ATD Chat Thread XVI

[Sturminator]

An interesting statistical tidbit I noticed today: the four teams remaining are all ranked in the 2018-19 regular season top-5 in one slightly nerdish but unambiguously important box score performance metric. Wanna know what it is?

Shots for/Shots against differential

2018-19 NHL Hockey Stats and League Leaders - Scoring - National Hockey League - ESPN

The top 10 ranked are:
1. +5.8 - Carolina
2. +5.1 - Vegas
3. +4.7 - San Jose
4. +4.3 - Calgary
5. +3.2 - Boston
5. +3.2 - St. Louis
7. +3.0 - Montreal
8. +2.5 - Nashville
9. +2.3 - Florida
10. +2.1 - Columbus

This year, at least, regular season SF/SA has proven a much better predictor of playoff performance than regular season GF/GA. Is this normally the case? Something something playoff hockey grunting noises?

 

[seventieslord]

Well, I will say that the style of play in which you attempt to get as many shots on goal while preventing your opponent from having any, is exactly what got Carolina out of that game 7 overtime with Washington

 

[VanIslander]

Shots matter. NHLers with 5000× career shots:

1. Bourque. 6209. A staggering amount, reflecting his style of play: put the puck on net with an accurate shot rather than just dump into the corner.

2. Jagr. 5637. Another longterm consistent style: stickhandle until gets a shot, unlikely to dump or make weak pass attempt or lose puck, demands/gets puck most shifts.

3. Dionne. 5363. This dynamo scored more than anyone over a 10-year span known to surge to the net and shoot himself, having limited options among teammates.

4. Ovechkin. 5234. Shoot from every angle quickly, when younger held on to the puck longer but still eyeing a shot with every possession.

(Noteworthy: All four got less cups than expected, HAD to shoot more on lesser teams perhaps...)

Now,... shots per game average is relevant to seeing those who shot frequently but had shorter careers. I don't have access to SPG averages.

Looking at shot leaders for given years we see the peak career performance year for MacKinnon this year (1st in nhl shots) and Burns two years ago (1st). In the 1960's Bobby Hull led the league for seven seasons, after Gordie Howe started to slow down, and before Esposito took over. No surprise Brett Hull and Pavel Bure also led the league in shots miltiple times with their puck hog, shoot first mentality.

Looking at PLAYOFF career shots, the leaders are: Ray Bourque, Brett Hull, Claude Lemieux, Marian Hossa, Wayne Gretzky. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. 3 of those 5 guys are all top 3 in career playoff game-winning GOALS!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Shots matter. NHLers with 5000× career shots:

1. Bourque. 6209. A staggering amount, reflecting his style of play: put the puck on net with an accurate shot rather than just dump into the corner.

2. Jagr. 5637. Another longterm consistent style: stickhandle until gets a shot, unlikely to dump or make weak pass attempt or lose puck, demands/gets puck most shifts.

3. Dionne. 5363. This dynamo scored more than anyone over a 10-year span known to surge to the net and shoot himself, having limited options among teammates.

4. Ovechkin. 5234. Shoot from every angle quickly, when younger held on to the puck longer but still eyeing a shot with every possession.

(Noteworthy: All four got less cups than expected, HAD to shoot more on lesser teams perhaps...)

Now,... shots per game average is relevant to seeing those who shot frequently but had shorter careers. I don't have access to SPG averages.

Looking at shot leaders for given years we see the peak career performance year for MacKinnon this year (1st in nhl shots) and Burns two years ago (1st). In the 1960's Bobby Hull led the league for seven seasons, after Gordie Howe started to slow down, and before Esposito took over. No surprise Brett Hull and Pavel Bure also led the league in shots miltiple times with their puck hog, shoot first mentality.

Looking at PLAYOFF career shots, the leaders are: Ray Bourque, Brett Hull, Claude Lemieux, Marian Hossa, Wayne Gretzky. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. 3 of those 5 guys are all top 3 in career playoff game-winning GOALS!

Shots as a stand alone stat is almost as useless as +/-.

