Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[sr edler]

So the top 100 players project participants collectively believe Canada from 1921 to 1939 (18 years) with a population of 9-11 million, and no baby boom, put out 5 talents greater than the whole world did - inclusive of 30M Canada - in today's international NHL? I find that to be on the extreme end of unlikely.

"the whole world" is a nice sound byte but the whole world doesn't play ice hockey, and most of the world doesn't produce any hockey talent at all, it's still more or less the same niche sport today as it was in the 1960s with the same countries participating and producing talent, with a few sprinkled out exceptions such as Kopitar, Draisaitl or Josi.

Demographics is a valid point. Sweden for instance have seen a massive influx in their population from immigration the last few decades, but the absolute majority of those people come from countries where ice hockey is as culturally relevant as cricket or baseball is to native Swedes, which is very close to zero. We saw a big influx of immigrants from former Yugoslavia, for instance, in the 1970s/1980s/1990s, hence Zlatan Ibrahimovic. Guess what sport Ibrahimovic plays? The sport people in former Yugoslavia are most crazy about.

If we had seen a massive influx of people from Lithuania instead, I bet our basketball team would have been much better than it is now. Latvia is hockey crazy. Neighboring Estonia couldn't care less about the same sport.

European countries, just like Canada or the US or any place anywhere, also goes through valleys and peaks regarding hockey/sport talent. There's no linear rule. There's no rule saying Sweden must turn out a Forsberg or a Lidström every generation, there's no rule saying Czech Republic must turn out a Hasek or a Jagr every generation, just like there isn't a rule saying Germany can never turn out an Art Ross calibre player just because it's never happened before 19–20.

Sweden's generation with Forsberg/Sundin was also a bit forward heavy (Lidström notwithstanding), the generation now seems a bit more heavy in favor of defensemen (Karlsson, Hedman, Dahlin, et cetera). According to the linear rule this shouldn't really happen.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think you're twisting the point I was making. I agree with this - there wasn't 30 teams worth of NHL caliber players in the 50s - and if you add a bunch of less good players to make up 30 teams, Howe still dominates them.

What I was saying though - a top 5 point finish in 1954 is often less impressive than a top 5 point finish in....2014 might be. Because in 2014 - there are 30 teams, full of stars (not full of "minor leaguers who couldn't make the NHL" as you say) and so often if that same caliber season in 1953 was had in 2014 - odds are instead of finishing 5th in points, you finish closer to 10th or so.

Really?

 

[sr edler]

It's actually becoming clear to me why you're so against Ovechkin's season in 2013. You're just looking at his 56 points, which is giving you an incomplete understanding of his offensive productivity.

The incomplete understanding of offensive productivity is what you're doing, which is isolating separate categories and putting different standard arbitrary values on the categories. Not every goal is identical. Hockey is played 200 feet. Things of various proportions takes place at various times before a puck ends up in a net.

 

[bobholly39]

Okay, I see what you're saying.

But, isn't this kind of a wrong-headed way of thinking? You're suggesting we should judge a player of the 1950s by the standards of the 2010s.

So, in the future, are we going to diminish Ovechkin because there weren't any Chinese players in the NHL, as there will be in 50 years?

I think this is the wrong approach to take. Everything should stay in its era.

Im not suggesting we should judge a player in the 50s by 2010 standards nor have i said anything about Chinese players.

If you're going to compare player A from the 50s and cite "8 top 5 finishes" to player B from the 2010s and cite "only 6 top 5 finishes" what im saying is that this comparison tells us almost nothing at all without more context and a deeper look. Because often a top 5 finish in the 50s might be easier than in the 2010s.

 

[bobholly39]

Really?

Yeah - 30 team and the league is full of stars, and most teams have a few. Thats what i meant.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Im not suggesting we should judge a player in the 50s by 2010 standards nor have i said anything about Chinese players.

