Ovechkin joins elite company

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

Alex Ovechkin has reached the point in his career when comparisons and context on a generational level can give way to a much bigger range of time.

The Washington Capitals forward scored his 30th goal the season in the first period Sunday against the St. Louis Blues. It is the 10th time in his 10 seasons that Ovechkin has reached 30 goals.

He became the fifth player in the history of the NHL have accomplished that, joining Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Jari Kurri and Mike Gartner. It is a feat of ability, consistency, durability and longevity. It is also an accomplishment buttresses the case for Ovechkin in any discussion about the greatest goal-scorers of all time.

To score 30-plus goals 10 straight seasons to start a career, a player must make an instant impact. Jaromir Jagr would be on the list, but he fell just short in his first season, when he scored 27 goals on a loaded Pittsburgh Penguins roster in 1990-91. The only active players to score at least 30 goals in their first NHL seasons are Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Jeff Skinner.

Ovechkin has been incredibly consistent. He led the League in shots on goal in eight of his first nine seasons, and scored on at least 10.6 percent of those shots in eight of nine.

Known as a volume shooter, Ovechkin has had at least 367 shots on goal in seven of his eight full seasons and is trending toward an eighth in nine. Since the start of the 2001-02 season, two other players have surpassed 367 shots in a season: Jagr, who had 368 in 2005-06, and Eric Staal, who had 372 in 2008-09.

"I saw an Ovechkin goal [Wednesday] against Pittsburgh, and it seems to me that every goal or highlight of his I see is him scoring the same goal," Bossy said. "So he's scored a lot of those this year. I don't know how hard that shot was back then, but [Ovechkin's] was a lot harder than my one-timers back then. The equipment has changed; I don't care how big the goalies' equipment is, when you're taking a shot like Ovechkin took [Wednesday], it's going to go in."

Ovechkin has also been incredibly durable, something that derailed Crosby's and Malkin's chances of joining him on this list. He has missed 10 games or fewer in each of his first nine seasons, and four or fewer in all but one.

He has proven his ability to be an elite goal-scorer for a long period of time. Barry Trotz is the fifth Washington coach Ovechkin has scored 30-plus for, and it hasn't mattered when the Capitals changed systems and tried to alter their identity.

A "down" year for Ovechkin was 32 goals and 85 points, or 38 goals, 65 points and 303 shots. There have been a total of 64 times when a player had at least 38 goals, 65 points and 303 shots in the past 20 years; Ovechkin has seven of them, and no one else has more than four.

So where does Ovechkin currently stand in the company of the all-time great goal-scorers? He has a chance to break into the top 50 in goals in NHL history by season's end, though he'd need 22 more to do so.

He is sixth in goals per game at 0.62, and fourth among players who didn't retire before the end of the Great Depression. Bossy, Mario Lemieux and Pavel Bure are ahead of him, with Gretzky, Brett Hull, Bobby Hull and a tie between Steven Stamkos and Tim Kerr rounding out the top 10.

Goal-scorers typically follow a similar aging curve, and the majority of the greatest seasons in NHL history were had by young men. Ovechkin has 82 goals since the start of last season; he was 28 in 2013-14 and is 29 in 2014-15.

Only seven players have scored at least 100 goals in their combined age-28 and age-29 seasons. If Ovechkin gets to 101, that would mean another 50-goal season, and it would be his second with at least 50 since he reached 28 years old. The only players who have more than two after turning 28 are Phil Esposito, Bobby Hull and Marcel Dionne.

"I see goals that are scored now, I used to score all the same type of goals," Bossy said. "I honestly don't think that players look at the 50-goal mark as one of those plateaus anymore. They may look at 40 goals or 35 goals as being their 50-goal season. That's just a result of … a lot of different factors. I don't think management expects players to score 50 goals anymore. There are a few players that I see that would like to score 100 goals, but for the most part, I don't see it. I look at Crosby play, and John [Tavares] and I look at Ovechkin, those players, they want to score every shift they are out on the ice, and it shows."

Getting to 50 would likely mean another milestone for Ovechkin that would further cement his place in hockey history. After adding a second goal Sunday against the Blues, Ovechkin has 31 goals to lead the NHL and the most career multi-goal games in franchise history. Should he finish the season with the most goals, it would be the fifth time he's won the Rocket Richard Trophy in his career.