The biggest problem I have with the hockey community (mainly the old guard) is the unwillingness to venture beyond raw stats.

Notice those names. Notice the lack of team success relative to their peers/all time greats.

Bourque won a Cup in his last year (still a very good player mind you) with a loaded Avs team.

Jagr never won a Cup after his 19 year old season and he was nowhere near leading either of those Penguin teams that did hoist it.

Dionne never won a Cup.

Ovechkin has 1 with far more early playoff exits then you'd like to see from a player his caliber.

The problem is the hard core fans of guys like Ovechkin rally around the tired old argument that "more shots are better", "more shots means you have the puck more", etc, etc. Ovechkin has taken literally a couple more thousand shots than any other player since he came into the league. There were many that had no business being taken and resulted in change of possession because they either were blocked or missed the net by 10 feet. We've all seen it. Some simply won't be honest.

And I find those positions to be extremely lazy and absolutely geared toward deflecting constructive criticism against an aging narrative.

Anyone who has played hockey at any meaningful level knows that all shots are not created equal. I always roll my eyes when fans hoot and holler, screaming "shoot" 5 seconds into a PP or a decent cycle. It's absurd.

Do I think Ovechkin was the best goal scorer in the league this year? Absolutely not.

And why?

Because he needed 100+ more shots on net to score 1 more goal than Leon Draisaitl. And that's just shots on net. That doesn't take into account shots missed, blocked, etc which only widens the gap.

Quality over quantity folks.

Maybe one day the narrative will change.

But not yet.

 

[VanIslander]

...he needed 100+ more shots on net to score 1 more goal...

Quality over quantity folks.

Maybe one day the narrative will change.

Quantity of goals matter, the quality of them are equal, except for media highlights.

"Just get the puck on net."
"Don't try to be fancy."
"Get an ugly goal."

That was the coaching narrative in the 1970's playoffs, and it remains today.

The Sedins ignored it and they succeeded very well for the San Jose series, especially on the powerplay, but they didn't find themselves useful against the Bruins in the final.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Quantity of goals matter, the quality of them are equal, except for media highlights.

"Just get the puck on net."
"Don't try to be fancy."
"Get an ugly goal."

That was the coaching narrative in the 1970's playoffs, and it remains today.

The Sedins ignored it and they succeeded very well for the San Jose series, especially on the powerplay, but they didn't find themselves useful against the Bruins in the final.

Hate to break this out but:

Trying to say that all goals are created equal is about as ignorant as one can get here. I'm sorry but it's asinine to suggest that all goals are of equal quality.

How many times have legendary goal scorers (or bottom 6 type players) potted one because of the hard work, vision, passing ability of a teammate? It happens often. Just watch Sid Crosby play a bit or any great play maker (of any era) who is dominant with the puck on his stick.

How many times have we seen a goal scored because a player on the other team deflected a shot into his own net even though the shot itself had no chance of going in based on directional physics?

Ovechkin took 628 total shots on net and scored 51. That's an effective shooting percentage of 8.1

Drai took 404 total shots and scored 50. That's an effective shooting percentage of 12.4

Are you seriously going to tell me that had Draisaitl had another 224 shot attempts he wouldn't have breezed past 51 goals?

Goal scoring in terms of raw totals has almost always been about volume and not efficiency.

Is it any wonder that the 2 greatest goal scorers ever by standard definition (Hull and Ovi) have combined for 2 titles over the span of 30 NHL seasons? They routinely ripped shots at an insane rate relative to their peers but how did that improve their TEAM?

I'll let the math prove my point.

 

[Namba 17]

Are you seriously going to tell me that had Draisaitl had another 224 shot attempts he wouldn't have breezed past 51 goals?

It's irrelevant.
He hadn't.

 

[ImporterExporter]

It's irrelevant.
He hadn't.

Some people just don't want an honest discussion.

Being more impressed with a guy who scored a whopping 1 extra goal over 2nd place but needed 200+ shots at the net to accomplish that 1 extra goal is telling. Not to mention the guy in 2nd place played on a putrid team with far less talent around him.