If you're going to compare player A from the 50s and cite "8 top 5 finishes" to player B from the 2010s and cite "only 6 top 5 finishes" what im saying is that this comparison tells us almost nothing at all without more context and a deeper look. Because often a top 5 finish in the 50s might be easier than in the 2010s.

I still don't get why that is.

Howe was in the top 5 every year. The Rocket was in the top five 8 times. Bathgate 9 times. Beliveau 8 times. Lindsey 6 times. Hull 8 times. Mikita 9 times.

So was it easier to do in 50s and 60s? Or were these guys just that consistently good? For anyone else to get in the top five back then would be quite an accomplishment.

 

[bobholly39]

I still don't get why that is.

Howe was in the top 5 every year. The Rocket was in the top five 8 times. Bathgate 9 times. Beliveau 8 times. Lindsey 6 times. Hull 8 times. Mikita 9 times.

So was it easier to do in 50s and 60s? Or were these guys just that consistently good? For anyone else to get in the top five back then would be quite an accomplishment.

To the bolded.....both? It was easier in the 50s and 60s to do top 5 - but it doesn't mean they weren't consistently good? But "consistently good" equivalent in the 2010s might translate to top 10, or whatever.

If we use hockey-reference's method of adjusting stats (which obviously is not perfect - but it's a reference point) - Howe in 1955 has 84 points, Ovechkin in 2014 has 89 points. ie - Ovechkin outscores Howe. However - because it's a 6 team league, with less star players or first line forwards likely to score over 84 points in that season - ended up being good for 5th in scoring, top 5. Ovechkin in 2014 with 79 points (89 "adjusted") finished tied for 8th in scoring. In 2014 - 84 "adjusted points" would have been good enough for 13th in scoring.

So - if you're going to compare Ovechkin and Howe across eras and count # of top 5 finishes - it doesn't properly capture the differences in the league, and it makes that season by Howe look better than Ovechkin's for offense.

 

[overpass]

Why are you sure of that? If Howe had played in a 30-team League in the 1950s, the other 24 years would have been comprised of minor-leaguers who couldn't make the NHL. Why would they be competing with Howe? All the best players in the world in the fifties were the pro-NHL players in the fifties.

Only up to a point. Look at Bronco Horvath's career. Horvath was a pure scoring line centre...he couldn't play on a checking line and couldn't play on the wing. Boston gave him that #1 centre spot for 3 years and he finished 2nd in points in the NHL one year and 5th in points per game another year. He spent years before that and after that as a big minor league scorer. If there were 12 teams in the NHL, or 21, or 30, Horvath probably plays 10-15 years on a scoring line and has a shot at several more top 5 finishes.

Guyle Fielder probably could have done the same thing in a larger NHL. He never really got a chance because he had the same problem as Horvath...he had to be a scoring line centre, and he had to be the puck dominant player on the line (which is why he didn't click with Gordie Howe when given a shot on Howe's line in the NHL). Let's say the hypothetical NHL Cleveland Barons plant Fielder in their #1 centre spot in the early 50s...would anyone be surprised if he posted multiple top 5 NHL finishes in scoring?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

To the bolded.....both? It was easier in the 50s and 60s to do top 5 - but it doesn't mean they weren't consistently good? But "consistently good" equivalent in the 2010s might translate to top 10, or whatever.

If we use hockey-reference's method of adjusting stats (which obviously is not perfect - but it's a reference point) - Howe in 1955 has 84 points, Ovechkin in 2014 has 89 points. ie - Ovechkin outscores Howe. However - because it's a 6 team league, with less star players or first line forwards likely to score over 84 points in that season - ended up being good for 5th in scoring, top 5. Ovechkin in 2014 with 79 points (89 "adjusted") finished tied for 8th in scoring. In 2014 - 84 "adjusted points" would have been good enough for 13th in scoring.

So - if you're going to compare Ovechkin and Howe across eras and count # of top 5 finishes - it doesn't properly capture the differences in the league, and it makes that season by Howe look better than Ovechkin's for offense.