There hasn't always been a Richard Trophy to award, but there has always been someone who led the League in goals, or tied for the lead. If he wins another, Ovechkin would become the fifth player in NHL history to lead the League in goals outright at least five times.

Gretzky and Gordie Howe did it five times. Bobby Hull and Esposito did it six times, with Hull tying for the League lead on a seventh occasion.

For now, Ovechkin has joined one exclusive club, and he'll work on earning admittance to that other one at the end of the season.

Gretzky is the most prolific goal-scorer of all time, but a case could be made for Bossy or Lemieux as the best. Each was derailed by injury. Kurri is one of the two greatest players in Finland's history, but he did get to play with The Great One. Howe, Richard, Esposito and Bobby Hull are also part of this conversation, and it is fair to say Ovechkin belongs as well.

Ovechkin's final placement among the sport's great goal-scorers will be impacted plenty by what happens during the back half of his NHL career, but the first half has put him in incredibly select company.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=751141&navid=nhl:topheads

What a talent, and I'm glad I got to watch him play in my lifetime. I am 28, and I remember him coming into the league, along with Cindy and watching him dominate for 10 years is incredible. He is absolutely still elite, despite what the critics say. He has totally changed his game this year behind Trotz, and is starting to refine a defensive game.

The craziest thing to me is when he was in his prime, he was the most dominate goal scorer. He has regressed as he's getting older yet he still year after year dominates the league in scoring. Even in the short lockout season, he scored 32 goals in 48 games to get his 30 goals streak to continue. If he wins the Richard this year, he will have 5 putting him only behind Esposito (6) and Hull (7) for leading the league in goals. (I know the Richard was only introduced in 1999).

Edited February 1, 2015 by darkmanx

[TheXym 2,606]

Ovie is a heck of an offensive talent. If he can maintain production while refining a defensive game under Trotz, that would be like Yzerman part deux, and a testament to Trotz's ability behind the bench.

[Desert Rat 78]

Extremely impressive. The guy also has 31 goals in 58 playoff games to top it off.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

All those other guys played in a more high scoring era. Ovechkin is scoring in this oversized pads, butterfly goalie era where not as many goals are scored.

He has a chance to retire as one of the 5 best wingers in NHL history.

Edited February 2, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[TheXym 2,606]

All those other guys played in a more high scoring era. Ovechkin is scoring in this oversized pads, butterfly goalie era where not as many goals are scored.

He has a chance to retire as one of the 5 best wingers in NHL history.

Great point about the overall difference in goal scoring between eras. How does that weigh against the dilution of talent in the current era that some will bring up in your opinion? I think it doesn't outweigh the dead puck pads a-la Giguere factor. I agree he has the potential to retire as one of the best offensive wingers in history. As I mentioned earlier, if he gets a defensive game under Trotz while maintaining production that catapults him up the overall standings, imho.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Great point about the overall difference in goal scoring between eras. How does that weigh against the dilution of talent in the current era that some will bring up in your opinion? I think it doesn't outweigh the dead puck pads a-la Giguere factor. I agree he has the potential to retire as one of the best offensive wingers in history. As I mentioned earlier, if he gets a defensive game under Trotz while maintaining production that catapults him up the overall standings, imho.

This sort of came up several months ago when I had a discussion in a thread about whether Datsyuk is a Hall of Famer.

I said yes, even though he won't score as many points as a Turgeon, Andreychuk or Damphousse, simply because he's spent many years as one of the best players in the world and none of those players ever did.

Another argument I made is that not many players in today's era will hit 1,000 points. Ovechkin will. If they play long enough, Crosby and Malkin will. But not many players drafted 2010 and later will hit 1,000. If you use that stat as a benchmark, it would mean there will be few Hall of Famers 20 years from now from today's era. But of course, that would be absurd. You can't elect all the accumulators from the 80's in the HOF and leave a Datsyuk out.

We just need to change what we view as the HOF worthy benchmark stats of 500 goals and 1,000 points because it's a different era right now. Not many guys will hit those numbers. Ovechkin, though, doesn't need to worry about that. He will hit those numbers and even if he doesn't and retires tomorrow, he's already a HOF player.

Edited February 2, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[Wings_Toledo 233]

The guy's an incredible player and I hope to see him shatter some records before he hangs 'em up.

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

[TheXym 2,606]

This sort of came up several months ago when I had a discussion in a thread about whether Datsyuk is a Hall of Famer.

I said yes, even though he won't score as many points as a Turgeon, Andreychuk or Damphousse, simply because he's spent many years as one of the best players in the world and none of those players ever did.

