Will Ovechkin hit 20 goals this season?

[Old Gregg]

The stats I posted a few posts above shed some light on this assertion.

Here's a select few:

Ovechkin led the NHL in goals 9 times. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin has 11 adjusted 50 goal seasons. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin's adjusted GPG is .69. Bossy's is .61, except Ovechkin sustained it for 15 seasons through age 34 whereas for Bossy it was 10 seasons through age 30.

Ovechkin's peak adjusted season is 72 goals. Bossy's is 58.

Nevermind that Bossy never won a Hart or a Pearson/Lindsay whereas Ovechkin won each of them 3 times. And no, it's not because of Gretzky because Bossy was never in second place either despite playing on a dynasty.

Do you have a link for that chart?

 

[The Grim Reaper]

The stats I posted a few posts above shed some light on this assertion.

Here's a select few:

Ovechkin led the NHL in goals 9 times. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin has 11 adjusted 50 goal seasons. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin's adjusted GPG is .69. Bossy's is .61, except Ovechkin sustained it for 15 seasons through age 34 whereas for Bossy it was 10 seasons through age 30.

Ovechkin's peak adjusted season is 72 goals. Bossy's is 58.

Nevermind that Bossy never won a Hart or a Pearson/Lindsay whereas Ovechkin won each of them 3 times. And no, it's not because of Gretzky because Bossy was never in second place either despite playing on a dynasty.

Are these Giroux-adjusted or non-Giroux-adjusted points?

 

[coooldude]

Are these Giroux-adjusted or non-Giroux-adjusted points?

I had to dig to find this to fully appreciate your joke, but for everyone else's sake:

Eric Staal, greatest player of hockey

Eric Staal has 45 assists in 76 games. His assists are on goals by: Tlusty (6) Faulk (5) Brent (5) Skinner (5) Harrison (4) LaRose (3) Stewart (3) Jokinen (2) Dwyer (2) Samson (2) Allen (1) Poni (1) Dalpe (1) Sutter (1) McBain (1) Spacek (1) Joslin (1) Ruutu (1) To calculate the average...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[ImporterExporter]

Ovechkin has had 2 distinctly different periods of goals scoring.

Prior to 2010-2011-2012 range, he was an absolute animal. A freight train who could beat you the length of ice, score at will from pretty much anywhere. And I say that as a Pittsburgher who has no reason to root for the guy but can call it unbiased based on reality and the eye test.

There was a strange downturn during his age 25/26 seasons. I've never really understood why a player like him, in his mid 20's saw such a drastic decrease in production despite not really missing time. Especially when you see what he was doing before and what he accomplished after. I've heard coaching and deployment as a reason, but that seems odd considering he's played under numerous coaches throughout his career and has always been the focal point (rightfully so) offensively. It's not like his shot totals cratered, though the efficiency did so part of it was him just missing more often.

2013 onward saw him start piling up Rocket's again but having watched a decent chunk of his games, he absolutely did not play the same consistent, kamikaze style of hockey that you saw during the first 5-6 years. He became a more stationary goal scorer, reliant on others to feed him passes and produce opportunities to let shots rip. I'm not saying that he didn't score amazing goals or still have the ability to power/drive his way to a goal but the frequency at which it was happening, decreased quite a bit.

Ovi has never been a particularly accurate shooter. In fact, he's downright poor relatively speaking against his peers. I'm working up a comprehensive study on shot volume and the difference between snipers (like a Bossy from an era past or Matthews as a current player) and volume/compilers (Ovi). A big factor that the casual fan (which makes up the overwhelming majority of people) doesn't take into consideration is shots missed, which sees Ovechkin soar even further ahead of his peers in terms of overall volume.

Ovi has won numerous Rockets in large part because he shot the puck far, far more than anyone else in the league. People call that a skill and scoff at any notion that evaluating efficiency but I find that disingenuous, lazy, and outright fraudulent if we're going to nitpick other factors of the game and other players in an all time light whether you are talking about goal scoring, assists, etc, etc.

Take for example 2008-09.

Ovechkin (56) won the Rocket by 10 over Jeff Carter (46).

Ovechkin shot the puck 528 times on net. Led league by a mile. Next closest was Eric Staal at 372.

Missed another 220. Led league by a mile. Next closest was Staal at 137. In fact, since he came into the league he's missed more than 1000 shots than the next closest player (Brent Burns). The next closest F is Carter, 1250 behind Ovi.