But when Howe was scoring his points, it was against one of the top 6 goalies there were at that time. As well as a top 6 defensive pairing. As well as a top 6 checking line. Not against a top 30 (or possibly top 60) goalie.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I am not sure why Ovechkin 2012/13 season is getting so much heat. Measuring him against his pears, he was 52% ahead of #10 in goals and 14% ahead of #10 in points. If you convert that to 2018/19 currency, Ovechkin's 2012/13 would pro-rate to 62 goals and 107 points - maybe he would not have taken Kucherov's Hart away, but he would have been hands down 2nd-best player (e.g., better than McDavid with his 41 goals and 116 points).

Seasons with comparable leads include: Selanne 97/98 (nominated for Hart, finished behind Hasek and Jagr), Brett Hull 89/90 (nominated for Hart behind Messier and Bourque), Bossy 80/81 (4th in Hart voting behind Gretzky/Liut/Dionne). Having a season that would have been a top3 season in Brett Hull's or Bossy's career is nothing to sneeze at.

In terms of recent Hart wins, I would put Ovechkin's 2012/13 Hart ahead of Taylor Hall's and probably MSL's (in 2003/2004 currency, Ovechkin's 2012/13 pro-rates to 50 goals and 88 points vs. MSL's 38 goals and 94 points), and a small step behind Corey Perry's and Iginla's (I still think he should have had it instead of Theodore). The fact that Ovechkin won his Hart in a final spurt, when he scored 22 goals in 21 games, should not be a detraction - many Hart races were won this way, and it is hard to blame Ovechkin for the fact that the league played a shortened season. He scored at a goal-per-game pace for nearly the second half of the season, he got rewarded for that.

You're still completely ignoring that Ovechkin put up those numbers in a season with a highly unbalanced schedule. In a normal scenario where he doesn't get 40% of the schedule against terrible Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, and Jets teams he doesn't come close to replicating that output. It was way easier for Southeast division players to rack up offensive numbers that year. The shortened season isn't the problem; everyone got 48 games. The problem is the highly abnormal variance in opponent strength between certain players.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Only up to a point. Look at Bronco Horvath's career. Horvath was a pure scoring line centre...he couldn't play on a checking line and couldn't play on the wing. Boston gave him that #1 centre spot for 3 years and he finished 2nd in points in the NHL one year and 5th in points per game another year. He spent years before that and after that as a big minor league scorer. If there were 12 teams in the NHL, or 21, or 30, Horvath probably plays 10-15 years on a scoring line and has a shot at several more top 5 finishes.

Guyle Fielder probably could have done the same thing in a larger NHL. He never really got a chance because he had the same problem as Horvath...he had to be a scoring line centre, and he had to be the puck dominant player on the line (which is why he didn't click with Gordie Howe when given a shot on Howe's line in the NHL). Let's say the hypothetical NHL Cleveland Barons plant Fielder in their #1 centre spot in the early 50s...would anyone be surprised if he posted multiple top 5 NHL finishes in scoring?

So from this can we assume the players in that era had to be better all around players to even play in the NHL?

 

[bobholly39]

But when Howe was scoring his points, it was against one of the top 6 goalies there were at that time. As well as a top 6 defensive pairing. As well as a top 6 checking line. Not against a top 30 (or possibly top 60) goalie.

Shouldn't all that already be taken into account when you adjust stats, in terms of scoring rates, etc?

Also - all 30 teams are strong these days. It's not like the mid 70s or even 80s. Are there really that many weak #1 goalies or top defensive pairs today vs past era?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Shouldn't all that already be taken into account when you adjust stats, in terms of scoring rates, etc?

Also - all 30 teams are strong these days. It's not like the mid 70s or even 80s. Are there really that many weak #1 goalies or top defensive pairs today vs past era?

But is it?

I don't know, but most posters here don't put much stock in adjusted stats.

 

[bobholly39]

But is it?

I don't know, but most posters here don't put much stock in adjusted stats.

