. Playoffs.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

(recchi is comfortably in the top 200)

I stand corrected. (We ranked him 171st two years ago).

 

[seventieslord]

I stand corrected. (We ranked him 171st two years ago).

Point still stands, though, that ranking high in a compiled career statistic total is not a guarantee of anything with regards to all-time rankings.

 

[Victorias]

I have Ovechkin at 12 and can see an argument for him top 10.

The thing that will hurt him is simply a lack of space. There's only 6 available slots in the top 10 and soon to be only 5 with McDavid.

I have Harvey, Bourque, and Hasek in my top 10. So he's battling it out for only two available spots. Unless you only want something like 8 forwards in the top 10, it's just a hard proposition.

I get why people could have him top 10 though. It's just a logjam of players over 130 years of hockey history.

As for the 5 spot, as more time goes on it becomes increasingly hard for me to rationalize anyone besides Beliveau there. He just has every aspect of a resume you could want there. No weaknesses. Peak season. Prime seasons. Defensive ability. Playoffs.

I would say the weaknesses for Beliveau are that he did not peak particularly high (unless he was Bergeron defensively) and did not face international competition.

I’m not a fan of Ovechkin, but aren’t his 2-3 best seasons better than Beliveau’s? It’s also hard for me to justify the 2nd-4th best skater (Beliveau, Richard, Harvey in some order) of the 06 era ahead of the consensus 2nd best of the cap era.

 

[seventieslord]

It’s also hard for me to justify the 2nd-4th best skater (Beliveau, Richard, Harvey in some order) of the 06 era ahead of the consensus 2nd best of the cap era.

If we were talking 20th vs. 20th you'd have a point, but talent pool/modern hockey arguments don't automatically work when talking about the top handful of players in any generation.

 

[rmartin65]

Somewhere between 8-12, I imagine. It really is kind of a Tale of Two Careers with Ovechkin, right? Early Ovechkin was a monster; he could- and would- skate around or through just about anybody. He had a fantastic shot, worked to get open, and was a better playmaker than people gave him credit for. He created plays. Later Ovechkin, while he was still the league's best (at least most prolific) goalscorer, isn't nearly the same offensive threat. He's just kind of there until the puck comes to him in the offensive zone.

Early Ovechkin looked like a top-5 player of all-time. Later Ovechkin looks like Brett Hull- still an all-time great, but nobody is mentioned Brett Hull in the top 20, right? He deserves a lot of credit for his longevity as a goal scorer, but I don't know if that is enough to really move him past 8-12, even if he breaks the all time record.

I mean, the last time Ovechkin was in the top-10 for points was 2014-2015 (4th). In the 8 seasons since then, Ovechkin has amassed an incredible 348 goals. While that was good for 4 Rockets, he also only made it onto 1 first team AS and 1 second team AS. In that time frame, he never finished top-5 in Hart voting. He's added a bunch of goals to his total and really strengthened his claim to be the best goal scorer of all time, but I'm not convinced any of that helps his cause in an all-time holistic player evaluation very much.

 

[Victorias]

If we were talking 20th vs. 20th you'd have a point, but talent pool/modern hockey arguments don't automatically work when talking about the top handful of players in any generation.

It doesn’t automatically make him rank higher but even among the absolute best, the presence of European players affects the extent to which Canadian players can dominate. For example, the legacies of Crosby, Roy, and Bourque would be different if not for Ovechkin, Hasek, and Lidstrom respectively.

Beliveau and his peers would probably be among the best in any generation, but would be viewed differently if there was a Jagr in the mix.

 

[wetcoast]

I have Ovechkin at 12 and can see an argument for him top 10.

The thing that will hurt him is simply a lack of space. There's only 6 available slots in the top 10 and soon to be only 5 with McDavid.

I have Harvey, Bourque, and Hasek in my top 10. So he's battling it out for only two available spots. Unless you only want something like 8 forwards in the top 10, it's just a hard proposition.

I get why people could have him top 10 though. It's just a logjam of players over 130 years of hockey history.

Agree with a lot above although it does get hard to separate forwards, Dmen and goalies.

As for the 5 spot, as more time goes on it becomes increasingly hard for me to rationalize anyone besides Beliveau there. He just has every aspect of a resume you could want there. No weaknesses. Peak season. Prime seasons. Defensive ability. Playoffs.

But this isn't really all that obvious to me and I used to have Big Jean as my #5 guy but his resume ahs holes in it as well IMO and Crosby has a much stronger case for #5 right now and for a while over Jean.

