- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
Ovechkin scored 50 goals and 90 points in 77 games (1.17 PPG) when he was Crosby's age. He was 4th in goals and 16th in points.
Crosby is currently 8th in goals and in an 8 way tie for 17th in points with a PPG of 1.10.
Will Ovechkin hit 20 goals this season?
- Thread starter HabsCode
- Start date
- Status
Ovechkin scored 50 goals and 90 points in 77 games (1.17 PPG) when he was Crosby's age. He was 4th in goals and 16th in points.
Crosby is currently 8th in goals and in an 8 way tie for 17th in points with a PPG of 1.10.
Beau Knows
Registered User
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I have larger concerns when people make rankings that are based on ignorance as it relates to the grand scheme of hockey history and this main board often shows a complete lack of awareness when it comes to anything prior to the current/ or maybe DPE.
Biases are only biases if you allow them to be. Data and the eye test are my weapons of choice and considering we're talking about an active player, both are more readily available than players of past eras. Biases are not taking volume and efficiency into account in any goal scoring discussion. Biases are taking any raw number and thinking it is the end of the story/debate.
Ranking Oveckhin 10th to 15th all time is certainly reasonable and where a lot of really smart hockey folks put him. And that ranking probably ends up closer to 10 or even above that when his career is completed.
Bias would be allowing my fandom of Pittsburgh cloud where I place Ovechkin in an all time light. I'm not doing that. Just like I'm not ready to place Crosby at 5, as many casual observers do. He's somewhere in the 7 to 10 range for me, higher than Ovechkin simply because his body of work is more impressive beyond the regular season and NHL, by quite a lot and most won't debate that point.
I'd also wager this forum spends too much time watching the wrong people but that may be a biased statement.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
Or we could look at the start of Ovechkin's age 36 season through January 17th in which case he had a 1.38 PPG to Crosby's age 36 1.10 PPG.
Beau Knows
Registered User
I don't think anyone in the thread disagrees that Ovechkin has had good seasons...
This is a thread about whether or not he will score 20 goals this season, which as of now is not a guarantee. Back in November I thought the OP was crazy with their question, but to their credit it could actually end up being close. But I think ultimately Ovechkin will heat up at some point and end up getting to 25+.
Last edited:
filinski77
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2017
- 2,702
- 4,470
I understand he was given credits as one of the best players/goal scorers of all-time. My issue was the specific arguments that were used (not in favor) against Ovechkin in that post were all pretty bad, and many of them were very much in a 'reaching' territory. That's exactly why I picked apart each individual assertion that I fundamentally disagreed with.
I agree it was thoughtful and at least had stats. But as above, I had clear issues with the premise of what the stats even meant and added a ton of context that explained directly why the stats/analysis was not relevant or was completely missing the big picture.
"If we are going to take "adjusted goals" etc. seriously, then this post deserves to be considered seriously as well."
Here's the thing though. Adjusted goals directly try to accomodate for the understanding that scoring levels are completely different. And try to adjust for it. We all know that if goalies had their sticks taken away next year, and all players started scoring 30% more next season, you couldn't compare 100 points this season with 100 points next season.
Any level-headed person can understand how important this context is. Ie. who's richer? Someone with $1.1 million today, or someone with $1.0 million in 1980? It's all relative.
However, saying that high shot volume and lower shooting %'s are bad and a negative (the premise the poster claimed), completely states that shot generation is a bad thing, it completely ignores where the shots are coming from (Ovechkin shoots from further away - do we say that all defensemen should not shoot the puck since D-men have a much lower shooting %?).
TLDR: There is a fundamental flaw with using shot generation and shooting % alone as a negative item when making these kind of analysis. The same does not apply for adjusted goals.
filinski77
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2017
- 2,702
- 4,470
Like I mentioned, it was a report I read a while ago. But it's clear as day based on the eye-test as well. Wingers play on the sides (less so right in front of the net compared to centres), plus it's not Ovechkin's style/role to stand in front of the net as often as other wingers. Plus - on the powerplay Ovechkin literally plays the role of one of the D for the most part.
gritdash60
Registered User
Who cares if he scores 3 or 16 or 28? everyone knows hes not breaking the record so its irrelevant. This idiot got his cup, but wont get the record.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,543
- 5,579
FWIW I didn't read the shot generation and shooting % point as a pure negative. I viewed it more as important detail and context as to how he scored so many goals, and why that means he might not be the best *pure goalscorer* if you define that as someone who is able to score any type of goal at any point in the game (e.g. Mario).
