LOL @ Alexander Ovenchicken.

Oh, I'd call him great in comparison to most of today's players, but that glaring leprosy sore that is his misses means he isn't an all time great to me.

 

I don’t have a problem with calling Ovi “a great hockey player”, because he is, but he is not a sniper.

 

all I know is Ovi has 600+ goals and not a whole helluva lot of players have done that in the 100+ years of the NHL. only 20 have done it in 100+ years. Sniper or not, that's saying something about Ovi's knack for scoring goals.

 

Can't you get it thru your head that he has had so many more chances to score those goals than anyone else?

No one is truly impressed you won the big stuffed tiger at the fair if you spent $800.00 to do it.

 

that isn't the same thing. you're making it out like Ovi is on the only one on the ice with a freaking hockey stick. others can shoot. others do shoot. ovi shoots a lot and outscores them all.

 

none of these analogies work. military is not like athletics and cross sport analogies dont work either.
spending $800 at a fair does not preclude your opposition from scoring. possessing the puck and getting it towards the opposition's net does, thus the basis for possession metrics.

 

You took the wrong lesson from the example. If some guy, let's call him Wayne, goes to the fair, and puts down $5 to get 5 chances at the ring toss, and with those 5 tries, wins the big stuffed tiger, that's great. If another guy also wins the big stuffed tiger, but spent $800.00 and took 800 tosses to do the same thing, not so great. This was a comparison of what constitutes greatness, not a direct parallel to hockey. Only hockey is a direct parallel to hockey.

 

Yes, it does work, because the analogy isn't meant to be a 1:1 analogy of all aspects of the game of hockey, just one thing, scoring goals.

Simply put,

If it takes you twice as many chances to score the same number of goal, you're not better, you are worse, and chances are, you are only half as good.

 

if the 2nd guy spent $800 and precluded Wayne from getting an opportunity would be more like it. still doesnt work.

 

"I like goal scorers who don't often put the puck in the net right away"
- mattymcgee Trump

 

Someone who is a career 12% shooter is not a sniper. Of course you’d need a minimum shots qualifier, but even with a more level standard, I’d be very surprised to see Ovi in the Top-10 all-time shooting %, which in my opinion, determines whether or not you are a “sniper”. I know Matty addressed the military analogy thing, but if a combat team sends a sniper to wipe me out and he/she only hits 12% of their shots fired (for whatever reason), I’m gonna feel really good about my chances of survival. 0vi is not SWAT/Special Forces material.

 

Again, this is about one aspect, so, no, wrong.

 

Laughable that you want to quantify a player as half as good because that player took more shots.

 

Your one aspect doesn’t make sense. Taking shots in hockey is not the same as anything at a fair.

 

Not just "more" shots, TWICE as many.

 

When you shoot the puck at the net, it is a chance to score.
When you toss a ring at the bottles, it is a chance to win.

 

Laughable

 

When you shoot the puck on net you’re taking control away from the opposition, wearing down the opposition and keeping them from being in the offensive. When you’re throwin a ring while named Wayne there is no bearing on anyone else. The analogies here are all weak.

 

you're just a hater. I don't need to drop $800 on the stuffed tiger to see that.

 

Sol-shots on goal create scoring chances for the team to score. And if Ovi isn't doing the shooting, then who will ? Who do you wanna see with the puck on his stick ? Oshie or Ovi? I bet goalies would rather face Oshie than Ovi, bc Ovi is a goal scorer. Ovi gets the job done no matter how many more shots he takes. Goals win games, not more shots on net.