On one hand, I don't think IE gives enough credit to Ovechkin for getting as many shots as he does. You look at his career shooting percentage and take guys with similar marks - Perry and Tarasenko are peers in that respect - I'm sure if they had a chance to get 500 puck on net in a season they'd take it, and they'd score a lot more if they could. He's a much better goal scorer than those guys, and that's a big reason why, as opposed to someone like Draisaitl who's the opposite in that he takes half as many shots and 18% go in.
The thing though that really gives me pause about OVs late career sniping is that the Caps' power play hasn't been helped by it nearly as much as everyone pretends. Since 2019-20, they've been 17th in the league in PP%, but if you bring it up to almost anyone, you always hear that 1) it's unstoppable and 2) it's stupid that PKers leave that one timer unguarded because clearly they're getting eaten alive that way.
That, more than anything, paints him as a bit more of a goal suck during that period of time than one would like him to be.
However, the argument can be made that the Capitals have always focused on catering to Ovechkin in the offensive zone. It's not exactly a poor strategy given Ovechkin is who he is, but the MO has often left them exposed defensively and as 8 has slowed down and become less engaged physically, he is much easier to defend.
Corey Perry and Tarasenko weren't far and away the best players on their respective teams. They had to play within a system that wasn't built around them.
Hence I don't think the argument that the bulging shot totals = success is a sound one.
I'll always maintain that not every shot is a good one. This concept exists across multiple sports, like basketball and soccer. You regularly hear announcers and analysts talk about those bad shots and how it killed possession, was the wrong decision, etc. They aren't wrong to do so, at least in some of the cases.
Why don't we hear that in hockey?
The staggering volume of shots Ovi takes is a testament to that thought process. How many times did he kill possession by simply letting an extremely low danger shot (from distance, nowhere near net) go?
My overall point is that Ovechkin, to some degree, is overrated in the sense he has far more opportunities to score goals because he's shooting the puck far more than anyone else. You can't score unless you shoot the puck and he does it at a vastly higher rate than anyone else.
Gretzky wasn't shot hogging. Sid wasn't. Lemieux scored 85 goals in 88/89 and finished 4th in overall shot attempts. Bossy won a pair of Rocket's and never finished higher than 4th in attempts. Selanne won both Rocket's finishing 8th and 10th in shot attempts.
Let's dig into shot attempts a bit more:
2005-06:
Ovechkin leads league in shots in his rooking campaign with 425. He finished T3rd (52) in goal scoring with Kovalchuk who scored 52 on just 323 shots.
Cheecho - 56/317 (17.7)
Jagr - 54/368 (14.7)
Ovechkin - 52/425 (12.2)
2006-07:
Ovechkin once again leads the league in shots with 392. He finished 4th (46) in goal scoring.
Lecavalier - 52/339 (15.3)
Heatley - 50/310 (16.1)
Selanne - 48/257 (18.7)
Ovechkin - 46/392 (11.7)
2007-08:
Ovechkin once again leads the league in shots with 446. 2nd place is nearly 100 shots less (Zetterberg) with 358. To be fair, Ovechkin did score 65 but his shooting % jump of 3-4 points and massive lead in shot volume propelled him there.
Ovechkin - 65/446 (14.6%)
Kovalchuk - 52/283 (18.4%)
Iginla - 50/338 (14.8%)
Malkin - 47/272 (17.3%)
-Essentially Ovechkin is Iginla. The former just shot a lot more. Funny, both those teams were bounced in the 1st round that year.
2008-09:
Ovechkin wins another shot title, in a landslide with 528. He shot just 10.8%. Eric Stall was the next closest shot total at 372.
Ovechkin 56/528 (10.6%)
Carter - 46/342 (13.5)
Parise - 45/364 (12.4)
Kovalchuk - 43/275 (15.6)
Vanek - 40/211 (19.0)
Staal - 40/372 (10.8)
2009-10:
Ovechkin wins another shot title. He finishes 2nd in goal scoring, behind Sid and Stammer. Ovi missed 10 games this year so given his larger shot volume would have cruised to another Rocket.
Stamkos - 51/297 (17.2)
Crosby - 51/298 (17.1)
Ovechkin - 50/368 (13.6)
In 2010-11, Crosby would score 32 goals in 41 games, before being ran in the outdoor game vs Washington. He'd miss most of the next 2 years. Ovechkin, that same year, scored 32 goals in 79 games. Don't tell me Sid couldn't be an absolute killer in the goal scoring department.
In 2011-12, Ovechkin would score 38 goals on 303 shots. 12.5%
In 2011-12, Stamkos would score 60 goals on 303 shots. 19.8%
These sort of trends continue on for the next decade. Multiple Rockets but vastly, vastly more shots (the gap really explodes when you factor in misses) than 2nd, 3rd place, etc.
Alas, shooting more is not always synonymous with winning. I'd wager without looking that Ovechkin's shares of his teams shot totals are quite a bit higher than anyone else playing today. Catering to a single player the way Washington has for nearly 2 decades hasn't produced the team results.
Outside of the year the Caps beat a first year expansion team in the finals, the results beyond raw goal totals is rather bleak for Ovechkin, certainly relative to the other all time greats that litter the top 10/20 lists by reputable hockey players.
And Ovechkin isn't Dionne in that he was/is a legendary player on a bad team(s). The Caps have routinely underperformed relative to their regular season accolades as a group.
Even Ray Bourque came into the league during an all time great dynasty (Islanders) who passed the torch, without gap, to the Oilers dynasty. The 90's saw the near dynastic Penguins, and then Red Wings/Devils power combo after that.
Bobby Hull is the obvious apples to apples comparison, given the style, goal scoring attributes, and similar team results, though Hull had the misfortune of playing during the Toe Blake era and Leafs dynasty, though he still made the finals 4 times, winning once, leading the playoffs in goals, 3 times. And he left the NHL at 33.
Sure, there were 6 teams vs 30ish today. The gauntlet to the Cup finals was much shorter in the 60's but the league was also much tighter in terms of talent and there were few give away games, unlike today, which routinely features 8, 10, 12 teams that are relative bottom feeders.