I see Ovie's shot generation as a strength in itself, and the result of that strength is a ton of goals, with those goals skewing more PP (and a tad bit more EN, but who cares) than some other goal scorers of the same (extremely rarified) caliber.
This is relevant to the thread of course, because of the style in which he scored all those goals. Even if his shooting% is lower than other goal scorers because he was shooting/scoring from distance (either your or someone else's point)... as you age and your shot velocity reduces even a bit or your accuracy reduces even just a bit, you might see a significant regression in goals scored with the same play style of high shot volume at greater distance. So maybe his goal scoring style isn't going to translate all that well as he ages.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
Yeah I agree the eye test certainly shows Ovie consistently shooting from a long distance - often unscreened (which isn't part of the stat).
I'd prefer a statistical representation of it though. We used to have that average shot distance data.
filinski77
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2017
- 2,702
- 4,470
"Biases are only biases if you allow them to be. Data and the eye test are my weapons of choice and considering we're talking about an active player, both are more readily available than players of past eras."I have larger concerns when people make rankings that are based on ignorance as it relates to the grand scheme of hockey history and this main board often shows a complete lack of awareness when it comes to anything prior to the current/ or maybe DPE.
Biases are only biases if you allow them to be. Data and the eye test are my weapons of choice and considering we're talking about an active player, both are more readily available than players of past eras. Biases are not taking volume and efficiency into account in any goal scoring discussion. Biases are taking any raw number and thinking it is the end of the story/debate.
Ranking Oveckhin 10th to 15th all time is certainly reasonable and where a lot of really smart hockey folks put him. And that ranking probably ends up closer to 10 or even above that when his career is completed.
Bias would be allowing my fandom of Pittsburgh cloud where I place Ovechkin in an all time light. I'm not doing that. Just like I'm not ready to place Crosby at 5, as many casual observers do. He's somewhere in the 7 to 10 range for me, higher than Ovechkin simply because his body of work is more impressive beyond the regular season and NHL, by quite a lot and most won't debate that point.
I'd also wager this forum spends too much time watching the wrong people but that may be a biased statement.
Data shows that on both a raw basis and adjusted basis (include both in order to avoid bias), Ovechkin has the best argument for the best goal scorer of all-time.
Eye test is good, but extremely hard to compare across totally different eras of player. So when you compare the player to their peers, Ovechkin has the single best performance to peers in goalscoring than anyone else in NHL history.
| Ovechkin | Lemieux | Hull Sr | Howe | Gretzky | |
| Raw Goals - rank | 2 | 11 | 18 | 3 | 1 |
| Adjusted Goals - rank | 1 | 19 | 13 | 2 | 4 |
| ES Goals - rank | 4 | 16 | 11 | 2 | 1 |
| PP Goals - rank | 1 | 8 | 47 | 15 | 18 |
| GWG - rank | 2 | 51 | 10 | 3 | 20 |
| Times lead - goals | 9 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Times lead - goals/gp | 8 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 3 |
| Times lead - ES goals | 5 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Times lead - PP goals | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Times lead - shots | 11 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 4 |
| Top-10 goal finishes | 15 | 9 | 13 | 19 | 10 |
| Top-10 goal/gp finishes | 16 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 11 |
| 50 goal seasons - raw | 9 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| 50 goal seasons - adj. | 11 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
"Biases are not taking volume and efficiency into account in any goal scoring discussion."
In essence, you're correct. But your bias is how much emphasis you're putting on it, and whether or not it means anything in the first place. Shot generation is good for the game of hockey, even if you don't score.
In addition, shooting% (efficiency) is useless if you don't consider the environment in the league. Bigger and more talented goalies in todays era = higher save % and lower shooting % across the board.