Yeah of course - that's the idea with adjusting stats. So going back to my 2014 example - all of Sharp, Pavelski, Benn, Backstrom, Kessel, Hall, Seguin - just to name a few - scored more than 84 adjusted points. Because there are more teams and more 'stars' in today's league - an 84 point season 'adjusted' wouldn't be top 5 today, it'd be closer to 13th place.

No method for adjusting stats is perfect - but this logic should remain consistent throughout. I don't think it matters too much when looking at strong seasons - it's more when you look at seasons that maybe aren't necessarily as strong - but still end up 5th in scoring, or 6th in hart, or 2 AST - but in a 30 team league that same season may....end up much lower.

Coming back to Hull vs Ovi - in 1963 Hull had a 2nd AST and 9th in scoring. So if someone were to count top 10 scoring finishes or AST placements in comparison to Ovi (which many have done in this thread) - it would equate it to Ovi's 2014 where he was also 9th in scoring and 2nd AST. However - Hull's point totals that year 'adjusts' to 67 points. In 2014 - Duncan Keith tied for 39th place in scoring with 61 points, yet 67 "adjusted" points. So - Hull's 1963 season in 2014 would have been good enough for 39th place.

A simpler way of saying this is - "poor seasons" in the 06 era will still regularly show up in top 5 or top 10 scoring finishes, as they might in top 5 hart placements, or 2nd AST. Those same seasons - adjusted for era into the 2010s - would be a lot lower.

People have said Crosby in 2018 had his first "average" season in his career. I suppose - he was 10th in scoring, which is low for him. But it's 91 adjusted points - which would have been good enough for 2nd place in 1963, and 4th place in 1955.

And to clarify - i'm only using Hockey-reference's adjusted stats as a reference point. Their method is absolutely not perfect. But regardless of how you adjust - this trend will remain in a 30 team league.

 

[daver]

Not sure why the idea that finishing in the Top 5 in a group five times larger doesn't warrant consideration?

The numbers clearly show that it is more impressive to finish Top 3, Top 5 , Top 10 in today's league in terms of % behind the leader.

This has nothing to do with the idea that pound for pound the league is better or worse than it was in the O6. It is merely a statistical reality.

Generally speaking, Top 3 in the O6 = Top 5 today, Top 5 in the O6 = Top 10 today.

 

[Sentinel]

12 is pretty far from 20

1955 is an easy example. He finished 5th in scoring. But - that's only because it's a 6 team league. If instead of 1955 it had been 2014 (made the example earlier in the thread) - you have star players from ~30 teams capable of scoring more than him. 1955 wasn't a great year points-wise for him - so in a 30 team league with players like Giroux, Neal, Seguin etc - odds are a few of those surpass such a year and bump him down to below top 5 (maybe even below top 10).

If you want a more recent example look at Crosby in 2018. He finished 10th i believe with 89 points. I think that 10th place scoring season in a league with only 6 teams likely ends up top 2-5 in scoring at worst, in comparison.

Don't forget: Jagr had THREE lockouts (two -- in his prime) and played three prime years in the KHL. So you can safely add 5 top end finishes to his projected resume.

I'm not saying what Howe did was not unique and awesome. It is both unique and awesome. But not completely unrealistic to repeat or at least come close to repeating.

 

[bobholly39]

Don't forget: Jagr had THREE lockouts (two -- in his prime) and played three prime years in the KHL. So you can safely add 5 top end finishes to his projected resume.

I'm not saying what Howe did was not unique and awesome. It is both unique and awesome. But not completely unrealistic to repeat or at least come close to repeating.

So I just checked - Jagr actually only has 8 top 5 point finishes.