I think at the end of the day this post sums it up nicely for me.

There's definitely an argument for Ovechkin in the top ten. But the "issue" with Ovechkin is, compared to many of the other players near the top of the all-time list, is he has very pronounced strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, Jean Beliveau is somewhere in the 5-8 range on almost everyone's list, because no matter what criteria you use, he ranks highly across the board.

If you accentuate Ovechkin's positives (goal-scoring peak, longevity as a top goal-scorer, consecutive three-year peak, physicality, durability) - not only does he belong in the top ten, you can make an argument for 5th place. If you focus on the negatives (playmaking [relative to the other players in the top 20], playoff performance [relative to the other players in the top 20], and the drop-off in style & level of performance after his mid 20's), that hurts.

If he reaches 895 goals (which, incredibly, is now looking likely) - it will undoubtedly help him in the eyes of casual fans. But (at least on HOH) career totals - adjusted or otherwise - have never been very important. (Ron Francis is 5th in scoring and HOH ranked him 120th two years ago; Mark Recchi is 13th in scoring and not even in the top 200).

The point I'm trying to make is Ovechkin has very clear strengths and weaknesses (compared to other top 20 players). If someone values his strengths and downplays his weaknesses, he could end up very high on the list - possibly even as high as 5th place. I can't find room for him in my top ten, but I can't fault someone who does, as long as they're being consistent in what they value.

 

[wetcoast]

Somewhere between 8-12, I imagine. It really is kind of a Tale of Two Careers with Ovechkin, right? Early Ovechkin was a monster; he could- and would- skate around or through just about anybody. He had a fantastic shot, worked to get open, and was a better playmaker than people gave him credit for. He created plays. Later Ovechkin, while he was still the league's best (at least most prolific) goalscorer, isn't nearly the same offensive threat. He's just kind of there until the puck comes to him in the offensive zone.

Early Ovechkin looked like a top-5 player of all-time. Later Ovechkin looks like Brett Hull- still an all-time great, but nobody is mentioned Brett Hull in the top 20, right? He deserves a lot of credit for his longevity as a goal scorer, but I don't know if that is enough to really move him past 8-12, even if he breaks the all time record.

Agree with a lot here and that peak was simply riveting.

Afterwards lots of goals......but.

I mean, the last time Ovechkin was in the top-10 for points was 2014-2015 (4th). In the 8 seasons since then, Ovechkin has amassed an incredible 348 goals. While that was good for 4 Rockets, he also only made it onto 1 first team AS and 1 second team AS. In that time frame, he never finished top-5 in Hart voting. He's added a bunch of goals to his total and really strengthened his claim to be the best goal scorer of all time, but I'm not convinced any of that helps his cause in an all-time holistic player evaluation very much.

A large part of this has been since his peak and then the year after in 10-11 Ovechkin simply has been a good to very good but not elite ESP producer in the league.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[Neutrinos]

I see Ovechkin as the Kobe Bryant of hockey

He scored more than anyone else because he shot way, way more than anyone else, but his overall impact/value to his team over the majority of his career hasn't come close to a level that warrants consideration among the top 10 all-time


From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin had 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that (approx.) age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135

It just doesn't make sense that a top 10 player of all-time would go entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

 

[Victorias]

I see Ovechkin as the Kobe Bryant of hockey

He scored more than anyone else because he shot way, way more than anyone else, but his overall impact/value to his team over the majority of his career hasn't come close to a level that warrants consideration among the top 10 all-time


From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin had 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that (approx.) age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135

It just doesn't make sense that a top 10 player of all-time would go entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

This is a bit unfair to Ovechkin as you are excluding his 4 best seasons. His peak and prime were simply earlier than that of any of these players other than Crosby (who has 3 top 4 seasons excluded). And that peak was definitely top 10 all-time.

I get where you’re going with the Kobe comparison, but a converted shot in hockey is worth many times what a converted shot in basketball is worth. So, shooting more - especially when you’re maybe the best ever at it - is not a bad thing. Shots in hockey also create valuable rebounds and tip opportunities while shots in basketball usually end up with the other team if missed.

When a guy is generationally good at something, it makes sense to maximize it rather than trying to make him something he’s not.