528+220 =748

Carter shot the puck 342 times on net. Missed another 116.
342+116=458

56/748=7.5%
46/458=10.0%

Ovechkin led the league with 5 EN goals
Carter had 2

Ovechkin scored 19 of his 56 on the PP = 34%
Carter scored 13 of 46 on the PP = 28.3%

Ovechkin scored 1 SHG
Carter scored 4

Ovechkin skated 23 minutes per game (led league)
Carter 21 (17th)

Is it any wonder why Ovechkin won the Rocket? He shot the puck nearly 300 more times at net than the 2nd place finisher. He relied on the PP more, scored more EN goals and fewer SH goals.

He's not required to engage defensively. He doesn't have C responsibilities in the middle of the ice.

There are numerous team sports that evaluate shot volume vs success rates, yet when it comes to Ovechkin, he gets a pass (generally from Caps fans and/or Crosby detractors) when you bring up volume being a big factor in why he was scoring the most.

There is a strong hesitancy to evaluate the different types of goals he is scoring, how many came on the PP (vs peers for example, Matthews is leading the league in ES goal scoring for the 5th time already at age 26 vs Ovi who has done it 5 times since 2005-06), how many are EN (Ovi leads all active players by a lot, 56, vs 2nd place Marchand at 33), etc, etc.

The simple reality is that having such a massive leg up in volume is always going to give you A, more chances to score, and B, allow the player to be less accurate and still obtain the most goals despite most everyone else being much more efficient in putting the puck in the back of the net.

Nobody denies that he is an all time great goal scorer, many say the best ever. I don't have an issue with people claiming that, though I do think there are better pure goal scorers than him.

Nobody denies that he is an all time great player (I have him in the 10-15 range which is very reasonable and an unbiased ranking IMHO).

But he has always been an offensive only player, a winger, who's back half of his career saw him rely more on his teammates to generate scoring chances and has benefitted from a system and team strategy that forced him the puck, often at the team's expense. He has been uneven at best, as a postseason player (the only years that register for an all time great were 2009 and 2018), with team success an absolute knock relative to what he and his team did most years in the regular season. He's been a net negative player 10 out of 14 playoffs. The Caps have advanced past the 2nd round ONCE in those 14 playoff runs, often losing to teams that finished lower in the standings and again, it's not like it was Ovechkin and a bunch of nobodies. His international success in terms of best on best tournaments where most/all NHL players are participating, like the Olympics, is also bleak.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Do you have a link for that chart?

No, but feel free to check any of the data. I'm happy to update it if anything is incorrect.

The career totals for Ovechkin are not up to date but much of the data is "first X years" and so that data will not change.

Edit: for adjusted stats you can check hockeyreference.coom. For example if you want to see how many adjusted 50 goal seasons Mike Bossy has (it's 2), you can click on the link below and scroll down to "miscellaneous:"

Mike Bossy Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Salary, Title | Hockey-Reference.com

Checkout the latest stats of Mike Bossy. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, trade, draft, salary and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[filinski77]

Ovechkin has had 2 distinctly different periods of goals scoring.

Prior to 2010-2011-2012 range, he was an absolute animal. A freight train who could beat you the length of ice, score at will from pretty much anywhere. And I say that as a Pittsburgher who has no reason to root for the guy but can call it unbiased based on reality and the eye test.

There was a strange downturn during his age 25/26 seasons. I've never really understood why a player like him, in his mid 20's saw such a drastic decrease in production despite not really missing time. Especially when you see what he was doing before and what he accomplished after. I've heard coaching and deployment as a reason, but that seems odd considering he's played under numerous coaches throughout his career and has always been the focal point (rightfully so) offensively. It's not like his shot totals cratered, though the efficiency did so part of it was him just missing more often.

2013 onward saw him start piling up Rocket's again but having watched a decent chunk of his games, he absolutely did not play the same consistent, kamikaze style of hockey that you saw during the first 5-6 years. He became a more stationary goal scorer, reliant on others to feed him passes and produce opportunities to let shots rip. I'm not saying that he didn't score amazing goals or still have the ability to power/drive his way to a goal but the frequency at which it was happening, decreased quite a bit.

Ovi has never been a particularly accurate shooter. In fact, he's downright poor relatively speaking against his peers. I'm working up a comprehensive study on shot volume and the difference between snipers (like a Bossy from an era past or Matthews as a current player) and volume/compilers (Ovi). A big factor that the casual fan (which makes up the overwhelming majority of people) doesn't take into consideration is shots missed, which sees Ovechkin soar even further ahead of his peers in terms of overall volume.

