Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by quoipourquoi, Nov 11, 2018.
Unless it's Bobby Hull playing in a 6 team league, eh?
What a joke.
One would think Ovechkin contributing to 3 crucial game winning goals against your Penguins would have learned you something.
You were just plain wrong. Malkin assists or scores the goal on 30% + of Crosby's points in some seasons. You said there is no way that's true. It was proven to be true, with links.
But you proudly stand behind your wrongness. Good to know.
Bobby Hull was superior by every metric you can find. He also went to 4 SCF's.
Cool. One series out of 4. Who won the previous 3?
You are really poor at math.
No. You just think you can pass off points that are largely from the PP, as evidence that Sid plays with Malkin a lot. He doesn't. As if Crosby hasn't repeatedly produced without Malkin (who's missed a ****load of time) or inferior wingers throughout his entire career. Or more at ES with said inferior line mates.
Why does there appear to be a current player vs. current player debate in the History board? Specifically a project thread.
Take it elsewhere; we’ll probably be purging a lot of this.
This sounds like a strawman to me. Noone is arguing OV as the best goalscorer based on the number of shots he he taken. That he is able to get the most pucks on net while maintaining a solid shooting % should put this to bed. That some of his misses result in lost possession is the price of doing business as a goalscorer. This would be akin to critquing Crosby for the times his passes result in a turnover.
The starting point in this discussion is "more goals are better". You have introduced an element that questions OV's goalscoring abilities if he did not take so many shots on net. This seems to be based on the premise that the Caps randomly choose OV to be the designated goalscorer rather than OV having generational goalscoring skills. This would be akin to saying centres get more assists only because they handle the puck more than wingers.
As for your playoff argument, secondary scoring clearly was the biggest reason for them not advancing. And no, last year is not a statistical anomaly for the Caps or OV until proven otherwise. They get full credit for winning.
I thought Cup wins is the most important metric? Hull only has one. Aren't they tied?
Claiming that getting to the SCF in a six team league is superior to getting to the 2nd round in a 30 team league has as much relevance as saying winning a 1st round series in a 30 team league is equal to a SCF appearance in the O6.
It is worth noting that the Caps got stopped three times by the eventual Cup winners.
Once again - you're so full of **** it's hilarious.
Let's change the dates. 1982-1988. Guess who led the leagues in shots? Gretzky
Guess who led the league in shots per game? Gretzky
Guess who had the most shots in a season 4x in that 7 year stretch? Gretzky
I think that worked out ok for him.
I maintain my stipulation that there's been no Nuclear Bomb since Ovechkin entered the league and that he must be good for world peace.
Just because 2 things happen at the same time - it doesn't mean they're directly linked by cause/effect.
Ovechkin shoots a lot. That's a good thing
Ovechkin scores a lot of goals. That's also a good thing.
Ovechkin only made it past round 2 once. That's a bad thing (everyone knows this btw - you didn't need to go count all the teams that did or didn't make it past round 2 - literally everyone here knows he only did it once).
There's no direct connection between those facts. And if there is now you sure as hell haven't done a good job in establishing it, outside of just mentioning the 2. ie - Ovi for world Peace sounds just as good.
You: "you need more than 1 cup to be a generational player"
Him "yeah but Bobby Hull"
You "Oh wait forget what i said. Instead i'll change to "yeah Bobby Hull is better at everything"
You "There's no way Malkin contributes to over 30% of Crosby's goals in a season"
Him "Yeah there is, it's happened"
You "Nope I guarantee it's impossible. Not at all. Nope"
Him "Here's the data and proof. Admit you were wrong?"
You "Let's change the subject yet again...."
Search in the vote 3 thread (starting with post #37).
Now that is debatable. I agree with you the label "shoot only" is an exaggeration that is shortchanging Ovechkin. But the notion that a multi-dimensional elite forward, someone with a more balanced set of offensive tools, is harder to stop in the playoffs (where the opponent gets to focus on you and get familiar with you) than a more specialized elite forward, that notion seems far more reasonable than those deliberately absurd examples of pseudo causation you have brought up to make your point about correlation vs causation.
That's fine to say, but it has nothing to do with Alex Ovechkin - who is a very good playmaker, skates well, and is extremely physical.
This notion that Alex Ovechkin is not a balanced player is pure nonsense. You don't win 3 Harts, lead the NHL in PPG 3 times, or get 530 assists by being one dimensional. It cannot be done.
I mean Washington's playoff failures probably has *some* to do with Ovechkin. He is their best player/leader/captain. You can't just blanketly absolve him of all failures.
And I agree with the idea that a more well balanced offense could be argued as more useful than a a more one dimensional type of offense come playoff time (though this is hardly an absolute statement as there are always exceptions - but seems reasonable enough).