Another argument I made is that not many players in today's era will hit 1,000 points. Ovechkin will. If they play long enough, Crosby and Malkin will. But not many players drafted 2010 and later will hit 1,000. If you use that stat as a benchmark, it would mean there will be few Hall of Famers 20 years from now from today's era. But of course, that would be absurd. You can't elect all the accumulators from the 80's in the HOF and leave a Datsyuk out.

We just need to change what we view as the HOF worthy benchmark stats of 500 goals and 1,000 points because it's a different era right now. Not many guys will hit those numbers. Ovechkin, though, doesn't need to worry about that. He will hit those numbers and even if he doesn't and retires tomorrow, he's already a HOF player.

Very well said. Your point about Datsyuk is salient. His point totals, imho, are actually quite impressive when you factor in his extremely high defensive acumen. He is more electrifying as an individual player than the vast majority of the "accumulators". I vaguely recall your comments in the earlier thread. The point thresholds for HOF consideration definitely need to be revisited, particularly if the player was so much more than a point producer. My comment was intended to indicate that the goals are harder to come by today, despite any talent dilution, due to the evolution of goaltending and the equipment.. As I look back, it seems that my intent wasn't necessarily clear due to the syntax I used.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

You have to be careful with adjusted stat graphs like that. For instance, Lemieux only played a handful of games in year 10, from what I remember.

I would rank Ovechkin below Bossy at this point, and way below Gretzky or Lemieux.

[TheXym 2,606]

Great infographic. Not questioning it, but where did you get it, as it seems to come from a good source. I don't recognize the "circle F" logo at the top right.

You have to be careful with adjusted stat graphs like that. For instance, Lemieux only played a handful of games in year 10, from what I remember.

I would rank Ovechkin below Bossy at this point, and way below Gretzky or Lemieux.

Good point about Mario. Would era adjusted goals per game be a better stat, or do you think there is too much extrapolation in any case?

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Very well said. Your point about Datsyuk is salient. His point totals, imho, are actually quite impressive when you factor in his extremely high defensive acumen. He is more electrifying as an individual player than the vast majority of the "accumulators". I vaguely recall your comments in the earlier thread. The point thresholds for HOF consideration definitely need to be revisited, particularly if the player was so much more than a point producer. My comment was intended to indicate that the goals are harder to come by today, despite any talent dilution, due to the evolution of goaltending and the equipment.. As I look back, it seems that my intent wasn't necessarily clear due to the syntax I used.

Oh for sure. The goaltending is ridiculously better than it was in the 80's. Just watch some vintage games and see the kinds of goals that were given up. Hell, one doesn't even have to go back to the 80's. I was watching highlights of the 1994 Finals a year or so back, and couldn't believe how bad the goaltending was, even though Richter and McLean were considered standouts at the time. Nowadays, they'd be benched for some of those goals.

Great infographic. Not questioning it, but where did you get it, as it seems to come from a good source. I don't recognize the "circle F" logo at the top right.

Good point about Mario. Would era adjusted goals per game be a better stat, or do you think there is too much extrapolation in any case?

I'm not the expert on extrapolation, so I can't say. I do bring up different eras frequently but hesitate to delve too much in extrapolated stats. Seems dangerous to rely too much on that.

Edited February 2, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[TheXym 2,606]

Oh for sure. The goaltending is ridiculously better than it was in the 80's. Just watch some vintage games and see the kinds of goals that were given up. Hell, one doesn't even have to go back to the 80's. I was watching highlights of the 1994 Finals a year or so back, and couldn't believe how bad the goaltending was, even though Richter and McLean were considered standouts at the time. Nowadays, they'd be benched for some of those goals.

I'm not the expert on extrapolation, so I can't say. I do bring up different eras frequently but hesitate to delve too much in extrapolated stats. Seems dangerous to rely too much on that.

By today's standards, Grant Fuhr would be an AHL goalie. . I agree with your feelings on the danger of relying on extrapolated stats. However, much like the old What If? comics, it makes for interesting discussion.

There is also the consideration of the effects on modern era training and nutrition. In the "golden age" players came to camp to get in shape. If Gordie Howe trained like modern era players, it is frightening to think what he could have been on the ice.

[kipwinger 8,524]

You have to be careful with adjusted stat graphs like that. For instance, Lemieux only played a handful of games in year 10, from what I remember.