Crosby is actually the better comparable. He has 9 top 5 point finishes....and that's without 2011, 2012 or 2008. Now it's fine if you want to be devil's advocate and say "no guarantee he wins the ross with no injuries in those years (not 2008)" - but I don't think anyone would dispute he certainly would finish top 5 scoring minimum. The only season where he misses the mark is his rookie year (6th, 1 point off 5th), and 2018 (10th). And then - this past season....where for the first time his pace is really low, but of course injuries and now pandemic played a role. He's also only 32, so could have a few of those left in him.

The lockouts don't really hurt Jagr here...by 2013 he wasn't going to be top 5 in points. in 1995 he already was (tied for first). Which leaves 2004....considering how good he was the following year, of course he had the talent to do top 5 here. But the lockout actually probably helped him get rejuvenated. Still - at most, you'd be looking at 9.

 

[JackSlater]

Funny enough, even Gordie Howe missed a very likely top 5 scoring finish due to injury in 1949, the year before he began his 20 year streak.

 

[BackToTheBasics]

You're still completely ignoring that Ovechkin put up those numbers in a season with a highly unbalanced schedule. In a normal scenario where he doesn't get 40% of the schedule against terrible Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, and Jets teams he doesn't come close to replicating that output. It was way easier for Southeast division players to rack up offensive numbers that year. The shortened season isn't the problem; everyone got 48 games. The problem is the highly abnormal variance in opponent strength between certain players.

Why are you acting like he was the only player to benefit from that?

During his hot streak, Ovechkin scored 18 points in 8 games (2.25 PPG) against the Southeast and 16 in 13 (1.24 PPG) against the rest.

Crosby scored 22 points in 11 games (2 PPG) against the Southeast and 34 in 25 (1.36 PPG) against the rest.

Stamkos scored 22 in 18 (1.22 PPG) against the Southeast and 35 in 30 (1.16 PPG) against the rest.

St. Louis scored 27 in 18 (1.5 PPG) against the Southeast and 33 in 30 (1.1 PPG) against the rest.

So the only player who didn't overwhelmingly beat up on the Southeast was Stamkos and his team did not make the playoffs. Crosby was his competition for the Hart and you can't say that he didn't beat up on a weaker division since that is demonstrably untrue.

Not to mention that you are not considering the fact that he was helping his team clinch the division by beating up on these weaker opponents. Prior to a home-and-home against the Jets, the Capitals were 9 points behind the 9th place Jets on March 20th, 2013. Ovechkin put up 5 points in 2 games against a top 10 team at the time and the Capitals soared into the playoffs mainly due to Ovechkin. I'm not sure why this is never brought up when discussing the reason for why he received the Hart. He pretty much put the team on his back for the last month or so of the season which accounted for nearly half of the season. Sure, Crosby may have been the better player but that is not what the Hart trophy is awarded for.

 

[Zuluss]

You're still completely ignoring that Ovechkin put up those numbers in a season with a highly unbalanced schedule. In a normal scenario where he doesn't get 40% of the schedule against terrible Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, and Jets teams he doesn't come close to replicating that output. It was way easier for Southeast division players to rack up offensive numbers that year. The shortened season isn't the problem; everyone got 48 games. The problem is the highly abnormal variance in opponent strength between certain players.

I don't remember what was so different about schedule in 2012/13 - East did not play West at all?

But before that, in a six-division league, each team played 6*4=24 games against its division rivals, and 24/82=30%, not that different. Likewise, now each team plays 7*5=35 games against its bigger, 8-team division, and 35/82=43%. And yet we do not hear too much praise of old man Ovechkin winning goal-scoring titles in a strong Metro division.

Also, in 2012/13, Ovechkin played 8 out of his first 10 games outside of his division - and then he flipped the switch, found his place in the new system he entered with no-preseason, and scored rather consistently against all teams. Most likely, if he had started with 8 games out of 10 against his own division, we would have been telling stories of how Ovechkin inexplicably sucked against his own division that season and then torched everyone else. (For example, in his last 10 games of 2012/13 he played his division teams 3 times, collecting 4 points, and still got 9 goals and 15 points).

 

[JackSlater]

I don't remember what was so different about schedule in 2012/13 - East did not play West at all?

