What do you think the reason is that certain players built for the postseason choked in the playoffs?

[Gorskyontario]

You seem to think Ovechkin's team losing to the Habs in 2010 somehow shows Ovechkin to be a poor playoff performer.

By your own metric, Sidney Crosby is a poor playoff performer. (No doubt you will once again abandon your own metric).

Nevermind the fact that your posts are full of lies and Ovechkin was excellent in the 2010 playoffs and by far the best player in that series.

I'm just using the 2010 playoffs as an example where his numbers look good. He was also garbage in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 ect.

Backstrom was by far the capitals best player in the 2010 series. For the record.

 

[The Macho King]

Ovi shot the lights out in that Habs series. Halak just stood on his head. That can happen - and that was probably the last "peak Ovi" series ever. After that he turned into the turret instead of the bull in a china shop.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Why on earth am I participating in this.

I'm not sure, you have been proven wrong already. By your logic being on a perennial presidents trophy contender means Ovechkin has had a bad supporting cast. Absolutely bizarre logic in my opinion.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Well his numbers are certainly much better than Ovechkins, he is also 3-1 in playoff series against Ovechkin despite being the lower seed every time.

I would expect a player of his stature to be 4-0. Very disappointing.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Ovi shot the lights out in that Habs series. Halak just stood on his head. That can happen - and that was probably the last "peak Ovi" series ever. After that he turned into the turret instead of the bull in a china shop.

Reading this I was curious if my memory failed me. Thankfully it didn't.

4 points in game 2, 3 points in game 4.

Zero points in game 6, a secondary assist in game 7. 2009-10 Eastern Conference Quarter-Finals Game 7, Montreal Canadiens vs. Washington Capitals Box Score: April 28, 2010 | Hockey-Reference.com . Shot the lights out all right.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not sure, you have been proven wrong already. By your logic being on a perennial presidents trophy contender means Ovechkin has had a bad supporting cast. Absolutely bizarre logic in my opinion.

Yes, SHAME on Ovechkin for being the centerpiece of a team that won a ton of games despite having been a lottery team when he arrived.

HOLD YOUR HEAD IN SHHHHHHAAAAAAAAMMMMEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Reading this I was curious if my memory failed me.

It's either your memory or your integrity.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Yes, SHAME on Ovechkin for being the centerpiece of a team that won a ton of games despite having been a lottery team when he arrived.

HOLD YOUR HEAD IN SHHHHHHAAAAAAAAMMMMEEEEEEEEE!!!!

I never said he should hold his head in shame. Ovechkin is a great player and has enjoyed a great career. He also has a chance of cracking 900 goals provided he doesn't have another drop off in production next year.

That being said his playoff resume is lacking, for a player of his caliber. I don't see how this can be debated by anyone except his biggest fans who wish to worship him for whatever reason.

 

[daver]

I think Jagr was significantly better than Ovechkin in the playoffs.

Yes, Jagr was more consistent and higher performing player but Ovechkin ultimately had the clear best Cup winning run between them.

Jagr, with Mario, had a few disappointments after 1992. He ironically played better without Mario but on an average team.

To be fair, the finger could be more soundly pointed at Backstrom than it could at Ovechkin for many of the Caps failures.

 

[Harry Waters]

Shouldn't this subforum be the one with the knowledgeable people? Yet here we are in a thread on choking players in the post season and the biggest part of the discussion is... a CONN SMYTHE WINNER. Perhaps sometimes it is better to take a step back and really think about what you are arguing, seriously.

And in general I think the concept of "choking" is way overblown. Of course there are players who don't deal with pressure as good as others, but we are talking about professional athletes who not only were under pressure all of their career/life on every level but came through again and again. In training camps, tryouts, working their way up through the ranks. And suddenly they can't hack it anymore? I am not buying that in most cases, it has much more to do with opportunity, teams they were on, line-matching, lucky bounces and perhaps playing through injuries/sickness sometimes. But what do I know.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And suddenly they can't hack it anymore? I am not buying that in most cases, it has much more to do with opportunity, teams they were on, line-matching, lucky bounces and perhaps playing through injuries/sickness sometimes. But what do I know.

Yes, we deal with very small sample sizes in the postseason in a very high variance activity, which becomes even higher variance in era where scoring is very low. So the whole "well if we only look at Game 6 and 7 in this Series..." kind of "analysis" is just plain tomfoolery.

 

[MadLuke]

"well if we only look at Game 6 and 7 in this Series..." kind of "analysis" is just plain tomfoolery.

And in this case, it is recent enough that we watched it, Ovechkin registered 18 shots and 9 hits in those 2 last games, playing 49 minutes (with no OT). it was far from some no show affair, it was a bit of a freak series, with games 22 vs 54 and 16 to 42 shots going in the Habs ways that we explain ad-hoc saying they were previsible bad outside shots in control Ds versus high values play, etc... because a team won and the other not.

No one would have said Montreal was in control giving a lot of bad shots on purpose and the better teams that just got unlucky with bad goaltending would they have lost, pure ad-hoc, because we always need to explain everything for the sport to be fun and for the team that win to mean something.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And in this case, it is recent enough that we watched it, Ovechkin registered 18 shots and 9 hits in those 2 last games, playing 49 minutes (with no OT). it was far from some no show affair, it was a bit of a freak series, with games going 22 vs 54 and 16 to 42 shots going in the Habs ways that we explain ad-hoc with previsible bad outside shots in control Ds versus high values play, etc... because a team won and the other not.