I would rank Ovechkin below Bossy at this point, and way below Gretzky or Lemieux.

I get your point, and I get why you're mentioning it. But I tend to take another view. It's the same argument as the Crosby vs. Ovechkin debate. Those on Crosby's side always point out point per game, while Ovechkin supporters look at total points. I tend to think that PPG is overrated in these arguments because it penalizes one player for being durable. Sure, Ovechkin isn't as dynamic a point producer as Crosby, but there's something to be said for his being a scoring threat night in and night out for his whole career. PPG stats skew the conversation in favor of dynamism, while point totals (or season averages) skew in favor of durability and consistency. IMO the latter is more important over an 82 game season, and a long career.

Come to think about it, this is the same argument which got Peter Forsberg into the Hall of Fame, and probably will get Eric Lindros in one day too.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I get your point, and I get why you're mentioning it. But I tend to take another view. It's the same argument as the Crosby vs. Ovechkin debate. Those on Crosby's side always point out point per game, while Ovechkin supporters look at total points. I tend to think that PPG is overrated in these arguments because it penalizes one player for being durable. Sure, Ovechkin isn't as dynamic a point producer as Crosby, but there's something to be said for his being a scoring threat night in and night out for his whole career. PPG stats skew the conversation in favor of dynamism, while point totals (or season averages) skew in favor of durability and consistency. IMO the latter is more important over an 82 game season, and a long career.

Come to think about it, this is the same argument which got Peter Forsberg into the Hall of Fame, and probably will get Eric Lindros in one day too.

Well, it's not like Lemieux only played 400 games in his career. Same with Lindros, Crosby and Forsberg. They've played more than enough games to be taken seriously statistically. I do rank Crosby ahead of Ovechkin because I think he's a more rounded offensive player who can score goals or rack up assists.

I thought of something interesting this morning. If Ovechkin retired today, he'd be the greatest player never to have won the Stanley Cup.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Well, it's not like Lemieux only played 400 games in his career. Same with Lindros, Crosby and Forsberg. They've played more than enough games to be taken seriously statistically. I do rank Crosby ahead of Ovechkin because I think he's a more rounded offensive player who can score goals or rack up assists.

I thought of something interesting this morning. If Ovechkin retired today, he'd be the greatest player never to have won the Stanley Cup.

I'm definitely not suggesting that those guys' production was an aberration or anything. Clearly they're excellent players. I'm just saying that anytime someone focuses on one stat over the other, they are (perhaps inadvertently) creating a bias in favor of one characteristic over another. In this case, dynamism over durability/consistency.

It's a little bit like debating who's the better player,

Pat Lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games

Joe Sakic: 1016 pts. in 1375

The points are almost the same. And clearly Lafontaine was more likely to score a point during any given game (higher ppg). So the question is, despite the fact that he's less likely to score at any given time, is there some benefit to having Sakic on the ice for an additional 510 games? Is his presence in 510 games, even when not scoring, more than enough to make up for the difference in ppg totals?

To me the answer is "yes". He's good enough that his presence in the extra games, all by itself, makes him more valuable. He makes your entire team better just by showing up, even when not scoring.

Edited February 2, 2015 by kipwinger

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'm definitely not suggesting that those guys' production was an aberration or anything. Clearly they're excellent players. I'm just saying that anytime someone focuses on one stat over the other, they are (perhaps inadvertently) creating a bias in favor of one characteristic over another. In this case, dynamism over durability/consistency.

It's a little bit like debating who's the better player,

Pat Lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games

Joe Sakic: 1016 pts. in 1375

The points are almost the same. And clearly Lafontaine was more likely to score a point during any given game (higher ppg). So the question is, despite the fact that he's less likely to score at any given time, is there some benefit to having Sakic on the ice for an additional 510 games? Is his presence in 510 games, even when not scoring, more than enough to make up for the difference in ppg totals?

To me the answer is "yes". He's good enough that his presence in the extra games, all by itself, makes him more valuable. He makes your entire team better just by showing up, even when not scoring.

I'm following your argument, but Joe Sakic scored 1,641 points in his career.

[kipwinger 8,524]

I'm following your argument, but Joe Sakic scored 1,641 points in his career.

You're right, I completely misread those stats when I looked them up. Nevertheless, I maintain my argument, I'd just have to find a different example. Fedorov, off the top of my head.