These goal scoring totals/rocket winners are overrated because people are unwilling to examine how and why.

These same people slam +/- because of context but won't even entertain context as it relates to scoring goals.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Some people just don't want an honest discussion.

Being more impressed with a guy who scored a whopping 1 extra goal over 2nd place but needed 200+ shots at the net to accomplish that 1 extra goal is telling. Not to mention the guy in 2nd place played on a putrid team with far less talent around him.

These goal scoring totals/rocket winners are overrated because people are unwilling to examine how and why.

These same people slam +/- because of context but won't even entertain context as it relates to scoring goals.

I think this is still missing some context.
If Draisaitl shot more, would he do so at the expense of passing to an open Connor McDavid? Or would you assume that a better performance in transition from the Oiler's defense and other supporting players would produce more opportunities for all of the Oilers' big guns?
The former isn't that likely, because McDavid actually took more shots last season than Draisaitl, despite being more of a playmaker than his teammate. And it's not likely that creating more shots for his other teammates would have been better, given Draisaitl led the team in S% by a mile.
The latter would be supported by the Oiler's CF% of 48, meaning they absolutely could have done a better job at getting the puck to their shooters, whatever you think the reason for that would be. Draisaitl himself outperformed his team by 1.5% in that regard, but he was still on the ice for 50 more CA than CF, so it's definitely true that the Oilers could have given him a few more looks by simply getting the puck out of their own end more often. (Keeping in mind that Draisaitl is also responsible for a part of that).

Then there's the biggest and smelliest elephant in the room, which is that Draisaitl has never shot 21% in a season before while Ovechkin leads the NHL in shots and shoots 12-15% every single year and will until he drops dead in the middle of that faceoff circle. That indicates some lucky bounces on Draisaitl's part, but if he does it again next season, more power to 'em.

RB will have better insight as to which of those narratives make the most sense, because we can't do anything with this stuff without some eyeballs.

 

[Namba 17]

Some people just don't want an honest discussion.

There is nothing to discuss.
Go and ask any coach, any fan, any expert - whom do they prefer to have - better goal-scorer or player with higher shooting %.

These goal scoring totals/rocket winners are overrated because people are unwilling to examine how and why.

There is nothing to "overrate" in Rocket winners, because this award "rates" players by simple fact.
There are another awards,which can take into account "how" and "why".

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think this is still missing some context.
If Draisaitl shot more, would he do so at the expense of passing to an open Connor McDavid? Or would you assume that a better performance in transition from the Oiler's defense and other supporting players would produce more opportunities for all of the Oilers' big guns?
The former isn't that likely, because McDavid actually took more shots last season than Draisaitl, despite being more of a playmaker than his teammate. And it's not likely that creating more shots for his other teammates would have been better, given Draisaitl led the team in S% by a mile.
The latter would be supported by the Oiler's CF% of 48, meaning they absolutely could have done a better job at getting the puck to their shooters, whatever you think the reason for that would be. Draisaitl himself outperformed his team by 1.5% in that regard, but he was still on the ice for 50 more CA than CF, so it's definitely true that the Oilers could have given him a few more looks by simply getting the puck out of their own end more often. (Keeping in mind that Draisaitl is also responsible for a part of that).

Then there's the biggest and smelliest elephant in the room, which is that Draisaitl has never shot 21% in a season before while Ovechkin leads the NHL in shots and shoots 12-15% every single year and will until he drops dead in the middle of that faceoff circle. That indicates some lucky bounces on Draisaitl's part, but if he does it again next season, more power to 'em.

RB will have better insight as to which of those narratives make the most sense, because we can't do anything with this stuff without some eyeballs.

Drai could have literally shot at 1% over the course of 228 (that would equal Ovi's total shot attempts) more shots at the net and leapfrogged the guy who had 1 more goal than him. Yes, he obviously will not sustain that 21% rate moving forward. But it doesn't change the fact he was a single goal behind the leader. A leader who enjoyed 228 more attempts at finding the twine.