No one would have said montreal was in control giving a lot of bad shots on purpose and the better teams that just got unlucky with bad goaltending would they have lost, pure ad-hoc, because we always need to explain everything for the sport to be fun and for the team that win to mean something.

Yes, media narratives run amok every postseason, that Montreal "solved" Ovechkin in the middle of the Series and what not. Sometimes media just need to say something.

 

[Gorskyontario]

well if we only look at Game 6 and 7 in this Series..." kind of "analysis" is just plain tomfoolery.

Judging players on how they perform in deciding games is tomfoolery? Should let every general manager in the league know about this.

 

[MadLuke]

Judging players on how they perform in deciding games is tomfoolery? Should let every general manager in the league know about this.

Yes it is ok to judge played in the biggest game, but in that case...

the puck goes in there (or in the many times those 2 games where it could have easily bounce in for them):


Does that make Ovechkin any better at hockey ?

The smaller the sample size less statistics tell stories, yes over 82 games if you play hockey that create offense, you will accumulate goal for when you are on the ice, even points for a lot of way to create offense, it cannot over 82 games realistically be that one sided against you, same for goaltender.

In 1-2 playoff game, you cannot really go to the boxscore to know

 

[Gorskyontario]

In 1-2 playoff game, you cannot really go to the boxscore to know

I saw that whole series, I remember exactly how ineffective he was.

 

[Crosby2010]

I’m a Thornton apologist. Dude loved the game as much as anyone, so I just don’t see it as a drive/work ethic thing.

1) I think he was often banged up come playoffs. A common excuse, but you yourself note he’s big and strong, holds the puck a lot- that’ll lead to some lingering issues after 82 games, and he always seemed to play pretty full seasons. That one year he played through a torn ACL, I just kinda wonder if hockey code keeps him from whining about the wrist one year, an ankle the next, etc.
2) I think his game was fundamentally not built for playoffs. Not his fault, the tighter checking just eliminates his game at a higher rate than others. Add in Marleau being a top guy, another star whose style didn’t match playoffs, and you get these results.
3) Random statistical variance. I know it’s a large same size, but you’ll see a 100 point player put up 70 points in the next season sometimes. Same swings happen in playoffs, and for some guys it’s just a particularly nasty run at the table.

I guess my feeling is why not adjust your game a bit come playoff time? Maybe you are right, maybe his style wasn't built for the 7 game grind of a series after series. But it isn't as if there weren't playmakers who put up good playoff numbers. Adam Oates was a lot smaller and certainly not physical. He did well in the playoffs, has the record I believe as the player with the most playoff points that never won a Cup. I don't think Thornton was weak defensively, but Oates was pretty good without the puck, and on faceoffs and such. Even having an Oates-like playoff career would be alright because at least you could say he put up good numbers even in losses. Oates for example got swept in the first round in 1993. Not his fault, he had 9 assists! It is stuff like that we never saw from Thornton for some reason and I don't know why. He was on some good teams with a broad opportunity to do it.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I guess my feeling is why not adjust your game a bit come playoff time? Maybe you are right, maybe his style wasn't built for the 7 game grind of a series after series. But it isn't as if there weren't playmakers who put up good playoff numbers. Adam Oates was a lot smaller and certainly not physical. He did well in the playoffs, has the record I believe as the player with the most playoff points that never won a Cup. I don't think Thornton was weak defensively, but Oates was pretty good without the puck, and on faceoffs and such. Even having an Oates-like playoff career would be alright because at least you could say he put up good numbers even in losses. Oates for example got swept in the first round in 1993. Not his fault, he had 9 assists! It is stuff like that we never saw from Thornton for some reason and I don't know why. He was on some good teams with a broad opportunity to do it.

Atam Oates played with much more intensity than Joe Thornton.

 

[The Panther]

Atam Oates played with much more intensity than Joe Thornton.

Maybe, by comparison, Thornton just wasn't feeling his oats.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I saw that whole series, I remember exactly how ineffective he was.

You are posting pure falsehoods.

 

[Gorskyontario]

You are posting pure falsehoods.

You can't really prove that, and I proved it by posting proof of him putting up 7 points in 2 games. Also I remember watching the games, he was terrible.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You can't really prove that, and I proved it by posting proof of him putting up 7 points in 2 games. Also I remember watching the games, he was terrible.

I can prove it easily:

10 points and 5 goals in a 7 game playoff series is excellent.

The Capitals scored 22 goals in that series. Ovechkin factored in on 45.5% of them.

Out of all players in the 2010 postseason, Ovechkin was 3rd in PPG and first in GPG.

Your posts are pure gibberish.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It’s crazy how 2/3 of this thread got derailed by discussing a player that doesn’t apply in any objective way.

Some people are really pressed about this whole goal record thing, I guess. I doubt he’d be mentioned if he was sitting at 680 career goals.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why don't we have a movie night and all watch a game together?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Your posts are pure gibberish.

That's your opinion. Stats don't tell the whole story, Ovechkin was bad in the 2010 series.

 

[Gorskyontario]

It’s crazy how 2/3 of this thread got derailed by discussing a player that doesn’t apply in any objective way.

Your opinion doesn't make you an arbiter of objectivity. I don't necessarily agree that Ovechkin should be on this thread, I didn't bring him up. You have the right to view his playoff record and stats fondly, but saying his legacy leaves much to be desired from a player of his caliber is not unreasonable.