But before that, in a six-division league, each team played 6*4=24 games against its division rivals, and 24/82=30%, not that different. Likewise, now each team plays 7*5=35 games against its bigger, 8-team division, and 35/82=43%. And yet we do not hear too much praise of old man Ovechkin winning goal-scoring titles in a strong Metro division.

Also, in 2012/13, Ovechkin played 8 out of his first 10 games outside of his division - and then he flipped the switch, found his place in the new system he entered with no-preseason, and scored rather consistently against all teams. Most likely, if he had started with 8 games out of 10 against his own division, we would have been telling stories of how Ovechkin inexplicably sucked against his own division that season and then torched everyone else. (For example, in his last 10 games of 2012/13 he played his division teams 3 times, collecting 4 points, and still got 9 goals and 15 points).

In 2013 there were no inter-conference games. Each team played three games against each of the teams in the other two divisions and four or five games against each of the teams in its own division. The four highest goal against teams in the East, as well as four of the six highest goals against teams in the NHL, were the non-Washington teams in the SE division. The difference isn't drastic for those teams in most cases and that isn't enough to turn Ovechkin from a run of the mill scorer into a superstar, but it was an advantage for teams in the SE and for Washington in particular. It helped St. Louis win an Art Ross too, as if Crosby remains injured it isn't hard to imagine Kane winning the scoring title in a league with a relatively balanced schedule.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Why are you acting like he was the only player to benefit from that?

During his hot streak, Ovechkin scored 18 points in 8 games (2.25 PPG) against the Southeast and 16 in 13 (1.24 PPG) against the rest.

Crosby scored 22 points in 11 games (2 PPG) against the Southeast and 34 in 25 (1.36 PPG) against the rest.

Stamkos scored 22 in 18 (1.22 PPG) against the Southeast and 35 in 30 (1.16 PPG) against the rest.

St. Louis scored 27 in 18 (1.5 PPG) against the Southeast and 33 in 30 (1.1 PPG) against the rest.

So the only player who didn't overwhelmingly beat up on the Southeast was Stamkos and his team did not make the playoffs. Crosby was his competition for the Hart and you can't say that he didn't beat up on a weaker division since that is demonstrably untrue.

Not to mention that you are not considering the fact that he was helping his team clinch the division by beating up on these weaker opponents. Prior to a home-and-home against the Jets, the Capitals were 9 points behind the 9th place Jets on March 20th, 2013. Ovechkin put up 5 points in 2 games against a top 10 team at the time and the Capitals soared into the playoffs mainly due to Ovechkin. I'm not sure why this is never brought up when discussing the reason for why he received the Hart. He pretty much put the team on his back for the last month or so of the season which accounted for nearly half of the season. Sure, Crosby may have been the better player but that is not what the Hart trophy is awarded for.

I've mentioned numerous other players from the Southeast who also beat on the weak competition, it certainly wasn't only Ovechkin. But you'll notice of course that nobody from the West got to play those teams. Patrick Kane probably wins the Art Ross under a normal schedule, and Toews and Getzlaf would also get nice boosts.

I'm of course not saying it's a bad thing that Ovechkin picked things up and got his team into the playoffs. But he shouldn't be entirely absolved for a bad start to the year. In a 48 game schedule, you can't take the first 20 off like you would in a normal year. An MVP doesn't just show up in the second half of the year.

I wouldn't have given the Hart to Crosby either (without the missed games he wins it though). Toews would have been a good choice. Insane plus minus, led the league in ES goals, elite defense/PK, owned the faceoff dot, didn't get a huge amount of PP time, led his team to the President's Trophy after they finished 6th in their conference the year before when he was hurt. As it was he came a pretty strong fourth in balloting. How this season could be considered inferior to Ovechkin's is beyond me.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't remember what was so different about schedule in 2012/13 - East did not play West at all?