There is absolutely no way, mathematically or otherwise that one can be more impressed with Ovechkin as a goal scorer this year than Drai. None. 1 more goal and he needed to launch over 200 more shots to "win" the Rocket. It's absurd not to apply context here.

So what if it would have impacted the Oilers in a negative way. They are already a dumpster fire as it is. They can't get much worse. And all those shots haven't helped the Caps avoid playoff failure after playoff failure often against teams that had no business besting them in a 7 game series. Their Cup win, in the grand scheme is an extreme outlier and abnormality for a franchise that has a history of coming up short, sometimes very much so.

Also, Ovechkin shot 15.1% this year. You know how many times he's matched or exceeded that # over his career?

ZERO.

So his shooting % was also an outlier, mathematically speaking.

People disregarding efficiency are doing so because it destroys the narrative about a player they are unwilling to "slander". It really is that simple.

Why has Ovechkin not dominated Rocket races more often given the fact he launches such a massive amount of shots at the net, relative to his peers?

He's not winning goal scoring races by massive margins despite enjoying a career that has seen him take THOUSANDS more shots than any other player in the league.

2018-19 - Won rocket by 1 (628 total shots) - 2nd was Draisaitl (404 total shots)

17-18 - Won rocket by 5 (653 total shots) - 2nd was Laine (466 total shots)

15-16 - Won rocket by 4 (691 total shots) - 2nd was Kane (461 total shots)

14-15 - Won rocket by 10 (724 total shots) - 2nd was Stamkos (495 total shots)

13-14 - Won rocket by 8 (693 total shots) - 2nd was Perry (492 total shots)

12-13 - Won rocket by 3 (441 total shots) - 2nd was Stamkos (287 total shots)

08-09 - Won rocket by 10 (875 total shots) - 2nd place was Jeff f***ing Carter (585 total shots)

07-08 - Won rocket by 13 (772 total shots) - 2nd was Kovalchuk (520 total shots)

Look at 08-09 (as well as most other years btw) as an example.

Yeah he won the Rocket by 10. Double digits seems like a landslide. It isn't. Not when you needed nearly THREE HUNDRED MORE ATTEMPTS then the guy who finished 2nd. Carter could have shot at just over 3% with another 300 shots at the net and would have been neck and neck with 8.

There isn't a single season where 2nd place was closer than roughly 150 total shot attempts. Most years he's 200+ above 2nd place.

It's like celebrating a QB who won a passing yardage or TD title by a 100 yards or 2 TD's even though he attempted 150-200 more passes than anyone else in the league (team sports and all).

Speaking of team sports.....

The Caps have underachieved almost every single year that 8 has been in the league. What are we up to now? About 4 or 5 1st round exist. ONE TIME PAST 2ND ROUND. ONCE.

How many titles did Hull win again?

Teams that cater to players like those 2 suffered in the long run. It's not a coincidence.

I'm re-evaluating how I apply value to one way goal scoring players who benefited from putting individual stats and bullet points over the team.

 

[VanIslander]

Schmied led the 2nd ever expedition to the summit of Everest and the accomplished Swiss climber said he could have climbed it first, but he was getting married at the time the kiwi Sir Hillary and Norgay scaled it.

Nobody cares. The fact is Schmied didn't, Hillary did.

The history of greatest mountain climbers will forever include Hillary. It might forget Schmied, despite his accomplishments in Switzerland, and arguments as to his skills.

There is an important difference between potential and actual.

The older you get, the more you herald those who DO IT rather than those who COULD HAVE done it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Schmied led the 2nd ever expedition to the summit of Everest and the accomplished Swiss climber said he could have climbed it first, but he was getting married at the time the kiwi Sir Hillary and Norgay scaled it.

Nobody cares. The fact is Schmied didn't, Hillary did.

The history of greatest mountain climbers will forever include Hillary. It might forget Schmied, despite his accomplishments in Switzerland, and arguments as to his skills.

There is an important difference between potential and actual.

The older you get, the more you herald those who DO IT rather than those who COULD HAVE done it.