I also think Alex Ovechkin for a lot of his career has been much of a one dimensional player. You're still being too defensive about it - why is that such a bad thing? He scores goals, lots of them. He led the league in PPG 3x because at his peak his offense was a lot more well balanced. A lot of the stuff since 2010 points towards a more one-dimensional type of player (not every season, but a lot of them). Again - why are you so defensive about it?
Brett Hull has 650 career assists and is thought of as 1 dimensional. Career assist numbers doesn't mean anything lol
Yeah, Ovie was a full offensive force in his hay day (05-10).
After that the stats really show it that he has been more one-dimensional player, but who could really expect him to dominate like he did in the 05-10?
10-11 79 35+53=85
11-12 78 38+27=65
12-13 48 32+24=56
13-14 78 51+28=79
14-15 81 53+28=81
15-16 79 50+21=71
16-17 82 33+36=69
17-18 82 49+38=87
18-19 39 30+16=46
One-dimensional or not, I'm just in awe of the stats here, especially the last few seasons where just bounced back after subpar 16-17 season.
Cup counting is worthless.
Both are top 100 players of all time.
Can we not discuss them simply because they're active?
But getting to the 3rd round is?
For someone who take a lot of time to write out their posts, you seem to be missing the obvious double standards in them.
Very good playmaker who has never once finished top 5 in the league in that category. I don't know if you know what very good means.
Are we going to start asserting that he's an above average defensive player as well?
Or are we going to gloss over how ignoring defensive responsibility makes it easier to score points? Just as it is easier to score goals when you're outshooting everyone in the league by a mile. But of course, that concept is nonsense.
The difference between you and me is I can point to Sid's faults over the years.
Early on he was a whiner (subsided rather quickly though)
Took to many retaliatory penalties early in his career. Think along the lines of a Stan Mikita. Much better these days though.
Had a few subpar playoffs, namely the series against Boston in 2013.
Gets away with a few things most others don't, but then again superstars get this treatment often. In all sports. I remember watching Jordan repeatedly travel and throw people to the ground to get open. No calls.
But with you, which is ironic considerating your incessant complaining about how Sid gets all these passes, it seems to be Ovechkin is the reason for successes any time the Caps do well (which isn't often) and he's blameless when they got continually bounced by inferior teams for more than a decade.
You're missing the point.
I'm talking about consistency. Team consistency as it relates to teams that have a star player ripping shots with reckless abandon, seemingly always going home before less talented teams.
And then calling out people who make blanket statements such as shots are always a great thing.
Life, sports, and analytics are not black and white sir.
The numbers show that OV's playoff #'s vs. his peers which includes both multi-dimensional elite forwards and specialized elite forwards (or maybe just one in Kane) put him in the Top 10 as a playoff performer. I don't see a big reason to point to him for the Caps lack of success as clearly other Caps fell far shorter of expectations come playoff time, notably 2nd line and secondary scorers whose one or two goals could have been the difference in a couple of years for the Caps.
His playoff resume is weak vs. other Top 20 - 25 players mainly given his relative lack of deep multiple Cup runs, not because his per game playoff performances were that much weaker.
It's easy to rack up points per game (which is no good when talking about Crosby) when you're only playing in first rounds...oops, not "only"...sometimes second rounds too. Not advancing in the playoffs but constantly making it as a high seed is not a feather in a cap I would wear...
Are still talking about Ovechkin or this about Hull? I am just wondering if you are holding Hull to the same standard and questioning his title as GOAT goalscorer?
Both players lead the league in shots by a ton, both had shooting %s that indicated that they weren't "ripping shots with reckless abandon", both have one Cup each while going home,or without the Cup, before less talented teams many other times. Hull arguably had better support, or at least the more talented teammate.
Here is where Ovechkin ranked in assists in his prime (2005-06 to 2009-10): 7, 11, 22, 31, 42.
Factor in that his shoot first style certainly generated an above average amount of rebound assists and the numbers hardly support your statement about his playmaking.
Now I wouldn't refer to Ovechkin as one dimensional. That again would be an exaggeration. But even in his prime, he was a relatively specialized player and not particularly balanced offensively. And to call him a very good playmaker in an all-time sense is simply wrong.
Each of these quotes are problematic.
So basically the assertion is that team success in the regular season is exclusively due to "strong rosters" and NOT Ovechkin, whereas team failures in the postseason are due to Ovechkin's playing style, nevermind that secondary scoring from these allegedly strong rosters was extremely weak when Ovechkin wasn't on the ice.
The truth is the Capitals never had a decent blue line until Orpik and Niskanen came along in 2014-2015. They never had a decent 2C until Kuznetsov blossomed in 2015-2016. They had a revolving door at goalie until Holtby solidified it in 12-13.