Ovi has won numerous Rockets in large part because he shot the puck far, far more than anyone else in the league. People call that a skill and scoff at any notion that evaluating efficiency but I find that disingenuous, lazy, and outright fraudulent if we're going to nitpick other factors of the game and other players in an all time light whether you are talking about goal scoring, assists, etc, etc.

Take for example 2008-09.

Ovechkin (56) won the Rocket by 10 over Jeff Carter (46).

Ovechkin shot the puck 528 times on net. Led league by a mile. Next closest was Eric Staal at 372.

Missed another 220. Led league by a mile. Next closest was Staal at 137. In fact, since he came into the league he's missed more than 1000 shots than the next closest player (Brent Burns). The next closest F is Carter, 1250 behind Ovi.

528+220 =748

Carter shot the puck 342 times on net. Missed another 116.
342+116=458

56/748=7.5%
46/458=10.0%

Ovechkin led the league with 5 EN goals
Carter had 2

Ovechkin scored 19 of his 56 on the PP = 34%
Carter scored 13 of 46 on the PP = 28.3%

Ovechkin scored 1 SHG
Carter scored 4

Ovechkin skated 23 minutes per game (led league)
Carter 21 (17th)

Is it any wonder why Ovechkin won the Rocket? He shot the puck nearly 300 more times at net than the 2nd place finisher. He relied on the PP more, scored more EN goals and fewer SH goals.

He's not required to engage defensively. He doesn't have C responsibilities in the middle of the ice.

There are numerous team sports that evaluate shot volume vs success rates, yet when it comes to Ovechkin, he gets a pass (generally from Caps fans and/or Crosby detractors) when you bring up volume being a big factor in why he was scoring the most.

There is a strong hesitancy to evaluate the different types of goals he is scoring, how many came on the PP (vs peers for example, Matthews is leading the league in ES goal scoring for the 5th time already at age 26 vs Ovi who has done it 5 times since 2005-06), how many are EN (Ovi leads all active players by a lot, 56, vs 2nd place Marchand at 33), etc, etc.

The simple reality is that having such a massive leg up in volume is always going to give you A, more chances to score, and B, allow the player to be less accurate and still obtain the most goals despite most everyone else being much more efficient in putting the puck in the back of the net.

Nobody denies that he is an all time great goal scorer, many say the best ever. I don't have an issue with people claiming that, though I do think there are better pure goal scorers than him.

Nobody denies that he is an all time great player (I have him in the 10-15 range which is very reasonable and an unbiased ranking IMHO).

But he has always been an offensive only player, a winger, who's back half of his career saw him rely more on his teammates to generate scoring chances and has benefitted from a system and team strategy that forced him the puck, often at the team's expense. He has been uneven at best, as a postseason player (the only years that register for an all time great were 2009 and 2018), with team success an absolute knock relative to what he and his team did most years in the regular season. He's been a net negative player 10 out of 14 playoffs. The Caps have advanced past the 2nd round ONCE in those 14 playoff runs, often losing to teams that finished lower in the standings and again, it's not like it was Ovechkin and a bunch of nobodies. His international success in terms of best on best tournaments where most/all NHL players are participating, like the Olympics, is also bleak.

"Ovi has never been a particularly accurate shooter. In fact, he's downright poor relatively speaking against his peers. I'm working up a comprehensive study on shot volume and the difference between snipers (like a Bossy from an era past or Matthews as a current player) and volume/compilers (Ovi)."
-> If you want to analyze shooting %, please ensure you do a thorough analysis on shot distance as well, otherwise the whole premise is flawed. I remember seeing a chart about a year ago that showed how much further Ovechkin's average shot distance is compared to other goal scorers who shoot from much closer. This has a tremendous impact on shooting%
-> Also worth considering that more shots is not inherently a bad thing, and shot generation in and of itself is one of the biggest skills in hockey. Ovechkin is able to take more shots due to an elite release, power, the way the puck rotates like a baseball (numerous goalies have mentioned this), and that itself allows Ovechkin to get off more shots than other goal scorers.

"People call that a skill and scoff at any notion that evaluating efficiency but I find that disingenuous, lazy, and outright fraudulent if we're going to nitpick other factors of the game and other players in an all time light whether you are talking about goal scoring, assists, etc, etc."
-> Personally I think it's "outright fraudulent" to act like generating shots and getting pucks on net or towards the goalie is a bad thing. This isn't passing % in football or 3p% in basketball where a shot that hits the goalie, or even that goes wide is guaranteed a bad thing. Missing the net can still often lead to good things, and hitting the net and generating a shot is almost NEVER a bad thing.