There is literally zero correlation between this drivel and what I'm saying.

Zero.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Drai could have literally shot at 1% over the course of 228 (that would equal Ovi's total shot attempts) more shots at the net and leapfrogged the guy who had 1 more goal than him ...

That's cool, but taking hundreds more shots would mean he played a wildly different style of game. You can't possibly be arguing that Draisaitl passed up over two hundred solid scoring chances, and if he did, he's playing a style that so excessively patient that you'd start getting frustrated with him if you watched. If your (more sensible) argument is that he could have gotten a dozen more shots and squeaked out a Rocket win, it really doesn't change the fact that two guys were very close this year and both got 50, which is really the only takeaway anyone needs from his.

There is absolutely no way, mathematically or otherwise that one can be more impressed with Ovechkin as a goal scorer this year than Drai. None. 1 more goal and he needed to launch over 200 more shots to "win" the Rocket. It's absurd not to apply context here.

I mean, they don't just give you those shots, you've gotta go get open and get it on net. Which brings one to...

So what if it would have impacted the Oilers in a negative way ... haven't helped the Caps avoid playoff failure after playoff failure ... etc.

Ok, so neither of these guys have the resume of team success that I'm sure they'd like to have. That doesn't really separate them at this juncture.

Also, Ovechkin shot 15.1%... So his shooting % was also an outlier, mathematically speaking.

Yeah no, that's not really what an outlier is. Ovechkin has been a very consistent shooter over his career, and the only season where his S% is multiple standard deviations off the norm is his 8.7% year where he barely broke 30 goals. It's on the high side, but it's very similar to what he does every year.

People disregarding efficiency are doing so because it destroys the narrative about a player they are unwilling to "slander". It really is that simple.

No no no. You slammed VanIslander for using lazy math, while boasting a case which largely rides on shooting percentage...which is a provably noisy statistic that always requires more context. I've already presented a lose case for why Draisaitl's shot numbers might be dragged down by (some of, not all) his lousy teammates, and you've...restated your case with more words and capital letters? I'm not sure what the point is here, other than that you're really not impressed with Ovechkin.

Yeah he won the Rocket by 10. Double digits seems like a landslide. It isn't. Not when you needed nearly THREE HUNDRED MORE ATTEMPTS then the guy who finished 2nd. Carter could have shot at just over 3% with another 300 shots at the net and would have been neck and neck with 8.

If a team outshot the other team 55-10 and won 5-1, would that be a blowout, or would you get hung up on the fact that the losing team had a higher S%? What you're describing is still a landslide, just not one that's irrefutable proof of playing good hockey.

I'm re-evaluating how I apply value to one way goal scoring players who benefited from putting individual stats and bullet points over the team.

That's good, but you'd have to prove a relationship between taking lots of shots and hurting your team. My issue here is that you're not doing anything to prove that, just saying over and over again that he took too many shots. You want to use numbers in a nuanced way? Show me a player who shot less than he could have, and lifted his teammates to greater heights by doing so. I don't think Draisaitl's your guy for that.

 

[ImporterExporter]

That's cool, but taking hundreds more shots would mean he played a wildly different style of game. You can't possibly be arguing that Draisaitl passed up over two hundred solid scoring chances, and if he did, he's playing a style that so excessively patient that you'd start getting frustrated with him if you watched. If your (more sensible) argument is that he could have gotten a dozen more shots and squeaked out a Rocket win, it really doesn't change the fact that two guys were very close this year and both got 50, which is really the only takeaway anyone needs from his.


I mean, they don't just give you those shots, you've gotta go get open and get it on net. Which brings one to...


Ok, so neither of these guys have the resume of team success that I'm sure they'd like to have. That doesn't really separate them at this juncture.


Yeah no, that's not really what an outlier is. Ovechkin has been a very consistent shooter over his career, and the only season where his S% is multiple standard deviations off the norm is his 8.7% year where he barely broke 30 goals. It's on the high side, but it's very similar to what he does every year.