The Capitals were not a great franchise to come to. They had no history of success. In Ovechkin's career, there have been 3 seasons where the Capitals had a balanced roster (this will be the 4th).
Crosby is second in assists since the lockout, Thornton has 45 more assists (6% more), and Crosby is 1.0% ahead of 3rd place Henrik Sedin. Crosby is 4th in goals per game among players with more than 400 games played, and second in goals (Ovechkin has 48% more).
Ovechkin is 12th in assists since the lockout, and first in goals - 48% ahead of second place.
This has never been true.
Ovechkin has never been a "shoot only" player. This was just debunked. Firmly.
The talent pool was half or a third the size it is now. Maybe less. Standing out in 1963 =/= standing out in 2010. Any time they are close in ranking, the tie goes to Ovechkin. Anything else would not be equitable to modern players.
Ovechkin has 3 Harts. Hull has 2. Advantage Ovechkin.
Ovechkin has 48% more goals than second place during his first 13 seasons. Bobby Hull had 24% more goals than second place during his first 13 seasons (older Gordie Howe) and 31% more than Frank Mahovlich (30% over Mahovlich after 15 NHL seasons). Huge Advantage Ovechkin.
Ovechkin has 7 Rockets. Hull has 7 Rockets. Advantage Ovechkin.
Ovechkin is tied for 4th in playoff PPG (over 50 GP). Hull is .01 above 4th. Advantage Ovechkin.
Ovechkin leads NHL playoffs in G/GP by .03. Hull leads by .06. (min 50 GP). But then again the next players after Ovechkin are Zetterberg and Kucherov - 2 players from countries that were non-factors in Hull's era. After them Ovechkin has a .06 lead just like Hull did. Advantage Ovechkin. Maybe draw I dunno.
Ovechkin is first in regular season G/GP with .61. Second place is .53 (Stamkos in 70% as many games). Ovechkin had a .08 lead.
Hull is first in regular season G/GP with .58. Second place is .56 (Esposito in 60% of games played). Hull had a .02 lead. Advantage Ovechkin.
The spread after that isn't much different either. Ovechkin has a .13 lead on 4th and from there it's a pack of players (.09 on Kovalchuk - who again, Hull would have never have competed with in the NHL). Hull has a .13 on 3rd - and that's where the pack of players begins. Advantage Ovechkin.
Ovechkin lead the NHL in points through his first 13 seasons. Hull was second to age 29-40 Gordie Howe. Ovechkin was 114 points ahead of third place. Hull was 107 points ahead of third place. Advantage Ovechkin.
Hull was third in PPG through '71-72 with 4th, 5th and 6th right behind him (min 400 GP). Ovechkin is in third in PPG with nobody right behind him. Advantage Ovechkin.
These are just some metrics. Certainly there are some metrics where Hull comes out ahead relative to his exponentially smaller talent pool. But my point is this: To say "Bobby Hull was superior by every metric you can find" is blatantly false.
And I'm not even going into the massive flaws of VsX.
Gordie Howe was 31 the first time Hull was a factor in Hart voting. Bobby Hull was 31 when Orr won his first.
Their careers coincide to the extent that McDavid's and Ovechkin's do. I don't consider McDavid and Ovechkin to be from the same generation.
Ovechkin has competed with a much larger talent pool - including 100% career overlap with Crosby.
If you assume the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s, then maybe. I find it extremely unlikely that the Canada with a population of 16M puts out more hockey talent than the Canada with a 32M population + Russia + the USA + all the European countries combined. The project is fatally flawed in this regard.
Alex Ovechkin is 12th in assists since the lockout. Ovechkin is a very good playmaker in whatever sense you want. He makes passes like these pretty frequently:
He's been asked to shoot first by every coach he's ever had. Being the trigger man is going to lower assist totals just as being the set-up man could lower goal totals. Despite this, he still has a career assists per game roughly the same as John Tavares.
There aren't that many assists coming off rebounds. The vast majority are passing plays.
Paint me sceptical. What Mike Farkas has said stands to reason: In the third round of the POs you usually face opponents that are more difficult to score on than in the first round. Therefore the comparison is distorted in disfavour of players whose teams had multiple deep PO runs.
Sidney Crosby has 185 points in 160 playoff games. 90 of those points (48.6 %) were scored in his 59 first round games, that is: in just 36.8 % of his overall playoff games. In the remaining 101 playoff games (second to fourth round) = 63.2 % of all games, Crosby scored 95 points, that is: 51.4 % of his overall PO production.
In all likeliness, more deeper playoff runs for Ovechkin mean that his GP count (at 121 now) goes up faster than his points count (at 117 now) and thus, his rank among contemporary playoff scorers takes a dive.
Separate names with a comma.