 

[MadLuke]

In a way Matthews his making him look really good, being one of the best goalscorer ever, since he joined the league


Matthews, 299 goals in 481 games

Goals

2016-17 NHL 40 (2nd)

2019-20 NHL 47 (3rd)

2020-21 NHL 41 (1st)

2021-22 NHL 60 (1st)

Ovechkin, 297 goals in 519 games, all the game played were after turning 31

2017-18 NHL 49 (1st)

2018-19 NHL 51 (1st)

2019-20 NHL 48 (1st)

2021-22 NHL 50 (4th)

2022-23 NHL 42 (9th)

Ovechkin won 2 other Rocket since that thread was started

 

[Neutrinos]

This is a bit unfair to Ovechkin as you are excluding his 4 best seasons. His peak and prime were simply earlier than that of any of these players other than Crosby (who has 3 top 4 seasons excluded). And that peak was definitely top 10 all-time.

I get where you’re going with the Kobe comparison, but a converted shot in hockey is worth many times what a converted shot in basketball is worth. So, shooting more - especially when you’re maybe the best ever at it - is not a bad thing. Shots in hockey also create valuable rebounds and tip opportunities while shots in basketball usually end up with the other team if missed.

When a guy is generationally good at something, it makes sense to maximize it rather than trying to make him something he’s not.

In Ovechkin's best season he lead the league in points-per-game, but finished just .14 PPG ahead of the runner-up, Henrik Sedin

Shouldn't a top 10 player of all-time - known for their offense - be able to out-score Henrik Sedin by more than 11.48 points over an 82-game season during their respective career years?

 

[Victorias]

In Ovechkin's best season he lead the league in points-per-game, but finished just .14 PPG ahead of the runner-up, Henrik Sedin

Shouldn't a top 10 player of all-time - known for their offense - be able to out-score Henrik Sedin by more than 11.48 points over an 82-game season during their respective career years?

Do you think 65 goals is equal to 65 assists? That’s what you’re doing when you simply add goals and assists together when they don’t occur with the same frequency. Compare the number of 65 goal seasons with 65 assist seasons.

Moreover, do you think Sedin and Ovechkin were anywhere close to the same level at their peaks - assuming you watched them? Sedin was a great playmaker but Ovechkin was a complete gamechanger.

You can use raw point totals to make plenty of silly arguments.

 

[moropanov]

Lower than Juhamatti Aaltonen or Leo Komarov

 

[MadLuke]

In Ovechkin's best season he lead the league in points-per-game, but finished just .14 PPG ahead of the runner-up, Henrik Sedin

Shouldn't a top 10 player of all-time - known for their offense - be able to out-score Henrik Sedin by more than 11.48 points over an 82-game season during their respective career years?

Maybe it would be hard for Gretzky, but there almost always a way to spin a player accomplishment one way or an other.

Peak form Ovechkin from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, cleanly outscored Malkin and Crosby, in points, ppg, +/-, goals:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Same in the playoff, lead the league in ppg, scoring an impressive 20goals in 28 games:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

No one else being close goal scoring wise, 171 goals was a bit Bobby Hull versus the rest of the league level, outscoring 2 really good scorer in Kovalchuck (136), Healtey on the pizza line/Thornton Sharks (119) by huge margin.

He had a GF% at 5v5 during that time similar to Nicklas Lidstrom/Sedins line, the 3.62 goal by 60 minutes when Ovechkin was on the ice at 5v5 was the most in the whole league (with the Crosby of that time), while being one of the best weapon ever on the power play (having the most PP goals by 60 minutes when he was on the ice, league wide, he was scoring the most PP goals by minutes in the league by a good amount, scoring the most points a little bit above Crosby-Malkin).

Outscoring Crosby-Malkin points wise when you are that much better the best goal scorer in the league should be high enough to be in that conversation of all time good peak, maybe something can be said for being short, but certainly high enough and when you are that physical of a player that relied on it to dominate it was longer than many expected.

Has for the volume shooting comparison with Kobe, there is one massive difference, peak Ovechkin skating, physicality and shots that was dangerous from more place than most created shot that did not exist with a regular top 6 forward playing instead of him, he had the best Corsi in the league, he was on the ice for the most shot for in the league by a good amount. It is less almost the same amounts of shots will be taken regardless on who take them so your shooting percentage mean a lot like in basketball (or even more so baseball), because he was generating shots and his team shot percentage when he was on the ice was top 5 in the nhl, only behind Gaborik-Kovalchuck-Malkin-Crosby, so not much an indication of his goals totals being a bit of a zero sum games that did not helped the team totals has much as they seem, with him eating others scoring chance by shooting a lot.

Peak Ovechkin capitals scored 819 goals, in their own tier above anyone else:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

And won the most game in the east.

He was one of those really special ice tilting force, the numbers are saying he was and being the spectacular the eye test was going in the same direction.