No no no. You slammed VanIslander for using lazy math, while boasting a case which largely rides on shooting percentage...which is a provably noisy statistic that always requires more context. I've already presented a lose case for why Draisaitl's shot numbers might be dragged down by (some of, not all) his lousy teammates, and you've...restated your case with more words and capital letters? I'm not sure what the point is here, other than that you're really not impressed with Ovechkin.


If a team outshot the other team 55-10 and won 5-1, would that be a blowout, or would you get hung up on the fact that the losing team had a higher S%? What you're describing is still a landslide, just not one that's irrefutable proof of playing good hockey.


That's good, but you'd have to prove a relationship between taking lots of shots and hurting your team. My issue here is that you're not doing anything to prove that, just saying over and over again that he took too many shots. You want to use numbers in a nuanced way? Show me a player who shot less than he could have, and lifted his teammates to greater heights by doing so. I don't think Draisaitl's your guy for that.

Paragraph 1:

It really isn't hard to understand.

Shots are not all equal, just as goals are not. It's not even debatable. It would be like arguing that all people have the same genetic makeup. Or that all restaurants have equally good/bad food. It's nonsense.

Yes, a goal is worth 1 "point" in valuation (which is why I always laugh when the goal scoring crowd screams about goals being more valuable than assists but that's an entirely different argument all together).

I'm not focusing just on shooting % or using it as a crux. The entire point revolves around shot volume and winning goal scoring titles by margins that aren't relative to one another.

Ovechkin shoots, shoots, and shoots some more. That is a fact. Yes, he's a great goal scorer but his totals are inflated. Period. I'd argue the same thing about Bobby Hull (and others). And why? Because the numbers are there for us to see in plain sight.

You (or Van or anyone else) cannot deny that Ovechkin wins goal scoring titles (most of them anyway) because he shoots far more than anyone. Not to mention he's a largely been a one way winger who has benefited from being a player who rarely gave a shit about playing hard hockey in 2 of the 3 zones. Are people going to argue that it isn't easier to score when you are primarily focused about generating shots and playing hardest in 1 of 3 zones?

People call getting shots on net a skill and it absolutely is. To a point. Any jackass can wind up and fire a puck. Yes, Ovechkin finds the net. A LOT. BUT....

He also needs hundreds more shot attempts to generate those goal totals. And those shots, first off, don't make the Capitals a better TEAM. And two, certainly don't help him lap the field as far as goal scoring goes.

And nobody misses the net more than 8. Nobody is even remotely close. Nobody wants to talk about how many of those missed or blocked shots resulted in change of possession and killed an offensive cycle.

You can say the exact same thing about Hull, although I think he was a more dynamic hockey player but again, separate argument entirely. How did all those Hull goal scoring titles (when he was out shooting the rest of the league in the same manner 8 was) help the Hawks over his 16 years as far as team successes go?

Say what you want about @Canadiens1958 and his ranking of players but he's been a staunch supporter of the theory that defense is the key to winning in the NHL and great defense also inherently makes you a stronger offensive team. Sacrificing individual accolades and records for the betterment of the team is what the greatest winners in the history of this sport have done.

One can say, "what about Gretzky"? And I'd say, one, he was miles better as a play maker and visionary than goal scorer and two, happened to hit the league when it was geared towards wide open offensive fireworks. The league through the 80's was about having the most offensive firepower. And for a large portion of the 1980's that was the Oilers. By a lot.

But look at the most prolific winners in the history of the sport and you'll rarely find guys who played one way and chased individual accolades so transparently.

Beliveau
Richard (both of them)
Kelly
Lemaire
Messier
Trottier
I could go on and on....

Now conversely look at the guys who led the league the most times in goal scoring (Ovi, Hull, and Esposito) and you'll see 4 Cups over almost a half century in the league. And it's not like they were on crap/average teams. In fact it was quite the opposite. Plenty of President's trophies among them. And yet.....

2 of those 3 guys were (in and all time sense) complete non factors defensively. And Hull was, at best, average, and I'd say that's probably being generous. These guys needed other players, to cover up for their shortcomings or simple lack of caring and that has a ripple effect on the team and consequently, winning.