"Is it any wonder why Ovechkin won the Rocket? He shot the puck nearly 300 more times at net than the 2nd place finisher. He relied on the PP more, scored more EN goals and fewer SH goals."
-> Having to analyze shots generated, shots missed, EN goals, PP goals, time on ice and a whole bunch of other misc stats to try and compare a 10 goal difference between a peak Ovechkin and Jeff Carter should be enough to tell you that you're stretching hard there with your analysis.

"There is a strong hesitancy to evaluate the different types of goals he is scoring, how many came on the PP (vs peers for example, Matthews is leading the league in ES goal scoring for the 5th time already at age 26 vs Ovi who has done it 5 times since 2005-06),"
-> No there's not. In addition to being the most dominant 'most times leading the league in goals' player in the NHL's history, Ovechkin has lead the league in powerplay goals the most of anyone in history (6 times), he's also lead the league in even-strength goals the 2nd most of anyone (5 times, with Hull Sr. at 6 times - Matthews at 4 times). Through Ovi's peak and his first 5 years, he was easily the best even-strength goalscorer. The thing with him is he's not only one of the best ES goal scorers of all-time, he's also THE best Powerplay goal scorer of all time.

"But he has always been an offensive only player, a winger, who's back half of his career saw him rely more on his teammates to generate scoring chances and has benefitted from a system and team strategy that forced him the puck, often at the team's expense."
-> "At the teams expense", even though the Caps record without Ovi over his career (including the back half) being terrible compared to when he's playing. Compared to someone like Crosby where the Penguins actually have a better record without him? The whole notion of "at the teams expense" is completely baseless of any stat.

"The Caps have advanced past the 2nd round ONCE in those 14 playoff runs, often losing to teams that finished lower in the standings and again, it's not like it was Ovechkin and a bunch of nobodies."
-> Yet nobody in NHL history has lead their team in goals in the playoffs more times than Ovechkin. And the only player to lead their team in points in the playoffs more time than Ovi is Gordie Howe.

Honestly, just seems like a ton of nitpicking to try and tear the guy down on your end. I respect the effort at least.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

I had to dig to find this to fully appreciate your joke, but for everyone else's sake:

Eric Staal, greatest player of hockey

Eric Staal has 45 assists in 76 games. His assists are on goals by: Tlusty (6) Faulk (5) Brent (5) Skinner (5) Harrison (4) LaRose (3) Stewart (3) Jokinen (2) Dwyer (2) Samson (2) Allen (1) Poni (1) Dalpe (1) Sutter (1) McBain (1) Spacek (1) Joslin (1) Ruutu (1) To calculate the average...

forums.hfboards.com

Pretty much how I feel about adjusted stats, you can have them say whatever you want with a few minor tweaks..

 

[wetcoast]

The stats I posted a few posts above shed some light on this assertion.

Here's a select few:

Ovechkin led the NHL in goals 9 times. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin has 11 adjusted 50 goal seasons. Bossy 2.

Ovechkin's adjusted GPG is .69. Bossy's is .61, except Ovechkin sustained it for 15 seasons through age 34 whereas for Bossy it was 10 seasons through age 30.

Ovechkin's peak adjusted season is 72 goals. Bossy's is 58.

Nevermind that Bossy never won a Hart or a Pearson/Lindsay whereas Ovechkin won each of them 3 times. And no, it's not because of Gretzky because Bossy was never in second place either despite playing on a dynasty.

Sure but let's look at the real advantage Ovi has when it comes to scoring and that's volume

SOG

Bossy 4,5,5,7,7,7
Ovie 11 times he led the league in SOG and then finishes of 2,2,2,3,5 and 7th

We are talking about 2 different type of goal scorers here.

Also Ovi most likely never wins a Hart during the time period of Bossy either due to Gretzky and the NYI team mates argument.

 

[HolyHagelin]

How can you slag on a guy for generating shot volume, when there is literally a long-running and frequently used offensive philosophy in the NHL (funnel) that is all about generating shot volume and capitalizing (pun intended) on opportunities presented thereby?

Leading the league in shots time and time again is ABSOLUTELY a mark in OV’s favor and spinning it otherwise just tells everyone reading that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. “There is no such thing as a bad shot on goal.”

FTR - I am a Rangers fan, no skin in the OV conversation.