But before that, in a six-division league, each team played 6*4=24 games against its division rivals, and 24/82=30%, not that different. Likewise, now each team plays 7*5=35 games against its bigger, 8-team division, and 35/82=43%. And yet we do not hear too much praise of old man Ovechkin winning goal-scoring titles in a strong Metro division.

Also, in 2012/13, Ovechkin played 8 out of his first 10 games outside of his division - and then he flipped the switch, found his place in the new system he entered with no-preseason, and scored rather consistently against all teams. Most likely, if he had started with 8 games out of 10 against his own division, we would have been telling stories of how Ovechkin inexplicably sucked against his own division that season and then torched everyone else. (For example, in his last 10 games of 2012/13 he played his division teams 3 times, collecting 4 points, and still got 9 goals and 15 points).

Right, East and West did not play each other at all. In some years that might not have mattered. But this was at the peak of the East-West imbalance. And the Southeast in particular was really lousy other than Washington. And those teams were lousy because they couldn't keep the puck out of their net, not because they couldn't score. It was a perfect storm.

It may seem like small potatoes, but an extra 7 or 8 games against a crap team goes a long way for the folks that just look at the counting stats. Take away a handful of points from Ovechkin, Stamkos, St. Louis and give a few extra to Toews, Kane, Getzlaf...suddenly the scoring race looks a bit different, and the awards voting along with it, despite nobody's actual level of play changing.

Adapting to a new coach and system is the one area of potential leniency towards Ovechkin's bad start. But then we're left asking, what happened next season, the infamous -35 year? If Ovechkin just needed 20 games to get used to Oates, why did his play fall off again in year two? Heck, why did it fall off in the playoffs in 2013? Admittedly, the award voters did not have this hindsight, so Ovechkin would have had the "just needed time to adjust" point in his favour at the actual moment votes were being cast.

To contrast this back against the original Bourque comparison, the Bruins changed coaches like they were a pair of pants throughout his career. Obviously he managed to adapt on the fly. Likewise in Colorado where he was instantly moving the needle, even at 40 years old and having only ever known one organization.

 

[Zuluss]

Right, East and West did not play each other at all. In some years that might not have mattered. But this was at the peak of the East-West imbalance. And the Southeast in particular was really lousy other than Washington. And those teams were lousy because they couldn't keep the puck out of their net, not because they couldn't score. It was a perfect storm.

It may seem like small potatoes, but an extra 7 or 8 games against a crap team goes a long way for the folks that just look at the counting stats. Take away a handful of points from Ovechkin, Stamkos, St. Louis and give a few extra to Toews, Kane, Getzlaf...suddenly the scoring race looks a bit different, and the awards voting along with it, despite nobody's actual level of play changing.

OK, GA for Southeast was 28% higher than for Central. So give Kane extra 4 games against Southeast, since Eastearn teams played Western teams once per year before the most recent division realignment. Kane gets 28% higher scoring in 4/48=1/12 of the season, total 2.33% increase in scoring. Well, give him a whole extra point for that, 55 points * 1.023.
Heck, let him play each Southeast team twice, just like East plays West now twice a year. That's 8 extra games against weaker opponents, and assume that it is all at the expense of playing against his strong division (Northwest, for example, had only 8% lower GA than Southeast once you drop Canucks). 28% higher scoring for 1/6 of a season = 4.67% increase in total scoring. 55 points * 1.046=58 points, 23 goals * 1.046 = 24 goals. You think 24g+34a beat 32g+24a?
The differences in division strength have minuscule effect on individual stats.

Adapting to a new coach and system is the one area of potential leniency towards Ovechkin's bad start. But then we're left asking, what happened next season, the infamous -35 year? If Ovechkin just needed 20 games to get used to Oates, why did his play fall off again in year two? Heck, why did it fall off in the playoffs in 2013? Admittedly, the award voters did not have this hindsight, so Ovechkin would have had the "just needed time to adjust" point in his favour at the actual moment votes were being cast.