(Note that Howe is from age 31 onwards due to shot data).
| Shooting % | League Avg sv% | League - avg s% | |
| Ovechkin | 12.8 | 0.910 | 9.0% |
| Lemieux | 19.0 | 0.892 | 10.8% |
| Hull Sr | 12.6 | 0.908 | 9.2% |
| Howe | 10.1 | 0.9083 | 9.2% |
| Gretzky | 17.6 | 0.886 | 11.4% |
If you dig into the numbers, you can see that Ovechkin's shooting % is a lot closer to Gretzky when adjusted to the league average save%. All of this still does not consider shooting distance, which is just as relevant of a factor.
| Shooting % | Adjust to Gretz | |
| Ovechkin | 12.8 | 16.2 |
| Lemieux | 19.0 | 20.1 |
| Hull Sr | 12.6 | 15.6 |
| Howe | 10.1 | 12.5 |
| Gretzky | 17.6 | 17.6 |
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
The issue with shot distance is that you can't track it accurately prior to the current era. And even tracking it now is very tough, unless of course a person has the tape and time to literally go back through every period, of every game.
So even if you do manage to compile the data for a guy like Ovechkin or Sid, you can't do the same for somebody like Bobby Hull or Maurice Richard.
If I had a gun to my head I'd guess that earlier you go in Ovechkin's career the closer the average distance of scoring was. He was a more active player in the offensive zone as far as being on/away the from the puck. From what I've seen, he seems to have become much more of a trigger man from his late 20's onward.
With that being said, I do agree that Ovi almost surely has scored a greater # of goals from further out than anyone from this era.
Would be pretty interesting to see how big/intense the red dot is on/around that left circle/dot.
No it's not on 2 accounts as I said Bossy never won the Hart and never claimed that he came in second in part due to the second part of my comment which was this,
Your injection of Hart trophies when comparing the 2 players as goal scorers wasn't relevant then nor is it now.
Funny that Crosby has a higher shooting % all time though eh?
14.6 is higher than 12.8 right?
True enough and Ovi's year adjusted comes out to a line of 49-38-87.
Right now Crosby's adjusted line is 50-38-88.
Enjoy the rest of the season.
Last edited:
I'm curious as to who your top 10 is then as Crosby already has an extremely strong argument for 5th spot one would think.Ranking Oveckhin 10th to 15th all time is certainly reasonable and where a lot of really smart hockey folks put him. And that ranking probably ends up closer to 10 or even above that when his career is completed.
Bias would be allowing my fandom of Pittsburgh cloud where I place Ovechkin in an all time light. I'm not doing that. Just like I'm not ready to place Crosby at 5, as many casual observers do. He's somewhere in the 7 to 10 range for me, higher than Ovechkin simply because his body of work is more impressive beyond the regular season and NHL, by quite a lot and most won't debate that point.
I'd also wager this forum spends too much time watching the wrong people but that may be a biased statement.
Ovi 10-15 sounds about right but I wonder how big the fluctuation swing might be for him?
Sure and for the rest of that season Ovi was 3rd on the Capitals in points and had this line.
38-24-12-36 (-7)
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Let's see how Crosby stacks up the rest of the way then shall we?
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,353
- 2,463
no real wonder, guy plays hockey. He hasn't been durable, he's been resilient.
Nastya Ovechkina shares grotesque photo of a bruise on Alex Ovechkin’s leg
Friday morning, Alex Ovechkin confirmed that he was suffering from a knee and hamstring injuries during the playoffs, the latter of which…russianmachineneverbreaks.com
Man has been hurt a time or two, I think we all know that. He wants to be out there more than he wants to sit. That's why the whole "Russian Machine Never Breaks" thing became a thing, but of course it's a front and he's a human who has endured shit over an NHL career.
You think he's magically touched and just hasn't had a wrist injury by an errant slash ever?
The whole “Russian machine never breaks” moniker became a thing because his durability is exceedingly rare… especially with the type of game he plays/played.