ETA - if we regard SOG as a negative, then the entire premise of modern analytics is wrong, and corsi and fenwick need to be burned down.

 

[coooldude]

Honestly, just seems like a ton of nitpicking to try and tear the guy down on your end. I respect the effort at least.

How can you slag on a guy for generating shot volume, when there is literally a long-running and frequently used offensive philosophy in the NHL (funnel) that is all about generating shot volume and capitalizing (pun intended) on opportunities presented thereby?

Leading the league in shots time and time again is ABSOLUTELY a mark in OV’s favor and spinning it otherwise just tells everyone reading that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. “There is no such thing as a bad shot on goal.”

FTR - I am a Rangers fan, no skin in the OV conversation.

ETA - if we regard SOG as a negative, then the entire premise of modern analytics is wrong, and corsi and fenwick need to be burned down.

I mean, you guys missed the part where the dude said "Nobody denies that he is an all time great goal scorer, many say the best ever. I don't have an issue with people claiming that, though I do think there are better pure goal scorers than him.

Nobody denies that he is an all time great player (I have him in the 10-15 range which is very reasonable and an unbiased ranking IMHO)."

If by "tearing down" you mean "not agreeing he is the best ever," then I guess you're right that he's tearing him down... I read a thoughtful, well-researched post about Ovie's style and a thorough breakdown of one of his Richard years. One that also acknowledged he is among one of the greatest ever to play the game of hockey.

If we are going to take "adjusted goals" etc. seriously, then this post deserves to be considered seriously as well.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I have concerns whenever someone declares their own ranking to be unbiased.

We're all biased, and it's the people who think that they aren't that you need to watch extra carefully.

 

[coooldude]

I have concerns whenever someone declares their own ranking to be unbiased.

We're all biased, and it's the people who think that they aren't that you need to watch extra carefully.

Sure. what about the rest of his post? Ignore that one word and there's a lot of useful commentary to chew on.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Sure. what about the rest of his post? Ignore that one word and there's a lot of useful commentary to chew on.

Despite your use of quotation marks and bold font, I can't tell what's your opinion and what's some other poster's opinion, to be honest.

 

[surixon]

How can you slag on a guy for generating shot volume, when there is literally a long-running and frequently used offensive philosophy in the NHL (funnel) that is all about generating shot volume and capitalizing (pun intended) on opportunities presented thereby?

Leading the league in shots time and time again is ABSOLUTELY a mark in OV’s favor and spinning it otherwise just tells everyone reading that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. “There is no such thing as a bad shot on goal.”

FTR - I am a Rangers fan, no skin in the OV conversation.

ETA - if we regard SOG as a negative, then the entire premise of modern analytics is wrong, and corsi and fenwick need to be burned down.

I agree with this. There is more then one way to score. Ovie was a high volume shooter and it worked for him. Other hhof where high volume shooters as well like Kariya.

 

[coooldude]

Despite your use of quotation marks and bold font, I can't tell what's your opinion and what's some other poster's opinion, to be honest.

I wrote my opinion earlier in the thread (previous page). I'm trying to elevate this poster's post because I thought it was well done, and the next two posts strawmanned it by claiming it was "tearing ovie down" and ignored good points the post/poster made. Your comment didn't even react to the original post, rather made a tangential point about the use of the word "unbiased" in the making of opinion-driven lists.

Believe it or not, I'm not actually trying to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong, I'm trying to encourage a good discussion. Maybe that's me being a fool because we're on the internet, and a corner of it where there are a lot of people who are trying to be right all the time.

 

[wetcoast]

How can you slag on a guy for generating shot volume, when there is literally a long-running and frequently used offensive philosophy in the NHL (funnel) that is all about generating shot volume and capitalizing (pun intended) on opportunities presented thereby?

Leading the league in shots time and time again is ABSOLUTELY a mark in OV’s favor and spinning it otherwise just tells everyone reading that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. “There is no such thing as a bad shot on goal.”

FTR - I am a Rangers fan, no skin in the OV conversation.

ETA - if we regard SOG as a negative, then the entire premise of modern analytics is wrong, and corsi and fenwick need to be burned down.

Why does SOG have to be an absolute positive or negative, it's context and yes there is such a thing as a bad SOG otherwise all players would always just shoot right?

Sometimes there is a better shot to be had or that a team might try and create.

 

[ImporterExporter]

How can you slag on a guy for generating shot volume, when there is literally a long-running and frequently used offensive philosophy in the NHL (funnel) that is all about generating shot volume and capitalizing (pun intended) on opportunities presented thereby?