We are always left asking that. What happened to Kucherov this season? What happened to Kane in 2016/17? What happened to Crosby in 2014/15? Are we going to discount their Harts and Art Rosses because they did not follow up with a back-to-back Hart/Art Ross?
Besides, Ovechkin's 2013/14 was not that bad. He played in a bad system and his line's on-ice shooting % was horrible (his own shooting % was OK). His plus-minus (and his assists to an extent) were an artifact of Backstrom refusing to score and Johansson forcing passes to OV instead of thinking. Still, OV won the Rocket in a commanding fashion (8 goals over #2, 14 goals over #5) and was top10 in points. If his line had played smarter, Ovechkin could have still won the Rocket (with 45 or 46 goals) and could have ended up as a runner-up for the Art Ross.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

OK, GA for Southeast was 28% higher than for Central. So give Kane extra 4 games against Southeast, since Eastearn teams played Western teams once per year before the most recent division realignment. Kane gets 28% higher scoring in 4/48=1/12 of the season, total 2.33% increase in scoring. Well, give him a whole extra point for that, 55 points * 1.023.
Heck, let him play each Southeast team twice, just like East plays West now twice a year. That's 8 extra games against weaker opponents, and assume that it is all at the expense of playing against his strong division (Northwest, for example, had only 8% lower GA than Southeast once you drop Canucks). 28% higher scoring for 1/6 of a season = 4.67% increase in total scoring. 55 points * 1.046=58 points, 23 goals * 1.046 = 24 goals. You think 24g+34a beat 32g+24a?
The differences in division strength have minuscule effect on individual stats.

No, swap Kane's 18 games against the Central for 18 against the Southeast. With a 28% higher scoring rate, he's going to gain about 5 points, or at least that's what we'd statistically expect. Ovechkin loses 5 going the other way. Instead of being tied in the scoring race, Kane wins the Art Ross (or ties for it maybe) and is 9 or 10 points clear of Ovechkin, who is also probably a couple points below Toews. None of the players actually perform any better or worse, but I am quite confident the Hart voters change their minds given how easily they appear to be swayed by minor differences in scoring.

If we look it in terms of a normal season, Kane would gain a whole bunch of extra games against the East, only a few more against the stingier West. Ovechkin the opposite. We'd expect Kane to score more against the East than Ovechkin would against the West (again, in theory). Both players scored points at a practically identical rate in real life, so you'd figure Kane probably ends up a few points ahead of Ovechkin in the hypothetical full season.

We are always left asking that. What happened to Kucherov this season? What happened to Kane in 2016/17? What happened to Crosby in 2014/15? Are we going to discount their Harts and Art Rosses because they did not follow up with a back-to-back Hart/Art Ross?
Besides, Ovechkin's 2013/14 was not that bad. He played in a bad system and his line's on-ice shooting % was horrible (his own shooting % was OK). His plus-minus (and his assists to an extent) were an artifact of Backstrom refusing to score and Johansson forcing passes to OV instead of thinking. Still, OV won the Rocket in a commanding fashion (8 goals over #2, 14 goals over #5) and was top10 in points. If his line had played smarter, Ovechkin could have still won the Rocket (with 45 or 46 goals) and could have ended up as a runner-up for the Art Ross.

We're left asking "what happened next year?" as a response to the supposition that Ovechkin just had a bad start while adjusting to a new system but was back to his good ol self in the second half of the year. This idea isn't without merit, but his performance the year before and after casts considerable doubt. This was a 200 game stretch of Ovechkin being generally not up to snuff, with one good 20 game burst in the middle. It was only under the most unusual of circumstances that those 20 games managed to produce a Hart Trophy.

Trying to defend his 2014 season is a tough road to hoe. -35 on a 90-point team is unheard of. Shifting the blame to line mates doesn't pass the smell test considering his even strength GF/GA ratio is the worst of anyone on his team. The PP scoring bagged him another Rocket, but he was one of the worst first line players in the league at even strength.