If your superstar, go to guy is in that mold, you probably aren't going to be celebrating much as a fan. And history has taught us as much.

If folks are willing to be honest.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Paragraph 1:

It really isn't hard to understand.

Shots are not all equal, just as goals are not. It's not even debatable. It would be like arguing that all people have the same genetic makeup. Or that all restaurants have equally good/bad food. It's nonsense.

Yes, a goal is worth 1 "point" in valuation (which is why I always laugh when the goal scoring crowd screams about goals being more valuable than assists but that's an entirely different argument all together).

I'm not focusing just on shooting % or using it as a crux. The entire point revolves around shot volume and winning goal scoring titles by margins that aren't relative to one another.

Ovechkin shoots, shoots, and shoots some more. That is a fact. Yes, he's a great goal scorer but his totals are inflated. Period. I'd argue the same thing about Bobby Hull (and others). And why? Because the numbers are there for us to see in plain sight.

You (or Van or anyone else) cannot deny that Ovechkin wins goal scoring titles (most of them anyway) because he shoots far more than anyone. Not to mention he's a largely been a one way winger who has benefited from being a player who rarely gave a **** about playing hard hockey in 2 of the 3 zones. Are people going to argue that it isn't easier to score when you are primarily focused about generating shots and playing hardest in 1 of 3 zones?

People call getting shots on net a skill and it absolutely is. To a point. Any jackass can wind up and fire a puck. Yes, Ovechkin finds the net. A LOT. BUT....

He also needs hundreds more shot attempts to generate those goal totals. And those shots, first off, don't make the Capitals a better TEAM. And two, certainly don't help him lap the field as far as goal scoring goes.

And nobody misses the net more than 8. Nobody is even remotely close. Nobody wants to talk about how many of those missed or blocked shots resulted in change of possession and killed an offensive cycle.

You can say the exact same thing about Hull, although I think he was a more dynamic hockey player but again, separate argument entirely. How did all those Hull goal scoring titles (when he was out shooting the rest of the league in the same manner 8 was) help the Hawks over his 16 years as far as team successes go?

Say what you want about @Canadiens1958 and his ranking of players but he's been a staunch supporter of the theory that defense is the key to winning in the NHL and great defense also inherently makes you a stronger offensive team. Sacrificing individual accolades and records for the betterment of the team is what the greatest winners in the history of this sport have done.

One can say, "what about Gretzky"? And I'd say, one, he was miles better as a play maker and visionary than goal scorer and two, happened to hit the league when it was geared towards wide open offensive fireworks. The league through the 80's was about having the most offensive firepower. And for a large portion of the 1980's that was the Oilers. By a lot.

But look at the most prolific winners in the history of the sport and you'll rarely find guys who played one way and chased individual accolades so transparently.

Beliveau
Richard (both of them)
Kelly
Lemaire
Messier
Trottier
I could go on and on....

Now conversely look at the guys who led the league the most times in goal scoring (Ovi, Hull, and Esposito) and you'll see 4 Cups over almost a half century in the league. And it's not like they were on crap/average teams. In fact it was quite the opposite. Plenty of President's trophies among them. And yet.....

2 of those 3 guys were (in and all time sense) complete non factors defensively. And Hull was, at best, average, and I'd say that's probably being generous. These guys needed other players, to cover up for their shortcomings or simple lack of caring and that has a ripple effect on the team and consequently, winning.

If your superstar, go to guy is in that mold, you probably aren't going to be celebrating much as a fan. And history has taught us as much.

If folks are willing to be honest.

You touch on the paradoxical nature of Gretzky's game.

Miles better as a playmaker? Perhaps but breaking-up plays is the defensive counterpart of making them. Gretzky was rather lame at breaking-up plays. Often due to a lack of effort.

Game 7, 2OT Blues vs Wings. Gretzky simply stops skating and glides. Yzerman scores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRoNqiiY6Lg

Visionary? Again offensive vision is equal to defensive vision. How the two are weighed is not equal.