Leading the league in shots time and time again is ABSOLUTELY a mark in OV’s favor and spinning it otherwise just tells everyone reading that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. “There is no such thing as a bad shot on goal.”

FTR - I am a Rangers fan, no skin in the OV conversation.

ETA - if we regard SOG as a negative, then the entire premise of modern analytics is wrong, and corsi and fenwick need to be burned down.

I never said shot volume was a negative. If you can find me saying that, please, show it. This is what I get constantly and it's a boring response.

My point is that shot volume, especially when you have significantly more than everyone else, is going to provide a wider margin for error when shooting. Your chances of scoring increase exponentially. Furthermore, the types of goals you score matter. How many come with a man advantage.

Ovechkin may well score the most goals all time. He has the most Rockets. That doesn't mean he's automatically the greatest to ever do it. Who you are competing against matters for example. Efficiency should matter in any debate and the other all time great goal scorers, almost universally did it with better efficiency.

 

[JianYang]

It's crazy how it went from almost being inevitable to realistically not happening in one off-season.
Still not writing ov off yet, something tells me he comes back next season ready to play

I was pretty consistent in saying that I don't think it's inevitable and people were underestimating how quickly things can go south at that age.

I really hope he gets it though. The league took away 1.5 years of his prime because of lockouts, and then there was the loss of games due to covid. I'd hate to think that those issues would be the deciding factor.

 

[ricky0034]

I had to dig to find this to fully appreciate your joke, but for everyone else's sake:

Eric Staal, greatest player of hockey

Eric Staal has 45 assists in 76 games. His assists are on goals by: Tlusty (6) Faulk (5) Brent (5) Skinner (5) Harrison (4) LaRose (3) Stewart (3) Jokinen (2) Dwyer (2) Samson (2) Allen (1) Poni (1) Dalpe (1) Sutter (1) McBain (1) Spacek (1) Joslin (1) Ruutu (1) To calculate the average...

forums.hfboards.com

now I feel so old as someone that did remember it

can't believe that thread is from 12 years ago

I never said shot volume was a negative. If you can find me saying that, please, show it. This is what I get constantly and it's a boring response.

My point is that shot volume, especially when you have significantly more than everyone else, is going to provide a wider margin for error when shooting. Your chances of scoring increase exponentially. Furthermore, the types of goals you score matter. How many come with a man advantage.

Ovechkin may well score the most goals all time. He has the most Rockets. That doesn't mean he's automatically the greatest to ever do it. Who you are competing against matters for example. Efficiency should matter in any debate and the other all time great goal scorers, almost universally did it with better efficiency.

why don't the other players just shoot more? are they stupid?

 

[22Brad Park]

I am on record here saying it long ago and will say it again .When players get to that older age for hockey players it's like somebody just shut the tap off .He will have a hard time breaking that record.Not saying he can't but it's gonna be a grind and Capitals need to put him in spots to do it and still try to make team better.

 

[ImporterExporter]

why don't the other players simply shoot more? are they stupid?

Easy response?

No other team has put so much emphasis on 1 player shooting the puck. Teams play different strategies. Coaches ask players to do different things on the ice.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Also Ovi most likely never wins a Hart during the time period of Bossy either due to Gretzky and the NYI team mates argument.

Bossy was never second to Gretzky for the Hart.

Your post is fundamentally dishonest.

Easy response?

No other team has put so much emphasis on 1 player shooting the puck. Teams play different strategies. Coaches ask players to do different things on the ice.

And all those other coaches are, what, telling their players not to get shots off?

That's gibberish.

Hey remember that time when you claimed Crosby could have scored as many goals as Ovechkin if he wanted to? Good times.

 

[Beau Knows]

Hey remember that time when you claimed Crosby could have scored as many goals as Ovechkin if he wanted to? Good times.

Good thing he's not doing that now

 

[Midnight Judges]

-> If you want to analyze shooting %, please ensure you do a thorough analysis on shot distance as well,

Just curious, where can shot distance be found these days? NHL.com used to have it in the stats, but I'm not finding it anymore.

Back when I was looking, Ovechkin's average shot distance was significantly farther out than all the other top goal scorers of this era (Stamkos, Laine, Matthews, etc).

Good thing he's not doing that now

You think Crosby is going to score 830+ goals?

Hope springs eternal.

 

[Beau Knows]

You think Crosby is going to score 830+ goals?

I think his 26 this season is more than Ovechkin's current total of 8.