In his prime he was this generation’s Eric Lindros; the player plowing over others at full speed.
The difference is Lindros was strong but not tough. Ovechkin is strong and tough.
It’s one of the things that sets him apart from contemporaries like Crosby and Malkin. You can’t help your team when you’re sitting out.
Last edited:
TooManyHumans
Registered User
- May 4, 2018
- 2,872
- 4,064
Kind of cool that Ovi has 87 and Sid has 88 given their numbers. Hat tip between the two.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,481
- 15,770
As far as I'm aware, the NHL doesn't release this publicly anymore. It's been many years since they stopped. But, for what it's worth, among forwards, Ovechkin was consistently near the lead in shot distance.
(That's why Ovechkin has consistently scored more goals than predicted by expected goals models. Most players, shooting from where he shot, wouldn't have scored nearly as often. I find those models interesting, but they don't always capture the impact of top players).
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
Then your point is fundamentally dishonest because it's irrelevant. Bossy never lost a Hart to Gretzky, he lost to multiple players every time, including players on his own team. So bringing Gretzky up as a defense to the fact that Bossy never won a Hart and Ovechkin won 3 is, again, fundamentally dishonest.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
The poster claimed Ovechkin was merely a healthier Bossy. That is demonstrably not the case - as shown by their overall careers and Ovechkin's massively superior peak.
If Ovechkin retires at the same age Bossy did, he ends his career with 6 Richards, an Art Ross, 3 Harts and 3 Pearsons.
Bossy had 2 Richards.
It's not close.
His post was intended to insult Ovechkin, as are virtually all of your posts. You've never explained exactly why you dislike Ovechkin so much though. Hmmm I wonder why that is.
And you are skipping over the second spot once again his team mates.
In the 82 voting Trottier was 2nd and bossy was 3rd and here are their stat lines.
Trottier 50-79-129
Bossy 64-83-147
Obviously the hart voters at the time appreciated the all around center to the more productive Bossy who had 14 more goals and even 4 more assists.
As for your fundamentally dishonest comment I'll let others compare posters in this thread on their intellectual honesty opinion of other posters.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,402
- 11,348
Indeed Bossy was the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team, sometimes first though.
Nobody ever would have mistook Ovechkin for anything other than the best player on his team, even if he was playing with Bryan Trottier. At his best, Ovechkin was quite obviously the best player in the NHL over your boy Crosby - who was superior to Trottier.
So again, your desire to dishonestly denigrate Ovechkin by pretending he's on Bossy's level is blatant. The two of them are not close.
This is the response I had to your original post which I was quoting
They were 2 differnt types of goal scorers plain and simple and for the record I have Ovi as better all time but I can see why some people ahve Bossy in their top 5 as his playoff goal scoring was elite.
No it's not close as Bossy simply didn't take as many SOG as Ovi did and in 81-82 he lsot a 3rd Richard to Gretzky but I think Bossy was pretty happy with his 3rd SC and 2nd of 3 consecutive 17 goals to lead the playoffs.
Well I can't speak to that as I reread the post and can't speak to his intentions but that's something you seem to be an expert on right?
Also I disagree with that poster Bossy wasn't the same type of goal scorer as Ovi was.
Here is how Bossy stacks up during his first 9 seasons in the NHL
Wow look at that he is first in goal scoring and is second in SOG.
Bossy also has a very good shooting % that stands out among the leaders.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Now we will look at Ovi and his first 9 years.
Ovi stands out here as the top goal scorer but he also is first with 3435 SOG almost 1000 more SOG than Eric stall who is in second place.
Of course Ovi's shooting % is good but doesn't stand out nearly as much as Bossy.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Well it would be hard for me to explain something that isn't true and like you know I have Ovi as the best goal scorer of all time and the part in bold seems to apply to you here like usual.
Love the twisted pretzel logic here as per usual.
Don't worry about the legacy of Crosby he is still adding to it and Ovi isn't even playing right now, wonder what you think about them apples?
As for the thread tittle I don't see 20 goals this year but who know it could happen but I will note that 129 players scored 20 or more goals last year, it's not really a high bar.
- Status