 

[VanIslander]

Game 7, 2OT Blues vs Wings. Gretzky simply stops skating and glides. Yzerman scores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRoNqiiY6Lg

Visionary? Again offensive vision is equal to defensive vision. How the two are weighed is not equal.

C'mon. It was 2OT and conserving energy is a factor and Wayne at age 35 ought not to overextend himself needlessly.

Moreover, what Gretz did made sense.

Yzerman shot from just inside the blueline on the far right side, with Gretzky covering any possible feigned, pull-up short (Gretzkyesque) passing opportunity.

It was a GOOD decision by Gretzky.

A goalie should save that, from that angle, distance and unimpeded view, but Jon Casey didn't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

C'mon. It was 2OT and conserving energy is a factor and Wayne at age 35 ought not to overextend himself needlessly.

Moreover, what Gretz did made sense.

Yzerman shot from just inside the blueline on the far right side, with Gretzky covering any possible feigned, pull-up short (Gretzkyesque) passing opportunity.

It was a GOOD decision by Gretzky.

A goalie should save that, from that angle, distance and unimpeded view, but Jon Casey didn't.

Fedorov earlier, did not make the same bad assumption:

 

[VanIslander]

Assumption? Gretzky was CLEARLY going deep, several feet past the offensive blueline, looking to center a pass or take it to his office, the speedy 26 year old Sergei doing the logical thing and hustling up to pokecheck.

Not the same situation at all.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You touch on the paradoxical nature of Gretzky's game.

Miles better as a playmaker? Perhaps but breaking-up plays is the defensive counterpart of making them. Gretzky was rather lame at breaking-up plays. Often due to a lack of effort.

Game 7, 2OT Blues vs Wings. Gretzky simply stops skating and glides. Yzerman scores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRoNqiiY6Lg

Visionary? Again offensive vision is equal to defensive vision. How the two are weighed is not equal.

The 80's and early 90's saw a massive shift away from structured hockey and went to wide open (think WHA) play.

When looking at the history of the league it seems to be an anomaly for sure. I've never seen any other period in modern hockey where defense was largely forgotten as a tactical advantage or strategy of winning clubs.

Now, one can just say, "well Gretzky was so dominant offensively, and the era dictated offensive play", but my counter is that Gretzky had Kuri next to him for a reason. To cover up for his lack of effort in the neutral and defensive zones. The entire fact that Gretzky didn't care about playing defense is why i will never rank him #1 overall. No argument will ever sway me from the opinion that Orr is the greatest hockey player ever and in large part because he dominated every inch of the ice. He was impactful everywhere.

I'm less and less impressed with players who have put their individual accolades above the team in an all time sense. I find players of that mold to be inflated offensively and in most cases benefited from having others cover up for their lack of caring beyond one zone and generally have less team successes despite playing on great teams for much of their careers (Ovi and Hull come to mind immediately).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assumption? Gretzky was CLEARLY going deep, several feet past the offensive blueline, looking to center a pass or take it to his office, the speedy 26 year old Sergei doing the logical thing and hustling up to pokecheck.

Not the same situation at all.

Basic hockey. Never give up defensively. Gretzky did.

 

[Sturminator]

Assumption? Gretzky was CLEARLY going deep, several feet past the offensive blueline, looking to center a pass or take it to his office, the speedy 26 year old Sergei doing the logical thing and hustling up to pokecheck.

Not the same situation at all.

I'm not sure I ever saw Gretzky make a play clearly...it was part of his genius that you could not reliably predict his next move.

 

[tinyzombies]

Didn't care about defense or was told not to?

 

[tinyzombies]

McDavid is going to get better and better. If Mr. Overrated can get a half ass team behind him with a goalie - he’ll win by himself

 

[VanIslander]

McDavid is going to get better and better. If Mr. Overrated can get a half ass team behind him with a goalie - he’ll win by himself

Or will he be the next Dionne, Hawerchuk, Sundin, Ratelle, Perreault, Sittler...