[TheXym 2,606]

If you are talking "does the player make those on the ice with him better?" I could agree about Sakic as an example of being more valuable than his production, and a darn good one at that, even with his actual stats. That criterion also plays well for Mario - two words: Rob Brown.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

You're right, I completely misread those stats when I looked them up. Nevertheless, I maintain my argument, I'd just have to find a different example. Fedorov, off the top of my head.

I would rank Fedorov ahead of LaFontaine, but there is no right/wrong way to rank. It's all relative to the players being compared.

For instance, Turgeon scored more points than LaFontaine and played in a lot more games, but I would not rank him above LaFontaine. I hope you wouldn't either, despite your willingness to credit him for being more durable and valuable to his team. He just flat out wasn't a better player and didn't have a more relevant career to warrant a higher overall ranking.

BTW, Crosby is top 5 in PPG for his career, which is incredible given the era he's playing in. He's also top 10 in playoff points per game, for those critics who think he doesn't perform in big moments.

[korrowan 111]

I hate the term offensive winger. I don't like guys who play half the game so they can go sit on the dot and score goals. I give him little credit considering his team has always been fail because their best player has refused up until now to actually play hockey.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I hate the term offensive winger. I don't like guys who play half the game so they can go sit on the dot and score goals. I give him little credit considering his team has always been fail because their best player has refused up until now to actually play hockey.

How so? A winger is not typically as good defensively as a center. It's not his game. If you look at the other top wingers ranked around Ovechkin (guys like Jagr, Lafleur, Bossy), I don't remember them being Selke candidates either.

The team has failed because other than him, few guys show up in the playoffs. The Capitals historically are a bad playoff team. Apparently, one guy can't change that.

[korrowan 111]

How so? A winger is not typically as good defensively as a center. It's not his game. If you look at the other top wingers ranked around Ovechkin (guys like Jagr, Lafleur, Bossy), I don't remember them being Selke candidates either.

The team has failed because other than him, few guys show up in the playoffs. The Capitals historically are a bad playoff team. Apparently, one guy can't change that.

Well I have only really been a Wings fan and if Tatar or Nyquist or pretty much any other winger not named Franzen played like Ovechkin did/does they wouldn't be around. Two way players is in my opinion the only way hockey should be played and all the rest of those guys are one trick ponies who sit in the slot or on the dot most the game waiting for a good pass or cherry pick waiting for a pass to score easy. Just not my thing.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Well I have only really been a Wings fan and if Tatar or Nyquist or pretty much any other winger not named Franzen played like Ovechkin did/does they wouldn't be around. Two way players is in my opinion the only way hockey should be played and all the rest of those guys are one trick ponies who sit in the slot or on the dot most the game waiting for a good pass or cherry pick waiting for a pass to score easy. Just not my thing.

Coaches tend to overlook a lot of deficiencies when you score a bunch of goals. If Alex Ovechkin, or any player putting up Ovechkin level points, was on our team, Mike Babcock would accept the offense and stay oddly quiet about all the rest. Just like he's done with Franzen for years. You don't ever hear Babs calling Mule out do you? Wanna know why? Because he needed the goals.

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

Well I have only really been a Wings fan and if Tatar or Nyquist or pretty much any other winger not named Franzen played like Ovechkin did/does they wouldn't be around. Two way players is in my opinion the only way hockey should be played and all the rest of those guys are one trick ponies who sit in the slot or on the dot most the game waiting for a good pass or cherry pick waiting for a pass to score easy. Just not my thing.

Do you even watch Ovechkin? He is one of the most exciting players game in and out. I watched the Washington vs Montreal game the other day, and he was everywhere and hit the post 3 times, dekeing past 4 defenders and flying up the ice trying different things to get through. The media might show you a couple clips of him standing around, that doesn't summarize him. He is also a great passer but doesn't have any finishers (Backstrom is like Datsyuk, wide open net and he will pass to someone else).

Couple of quotes from Montreal players after the game:

"I've lined up beside him a few times," Canadiens right wing Brendan Gallagher said. "I actually tried to hit him a couple of times. That didn't go well."

Next up, Canadiens center Lars Eller

"Yeah, I've tried," he said. "He's hard as a rock. It's like hitting a wall."

How about you, Max Pacioretty?

"I tried to hit him once and you just can't," he said. "He's a monster, with elite skill in all facets of the game."

Red Wings would open their arms right up if Ovi wanted to play for them, let's not pretend they wouldn't because all he does "he stands at the dot".